RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (7) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: The Gang of Four at the Gateway of Life, Proof for ID (I didn't say God!)< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
cewagner



Posts: 41
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 11 2008,18:35   

How can any intelligent person read this and still believe that evolution is the result of random processes and does not require intelligent input?

The Gang of Four at the Gateway of Life

by Nicholas Wade

"How does an egg cell divide and direct its progeny to turn into each of the many types of cell needed by the adult? Researchers led by Richard A. Young of the Whitehead Institute in Cambridge have been chipping away at this central question in biology. This graphic, from an article by Alexander Marson, Stuart S. Levine and others in the Aug. 7 issue of the journal Cell, presents the Young labís latest version of the genetic circuitry that controls embryonic cells.
The principal players in a cellís governance are proteins called transcription factors, which control the activity of genes. The transcription factors bind to short stretches of DNA called promoters and set in motion the process of translating the geneís information into protein. The promoters sit just upstream on the DNA strand of the gene they control. One transcription factor can control many genes ó all that have the kind of promoter it binds to.

Four transcription factors control the embryonic cell. They are Oct4, Sox2, Nanog and Tcf3 (shown as blue circles on left). This gang of four binds to the promoters (red rectangles next to the circles) of their own genes, keep the genes constantly active, and thus perpetuate their own rule.

The four factors also bind to promoters (red rectangles to right) that control lower-level transcription factors and to promoters (purple hexagons) for another kind of control factors called micro-RNAs. The lower-level transcription factors each control major cell functions (black type at right). † † (Access article to see graphic)

Embryonic cells must do two things: divide like crazy, and then direct groups of cells to morph into different cell types. The promoters in the top half of the central column control transcription factors (orange circles) that govern all functions that the cell must invoke to divide and multiply.

The promoters in the lower half govern cell fate; they tell each cell which of the major tissue types it is destined to become. But as long as the cell remains in the embryonic state, the action of all these promoters is held in arrest by a protein called a polycomb (green circle). Only when polycombís hold is lifted can the embryonic cells differentiate.
One of the gang of four, Tcf3, is influenced by signals from the cellís environment. It may be a change in Tcf3 that upsets the gang of fourís rule and sends the mass of embryonic cells cascading down the cell lineages that lead to adulthood."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008....=slogin

   
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 11 2008,18:41   

Charlie, your writing's gotten better. You're no longer using 3-4 adjectives per noun.

Your biology, however, is still no good.

   
Venus Mousetrap



Posts: 201
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 11 2008,19:10   

Quote (cewagner @ Aug. 11 2008,18:35)
How can any intelligent person read this and still believe that evolution is the result of random processes and does not require intelligent input?

because some of us don't just begin worshipping invisible people the moment we can't explain stuff. We do science instead.

Also, some of us actually understand evolution, and know what to expect, which is why this doesn't surprise me. Evolution is EXPECTED to be messy. Unless there's a need for biology to tidy itself up, it won't happen (that would require intelligence, you see).

  
Wolfhound



Posts: 468
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 11 2008,20:24   

How can an intelligent person think that a magic man in the sky poofed everything into existence?

Oh, right, an intelligent person can't...

--------------
I've found my personality to be an effective form of birth control.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 11 2008,20:56   

uber-reductionism is boring no matter who is doing 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

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 11 2008,21:46   

Quote
How can any intelligent person read this and still believe that evolution is the result of random processes and does not require intelligent input?


Well, let's see.

In writeups about evolution, I've seen
1) descriptions of evidence, with explanations of its relevance.
2) explanations why the recurring patterns in that evidence is a consequence of the theory.
3) descriptions of how and where contradictory evidence could easily have been found already if the theory were wrong.

In the arguments against it, I've seen
1) Here's some questions that evolutionists can't answer.
2) I don't like that conclusion, so the argument is wrong.
3) Darwinists haven't answered this question.
4) if the theory were true everyone would be evil.
5) Buy my book.
6) Won't someone think of the children?
7) There's evidence for an alternative, you just have to believe or you won't see it.
8) Were you there?
9) Oh, and btw, they haven't answered this question...
10) Second law of thermo-g-dammics, or variations selected therefrom.

Henry

  
Nomad



Posts: 311
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 12 2008,00:55   

A primitive human who saw an airplane for the first time might believe that it had to utilize magic to fly because he doesn't know the first thing about Bernoulli's principle.  But that doesn't mean magic is the explanation.

If you explain Bernoulli's principle, in detail, and demonstrate it using a number of simple experiments that show the effect in operation, then go into exhaustive detail on the functioning of an internal combustion engine, and then he continues to demand that it must be magic that makes planes fly, then he's clinging to his ignorance despite having the opportunity to know better.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 12 2008,07:28   

I think that might be attributed to "common sense" in which the person looks at all those thousands of pounds of metal on the ground and declares that the plane can't possibly fly in the face of Bernoulli's principle.  It's denial of a sort between what a person knows versus how they perceive the world.  A similar situation occurred early in the days of quantum theory in which many people, some very smart people, said the world can't possibly work that way!  In both these examples no higher power is required to succumb to the denial.  God is just an excuse or a crutch as it may very well be in the ID case.  This is not a justification just a layman's attempt at over-analysis, parlor room psychology.

  
cewagner



Posts: 41
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 12 2008,10:38   

I am not arguing for a supernatural explanation.

I am arguing that random, accidental or non-directed processes cannot do the job.

I do not deny that there may be some yet to be discovered "first principle" involved in the process that provides a perfectly natural explanation.

   
midwifetoad



Posts: 3992
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 12 2008,10:52   

Quote (cewagner @ Aug. 12 2008,10:38)
I am not arguing for a supernatural explanation.

I am arguing that random, accidental or non-directed processes cannot do the job.

I do not deny that there may be some yet to be discovered "first principle" involved in the process that provides a perfectly natural explanation.

What part of selection is not direction?

The fact that you can't predict the direction is no more mysterious than the inability to predict the weather a month in advance.

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 12 2008,10:53   

Quote (cewagner @ Aug. 12 2008,10:38)
I am not arguing for a supernatural explanation.

I am arguing that random, accidental or non-directed processes cannot do the job.

I do not deny that there may be some yet to be discovered "first principle" involved in the process that provides a perfectly natural explanation.

Argue all you like. Provide some actual evidence and you might interest people. Pointing and saying "that level of complexity could not arise without help" is really more suited to UncommonDescent.com. It's what they do in lieu of actual science.

Quote

I do not deny that there may be some yet to be discovered "first principle" involved in the process that provides a perfectly natural explanation.


If such is discovered will you stop believing in whatever god it is you believe in?

--------------
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 Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
cewagner



Posts: 41
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 12 2008,13:18   

Quote
What part of selection is not direction?


None of it.

Selection is no different from ordering a truckload of stones and culling out all the stones that have masses greater than 500 grams. It will never build a house.

   
cewagner



Posts: 41
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 12 2008,13:23   

Quote
None of it.


My bad....double negative!

I should have said "All of it."

Is there no way to delete posts?

   
Nerull



Posts: 317
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 12 2008,13:24   

Quote (cewagner @ Aug. 12 2008,14:18)
Quote
What part of selection is not direction?


None of it.

Selection is no different from ordering a truckload of stones and culling out all the stones that have masses greater than 500 grams. It will never build a house.

This reminds me of those netflix radio ads.

Quote

Q. If a rhombus has four sides, what is the inverse of blue?

A. Purple


--------------
To rebut creationism you pretty much have to be a biologist, chemist, geologist, philosopher, lawyer and historian all rolled into one. While to advocate creationism, you just have to be an idiot. -- tommorris

   
dnmlthr



Posts: 565
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 12 2008,13:27   

Quote (cewagner @ Aug. 12 2008,19:18)
Quote
What part of selection is not direction?


None of it.

Selection is no different from ordering a truckload of stones and culling out all the stones that have masses greater than 500 grams. It will never build a house.

That analogy is flawed. For one, it assumes that selection has a goal. Second, a single stone (which is what you are selecting in this analogy) is not the same as a house.

--------------
Guess what? I don't give a flying f*ck how "science works" - Ftk

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 12 2008,13:59   

Quote (cewagner @ Aug. 12 2008,10:38)
I am not arguing for a supernatural explanation.

I am arguing that random, accidental or non-directed processes cannot do the job.

I do not deny that there may be some yet to be discovered "first principle" involved in the process that provides a perfectly natural explanation.

Now that I have to agree with.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 12 2008,14:08   

Quote (cewagner @ Aug. 12 2008,13:18)
† †  
Quote
What part of selection is not direction?


None of it.

Selection is no different from ordering a truckload of stones and culling out all the stones that have masses greater than 500 grams. It will never build a house.

I take it that is your entire critique of "selection"?




Oddly I had a quick look inside a book on Amazon: Selection: The Mechanism of Evolution and amazingly it contained more information then "Selection is no different from ordering a truckload of stones and culling out all the stones that have masses greater than 500 grams. It will never build a house."

You would have thought they would have wanted to save the paper and all that and just written what you wrote instead.

Link

Why don't you tell them they are wasting their time and that you've in fact got it all solved already?

--------------
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 Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Assassinator



Posts: 479
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 12 2008,14:10   

Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 12 2008,07:28)
I think that might be attributed to "common sense" in which the person looks at all those thousands of pounds of metal on the ground and declares that the plane can't possibly fly in the face of Bernoulli's principle. †It's denial of a sort between what a person knows versus how they perceive the world. †A similar situation occurred early in the days of quantum theory in which many people, some very smart people, said the world can't possibly work that way! †In both these examples no higher power is required to succumb to the denial. †God is just an excuse or a crutch as it may very well be in the ID case. †This is not a justification just a layman's attempt at over-analysis, parlor room psychology.

Wich shows that common sense fails a lot of times ;)

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 12 2008,14:22   

It's not just variation + selection, it's also the feedback between them.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 12 2008,14:29   

when was the last time you saw recombination in rock reproduction?

i'm trying to think, can't seem to remember.

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

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 12 2008,14:34   

Quote
when was the last time you saw recombination in rock reproduction?

i'm trying to think, can't seem to remember.


It was in that episode with the Horta ...

:p

("Dammit Jim, I'm a Doctor, not a bricklayer!!111!!eleven!!")

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 12 2008,14:34   

Good gravy are we being Wagnered? And Skeptic agrees with him.

Is this the dawning of the apocalypse. All we need now is Ray Martinez, McNameless and Jabriel.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
cewagner



Posts: 41
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 12 2008,15:51   

Quote
Why don't you tell them they are wasting their time and that you've in fact got it all solved already?


They are wasting their time.

There's not a shred of empirical evidence, either observational or experimental, that establishes a plausible nexus, actual or hypothetical, between the trivial effects of random mutation and natural selection and the emergence of the highly organized structures, processes and systems found in living organisms.

Just look at molecular motors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_motors#Examples

http://www.charliewagner.com

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 12 2008,16:02   

Quote (cewagner @ Aug. 12 2008,15:51)
Just look at molecular motors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_motors#Examples

http://www.charliewagner.com

Why don't you tell us in your own words instead?

After all, I can provide many many more links for you to "just look at" then you can.

http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=natural+selection

Pointing and saying "that's complex" is it is it? Or did you actually have a point regarding that wikipedia 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 Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 12 2008,16:07   

Or should I call you Bishop Pontoppodan?

 
Quote
The problem is not evolution, it is darwinism.

Only a fool would deny evolution.

Only a greater fool would embrace darwinism as the mechanism.

There is not one shred of empirical evidence, either observational or experimental, that establishes a plausible or credible nexus between random mutation and natural selection and the emergence of the highly organized structures, processes and systems that exist in bacteria and other living organisms
blogs.discovermagazine.com loom /2008/06/24/ of-bacteria-and-throw-pillows/

Don't you find posting more or less the same thing under different names is not really advancing the cause? Do you think people are going to read such blog posts and be convinced? You say it is so, and it is so?

No.

--------------
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 Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
cewagner



Posts: 41
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 12 2008,16:16   

Quote
Don't you find posting more or less the same thing under different names is not really advancing the cause? Do you think people are going to read such blog posts and be convinced? You say it is so, and it is so?


I always post with my real name, except on Pharyngula.
PZ doesn't like me so he blocks my name and IP address (with no success, I might add.)

As a parent of 4 children and a teacher for 33 years, I don't underestimate the value of repeating the same thing over and over.
You just never know who is paying attention.

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 12 2008,16:20   

Quote (cewagner @ Aug. 12 2008,16:16)
I always post with my real name, except on Pharyngula.

The link above was not to Pharyngula.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com

Are you saying that was not you?
Quote
The problem is not evolution, it is darwinism.

Only a fool would deny evolution.

Only a greater fool would embrace darwinism as the mechanism.

There is not one shred of empirical evidence, either observational or experimental, that establishes a plausible or credible nexus between random mutation and natural selection and the emergence of the highly organized structures, processes and systems that exist in bacteria and other living organisms
Quote
There's not a shred of empirical evidence, either observational or experimental, that establishes a plausible nexus, actual or hypothetical, between the trivial effects of random mutation and natural selection and the emergence of the highly organized structures, processes and systems found in living organisms.


EDIT: Oh, he does go on to sign his posts Charlie Wagner at that blog. Oh well  :D

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 12 2008,16:22   

Quote
There is not one shred of empirical evidence


So, what happened then. According to you?

:p

EDIT. Charlie, as you want evidence about events involving "highly organized structures, processes and systems" could you name a few that you might be interested in specifically? One of each maybe?

Quote
No one has yet answered this challenge so I slog onÖ.


Slog on doing what? Repeating the same over and over? Standing still....?

Carry on my good man! Carry on! We need more like you.

--------------
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 Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 12 2008,16:31   

Quote (cewagner @ Aug. 12 2008,15:51)
Quote
Why don't you tell them they are wasting their time and that you've in fact got it all solved already?


They are wasting their time.

There's not a shred of empirical evidence...

So they are wasting their time looking for empirical evidence??

What do you propose?

  
cewagner



Posts: 41
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 12 2008,16:35   

Quote
So, what happened then. According to you?


I don't have a clue...but neither do you.

Like everyone else, we just have to deal with being in the uncomfortable position of not knowing.

   
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 12 2008,16:50   

Quote
we just have to deal with being in the uncomfortable position of not knowing.

And how do we deal with it?

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 12 2008,16:54   

Quote (jeannot @ Aug. 12 2008,16:50)
Quote
we just have to deal with being in the uncomfortable position of not knowing.

And how do we deal with it?

Apparently saying the same thing over and over helps...

--------------
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 Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 12 2008,16:55   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Aug. 12 2008,16:54)
Quote (jeannot @ Aug. 12 2008,16:50)
 
Quote
we just have to deal with being in the uncomfortable position of not knowing.

And how do we deal with it?

Apparently saying the same thing over and over helps...

Since looking for evidence is a waste of time...  ???

  
khan



Posts: 1525
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 12 2008,17:30   

Quote (cewagner @ Aug. 12 2008,17:16)
Quote
Don't you find posting more or less the same thing under different names is not really advancing the cause? Do you think people are going to read such blog posts and be convinced? You say it is so, and it is so?


I always post with my real name, except on Pharyngula.
PZ doesn't like me so he blocks my name and IP address (with no success, I might add.)

As a parent of 4 children and a teacher for 33 years, I don't underestimate the value of repeating the same thing over and over.
You just never know who is paying attention.

Effin' troll.

--------------
"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

Frequency is just the plural of wavelength...
-JoeG

  
cewagner



Posts: 41
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 12 2008,20:10   

Quote

Effin' troll.


It always ends this way.

This is about the best argument I ever get...

HOPE IS THE THING WITH FEATHERS
by Emily Dickinson

Hope is the thing with feathers
That perches in the soul,
And sings the tune without the words,
And never stops at all,
And sweetest in the gale is heard;
And sore must be the storm
That could abash the little bird
That kept so many warm.
I've heard it in the chillest land
And on the strangest sea;
Yet, never, in extremity,
It asked a crumb of me.

   
Lou FCD



Posts: 5402
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 12 2008,20:21   

Quote (cewagner @ Aug. 12 2008,21:10)
Quote

Effin' troll.


It always ends this way.

Geez, wonder why.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 12 2008,20:24   

Quote
I always post with my real name, except on Pharyngula.
PZ doesn't like me so he blocks my name and IP address (with no success, I might add.)


You have to admit, playing "ha ha, PZ can't ban me" games is a pretty pathetic way to spend one's retirement.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 13 2008,00:02   

Quote (cewagner @ Aug. 12 2008,20:10)
Quote

Effin' troll.


It always ends this way.

This is about the best argument I ever get...

HOPE IS THE THING WITH FEATHERS
by Emily Dickinson

Hope is the thing with feathers
That perches in the soul,
And sings the tune without the words,
And never stops at all,
And sweetest in the gale is heard;
And sore must be the storm
That could abash the little bird
That kept so many warm.
I've heard it in the chillest land
And on the strangest sea;
Yet, never, in extremity,
It asked a crumb of me.

No dummy, Gonzo is the one with feathers.


--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell.†Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 13 2008,05:21   

The sub title of the thread is "proof for ID"

So far "look at that, how complex is that? How could that have arisen on it's own?" appears to be the proof claimed in the title.

:D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D
:)  :)  :)  :)  :)  :)  :)  :)  :)  :)  :)  :)  :)  :)  :)  :)  :)  :)  :)
:D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D

No doubt Dr Dr Dr Dembski could get another book or two out of this thread.

  
JohnW



Posts: 2767
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 13 2008,11:41   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Aug. 13 2008,03:21)
The sub title of the thread is "proof for ID"

So far "look at that, how complex is that? How could that have arisen on it's own?" appears to be the proof claimed in the title.

:D †:D †:D †:D †:D †:D †:D †:D †:D †:D †:D †:D †:D †:D †:D †:D
:) †:) †:) †:) †:) †:) †:) †:) †:) †:) †:) †:) †:) †:) †:) †:) †:) †:) †:)
:D †:D †:D †:D †:D †:D †:D †:D †:D †:D †:D †:D †:D †:D †:D †:D

No doubt Dr Dr Dr Dembski could get another book or two out of this thread.

The proof is much more rigorous than that, oldman. †The proof is that Charlie Wagner says evolution can't produce complex structures, and therefore Charlie Wagner says this is proof of ID. †That's good enough for me.

From now on, before I submit an MS to a journal, I'll send it to Charlie Wagner to see what he thinks. †Why bother with peer review, when I can test my analyses against Charlie Wagner's personal incredulity?

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

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

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 13 2008,16:02   

If there's no empirical evidence, then what is being described in articles that describe the evidence?

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 13 2008,16:57   

Quote (cewagner @ Aug. 12 2008,21:10)
It always ends this way.

Waldorf: Just when you think this show is terrible something wonderful happens.
Statler: What?
Waldorf: It ends.


   
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 13 2008,17:01   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Aug. 12 2008,21:24)
Quote
I always post with my real name, except on Pharyngula.
PZ doesn't like me so he blocks my name and IP address (with no success, I might add.)


You have to admit, playing "ha ha, PZ can't ban me" games is a pretty pathetic way to spend one's retirement.

It is pretty pathetic, and people have told Charlie for years that he should find something productive to do with his remaining years, but he seems determined to embarrass himself to the end.

   
khan



Posts: 1525
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 13 2008,17:23   

Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 13 2008,17:57)
Quote (cewagner @ Aug. 12 2008,21:10)
It always ends this way.

Waldorf: Just when you think this show is terrible something wonderful happens.
Statler: What?
Waldorf: It ends.


Waldorf:"I liked it."

Statler: "'You liked World War Two.'"

--------------
"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

Frequency is just the plural of wavelength...
-JoeG

  
cewagner



Posts: 41
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 15 2008,15:34   



"A very small cause which escapes our notice determines a considerable effect that we cannot fail to see, and then we say the effect is due to chance. If we knew exactly the laws of nature and the situation of the universe at the initial moment, we could predict exactly the situation of that same universe at a succeeding moment. But even if it were the case that the natural laws had no longer any secret for us, we could still only know the initial situation *approximately*. If that enabled us to predict the succeeding situation with *the same approximation*, that is all we require, and we should say that the phenomenon had been predicted, that it is governed by laws. But it is not always so; it may happen that small differences in the initial conditions produce very great ones in the final phenomena. A small error in the former will produce an enormous error in the latter. Prediction becomes impossible, and we have the fortuitous phenomenon"

Henri Poincare, 1903

   
cewagner



Posts: 41
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 15 2008,17:02   

Molecular motors Ė a lesson in nanotechnology from Nature
Roop Mallik



They are small, and there are billions of them inside you. Tiny machines, a thousandth of the thickness of human hair, but robust and designed for an amazing variety of functions. Science fiction? Think again Ö this is real, as real as flesh and blood !! If you can get your hands on a high school biology text book, flip through to the mandatory schematic of an animal cell. Look closely, what you will see is not a floppy bag with random things thrown in here and there. There is amazing structural organization within the cell, with several compartments (e.g. the nucleus, Golgi bodies, mitochondria) at specific locations. Many of these compartments are specialized ďfactoriesĒ, each with its own assembly line which requires specific raw material as input and generates specific products. A constant give-and-take of materials occurs within these factories, because each is dependent on the other. In the big picture of things this incessant exchange of material keeps the factories of the cell functioning, which in turn is what keeps us alive.

Read entire article:

[URL=http://www.tifr.res.in/~roop/NaturesNanotech.htm]

   
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 15 2008,17:18   

Quote (cewagner @ Aug. 15 2008,18:02)
Molecular motors Ė a lesson in nanotechnology from Nature
Roop Mallik



They are small, and there are billions of them inside you. Tiny machines, a thousandth of the thickness of human hair, but robust and designed for an amazing variety of functions. Science fiction? Think again Ö this is real, as real as flesh and blood !! If you can get your hands on a high school biology text book, flip through to the mandatory schematic of an animal cell. Look closely, what you will see is not a floppy bag with random things thrown in here and there. There is amazing structural organization within the cell, with several compartments (e.g. the nucleus, Golgi bodies, mitochondria) at specific locations. Many of these compartments are specialized ďfactoriesĒ, each with its own assembly line which requires specific raw material as input and generates specific products. A constant give-and-take of materials occurs within these factories, because each is dependent on the other. In the big picture of things this incessant exchange of material keeps the factories of the cell functioning, which in turn is what keeps us alive.

Read entire article:

[URL=http://www.tifr.res.in/~roop/NaturesNanotech.htm]

I think it would be really cool if somebody made a cool computer animation depicting little kinesin motors towing cargo. You could cut out the stochastic stuff and make it look like they have cool little feet marching steadily forward. You could do a whole movie depicting cool intracellular structures, and make them all look like machines. That would end this debate for good. I'd call it The Inner Life of a Cell.

It would show all those things that if biologists knew about them they'd become believers.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
mharri



Posts: 2
Joined: May 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 16 2008,10:38   

Quote (cewagner @ Aug. 15 2008,15:34)


"A very small cause which escapes our notice determines a considerable effect that we cannot fail to see, and then we say the effect is due to chance. If we knew exactly the laws of nature and the situation of the universe at the initial moment, we could predict exactly the situation of that same universe at a succeeding moment. But even if it were the case that the natural laws had no longer any secret for us, we could still only know the initial situation *approximately*. If that enabled us to predict the succeeding situation with *the same approximation*, that is all we require, and we should say that the phenomenon had been predicted, that it is governed by laws. But it is not always so; it may happen that small differences in the initial conditions produce very great ones in the final phenomena. A small error in the former will produce an enormous error in the latter. Prediction becomes impossible, and we have the fortuitous phenomenon"

Henri Poincare, 1903

Quote
But it is not always so; it may happen that small differences in the initial conditions produce very great ones in the final phenomena. A small error in the former will produce an enormous error in the latter. Prediction becomes impossible, and we have the fortuitous phenomenon


Quoting Poincare is kind of a cop-out. †Of course there are areas in biology where predictions are difficult -- such as predicting which lifeforms will be dominant 5,000 years from now. †Yeah, it *may* happen that small differences in initial conditions gum up the works; the real work comes in determining where that happens, not just saying, "it could happen!"

  
Venus Mousetrap



Posts: 201
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 16 2008,10:46   

Quote (cewagner @ Aug. 15 2008,15:34)


"A very small cause which escapes our notice determines a considerable effect that we cannot fail to see, and then we say the effect is due to chance. If we knew exactly the laws of nature and the situation of the universe at the initial moment, we could predict exactly the situation of that same universe at a succeeding moment. But even if it were the case that the natural laws had no longer any secret for us, we could still only know the initial situation *approximately*. If that enabled us to predict the succeeding situation with *the same approximation*, that is all we require, and we should say that the phenomenon had been predicted, that it is governed by laws. But it is not always so; it may happen that small differences in the initial conditions produce very great ones in the final phenomena. A small error in the former will produce an enormous error in the latter. Prediction becomes impossible, and we have the fortuitous phenomenon"

Henri Poincare, 1903

Out of interest, what is that multicoloured blobbycircle? It looks like a cellular automaton, something I've always felt the ID people should be studying.

  
cewagner



Posts: 41
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 16 2008,15:43   

Quote
Out of interest, what is that multicoloured blobbycircle? It looks like a cellular automaton, something I've always felt the ID people should be studying.


This image is a cellular automaton generated by "Chaos: the software"
by Rudy Rucker and processed with Photoshop 6.0

Program can be downloaded here:
[URL=http://www.cs.sjsu.edu/faculty/rucker/chaos.htm]

I am an "ID person" and I have been studying fractal geometry and chaos theory for 10 years.

What does the one have to do with the other?

If you find this program too tame try Fractint
[URL=http://spanky.triumf.ca/www/fractint/fractint.html]

   
midwifetoad



Posts: 3992
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 16 2008,15:58   

Quote
What does the one have to do with the other?


The guys at UD seem to think everything produced by evolution is simply the expression of an algorithm, not unlike a cellular automaton. See front loading.

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

  
cewagner



Posts: 41
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 16 2008,16:05   

Quote
What does the one have to do with the other?


Allow me to answer my own question:

Nothing.

Fractal geometry and chaos theory examine complexity

Intelligent design examines Organization

They are not the same thing!

http://www.charliewagner.net/casefor.htm

   
cewagner



Posts: 41
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 16 2008,16:26   

Quote
The guys at UD seem to think everything produced by evolution is simply the expression of an algorithm, not unlike a cellular automaton. See front loading.


They are correct.

Fractals are not generated with algorithms, they are generated with iterations.

An algorithm is a finite set of well-defined instructions for accomplishing some task which, given an initial state, will terminate in a defined end-state.

An iteration is a computational procedure in which a cycle of operations is repeated, often to approximate the desired result more closely.

All algorithms are the result of intelligent input.

   
Venus Mousetrap



Posts: 201
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 16 2008,17:08   

Quote (cewagner @ Aug. 16 2008,16:05)
Quote
What does the one have to do with the other?


Allow me to answer my own question:

Nothing.

Fractal geometry and chaos theory examine complexity

Intelligent design examines Organization

They are not the same thing!

http://www.charliewagner.net/casefor.htm

In my opinion, cellular automata are a perfect testing ground for ID hypotheses, because they are a universe which is under total control - unlike ours.

For example, the Explanatory Filter requires that all natural laws are ruled out before we can identify design - what better place to do that than in a universe built on rules that we specify?

One structure kind which I believe would be perfect for an ID study is the Garden of Eden pattern - an arrangement of cells which has been mathematically proven to be impossible to form within its CA (that is, there is no precursor pattern which can possibly form it). This is in effect the ID poster child, because it can never appear in a CA - it HAS to be created. If they really have anything which detects design, it should flag up an enormous honk on that.

Which is why they won't ever do this, because they don't have a theory and they don't want to test it etc. etc.

  
cewagner



Posts: 41
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 16 2008,17:23   

Quote
In my opinion, cellular automata are a perfect testing ground for ID hypotheses, because they are a universe which is under total control - unlike ours.


They are not, because they lack the defining component of intelligent input, ORGANIZATION.

Something made up of elements with varied functions that contribute to the whole and to collective functions.

   
Venus Mousetrap



Posts: 201
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 16 2008,17:35   

Did you even read what I said?

  
cewagner



Posts: 41
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 16 2008,17:55   

Quote
Did you even read what I said?


Not only did I read what you said, I went and read up on "Garden of Eden" patterns.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not just blowing you off. This interface between chaos theory and life is a subject that I have grappled with often.

In fact, it is safe to say that my understanding of it is still a "work in progress".

What continues to drive me on is an unshakable belief that a natural explanation will be found, that will fall squarely within the realm of science.

Debunking darwinism does not mean accepting religious creationism. All it means is that Darwin was wrong and we've got to keep looking for scientific explanations.

   
Assassinator



Posts: 479
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 16 2008,18:11   

Quote (cewagner @ Aug. 16 2008,17:55)
Quote
Did you even read what I said?


Not only did I read what you said, I went and read up on "Garden of Eden" patterns.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not just blowing you off. This interface between chaos theory and life is a subject that I have grappled with often.

In fact, it is safe to say that my understanding of it is still a "work in progress".

What continues to drive me on is an unshakable belief that a natural explanation will be found, that will fall squarely within the realm of science.

Debunking darwinism does not mean accepting religious creationism. All it means is that Darwin was wrong and we've got to keep looking for scientific explanations.

Yet, what do you understand about biology (all fields of biology ofcourse) and evolutional theory in general? Don't you also know that science has progressed for 150 years now?

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5402
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 16 2008,18:54   

Quote (cewagner @ Aug. 16 2008,17:05)
Quote
What does the one have to do with the other?


Allow me to answer my own question:

Nothing.

Fractal geometry and chaos theory examine complexity

Intelligent design examines Organization its navel and the sales figures

They are not the same thing!

http://www.charliewagner.net/casefor.htm

Adjustment.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Wolfhound



Posts: 468
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 17 2008,14:53   

Quote (Lou FCD @ Aug. 16 2008,18:54)
Quote (cewagner @ Aug. 16 2008,17:05)
Quote
What does the one have to do with the other?


Allow me to answer my own question:

Nothing.

Fractal geometry and chaos theory examine complexity

Intelligent design examines Organization its navel and the sales figures

They are not the same thing!

http://www.charliewagner.net/casefor.htm

Adjustment.

POTW!!

--------------
I've found my personality to be an effective form of birth control.

  
cewagner



Posts: 41
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 17 2008,19:26   

Quote
POTW


Poem of the week?

OK!

STARRY SKIES

by Charlie Wagner

My life was like a canyon
As deep as it was wide
And I, a lonely traveler
Just looking for a place to hide.
My path was filled with darkness
And emptiness ahead.
Night after night, under starry skies
I wished that I was dead.
But then you came into my world
And darkness turned to dawn.
Your essence swept into my life
Helping me to be reborn.
Your specter crept into my dreams
Each and every night.
You wandered in my brain from room to room
Turning on each light.
You'll probably never realize
How much it meant to me
That you were there beside me
Helping me be free.
And you'll probably never realize
The emptiness inside
That comes to me each night you're not
Sleeping by my side.
But I've still got those memories
That swirl before my eyes.
Of you and I lying peacefully,
Beneath those starry skies.

[B][/B]

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 17 2008,20:01   

Hi Charlie

May I suggest another title for this poem?  How about "An Ode To LSD"?

No?

by the way it sounds much like Sweet Leaf, the Black Sabbath rock anthem.

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

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3992
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 17 2008,20:14   

Personally, I think ee cummings said it pretty well.

Quote
i like my body when it is with your
  body. It is so quite a new thing.
  Muscles better and nerves more.
  i like your body. i like what it does,
  i like its hows. i like to feel the spine
  of your body and its bones, and the trembling
  -firm-smooth ness and which i will
  again and again and again
  kiss, i like kissing this and that of you,
  i like,, slowly stroking the, shocking fuzz
  of your electric fur, and what-is-it comes
  over parting flesh . . . . And eyes big Love-crumbs,

  and possibly i like the thrill

  of under me you quite so new


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

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 17 2008,21:02   

There is loss in ce's poem.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3992
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 17 2008,21:38   

By the way, The Gang of Four at the Gateway of Life" sounds a bit like "Piper at the Gates of Dawn" from Wind in the Willows. Also a Pink Floyd album.

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

  
jeffox



Posts: 667
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 17 2008,23:29   

Remember what the doormouse said
Feed your head
Feed your head. . . .

- G. Slick

:)    :)    :)    :)    :)

  
jeffox



Posts: 667
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 17 2008,23:31   

Twas writ above:

Quote
by the way it sounds much like Sweet Leaf, the Black Sabbath rock anthem.


Actually, 'Ras, I think it's more like Planet Caravan (off the Paranoid album).  'Cept Planet Caravan's better.  My 2c.  :)

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 17 2008,23:42   

agreed.  but what about spiral architect.

sabbath bloody sabbath, greatest rock and roll album EVAR

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

  
cewagner



Posts: 41
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 18 2008,13:36   



Wow!

LSD, Black Sabbath, e.e.Cummings, Pink Floyd and Jefferson Airplane!

Don't forget Rimbaud...

"It has been found again. What? Eternity.
it is the sea mingled with the sun"
from
Alchemy of the word, A Season in Hell

You guys ROCK!

   
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 18 2008,18:59   

Quote (cewagner @ Aug. 16 2008,17:55)
Quote
Did you even read what I said?


Not only did I read what you said, I went and read up on "Garden of Eden" patterns.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not just blowing you off. This interface between chaos theory and life is a subject that I have grappled with often.

In fact, it is safe to say that my understanding of it is still a "work in progress".

What continues to drive me on is an unshakable belief that a natural explanation will be found, that will fall squarely within the realm of science.

Debunking darwinism does not mean accepting religious creationism. All it means is that Darwin was wrong and we've got to keep looking for scientific explanations.

Not to play devil's advocate, but how is that possible when ID completely removes itself from the realm of science?

Saying Darwin was wrong is one thing, and one I fully support, but saying he's wrong because of some unknown and undetectable intelligence is nothing more than faith.  You might as well throw your lot in with YECs because you're playing in the same scientific ballpark.

Not trying to snipe here, but I'd really love to see just one example of how ID can be reconciled with scientific investigation.

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3992
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 18 2008,19:18   

I think everyone would like to see an ID research proposal that didn't involve googling for quotelets.

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

  
Venus Mousetrap



Posts: 201
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 18 2008,20:32   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 18 2008,19:18)
I think everyone would like to see an ID research proposal that didn't involve googling for quotelets.

I reckon my one's fairly worthwhile. The Gardens of Eden have been mathematically verified, which means that in the world of a CA, at least, it is possible to mathematically determine that something is a designed entity. I don't actually know how they do it, but I suspect it's something like an advanced version of irreducible complexity; ie. not the crappy version ID people use which doesn't take into account most mutation mechanisms, but one which rules out, cell by cell, all possible precursors which result in that cell.

I mean, just reading a paper on HOW IT'S DONE would be a fine piece of research.

  
jeffox



Posts: 667
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 18 2008,22:28   

Wait, Gardens of Eden was Iron Butterfly.  Er, umm, wait, something like that. . . . .

:)     :)     :)     :)     :)

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 18 2008,22:43   

Quote
I think everyone would like to see an ID research proposal that didn't involve googling for quotelets.


Quotelets? Is that quotes that are descended with modification from earlier quotes? :p

Henry

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2008,00:31   

Sorry Venus that's just an arbitrary quantification that in no way approaches objective observation.  Hell, if we allowed mathematical estimations of complexity then half the people on this board would develop a model proving that I couldn't (shouldn't) exist.

  
jeffox



Posts: 667
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2008,01:43   

I once proved that I didn't exist.  But I didn't believe me.  :)   :)   :)   :p

  
charlie wagner



Posts: 24
Joined: Aug. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2008,09:04   

Quote
but how is that possible when ID completely removes itself from the realm of science?


It doesn't.

Don't confuse ID with religious creationism.

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2008,09:08   

Quote (charlie wagner @ Aug. 22 2008,09:04)
Quote
but how is that possible when ID completely removes itself from the realm of science?


It doesn't.

Don't confuse ID with religious creationism.

This is probably not the best forum to pretend ID is anything but religious creationism.  

Don't be a bore and please do not assume we are all dumb as shit here.  This is not UD.  We know full well what ID is and isn't.

UD is a great site for fantasy gamers (those who "believe" in ID) such as yourself.

Spin again.

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
charlie wagner



Posts: 24
Joined: Aug. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2008,14:27   

Quote
We know full well what ID is and isn't.


As a lifelong atheist/agnostic, I resent the implication that ID and religious creationism are the same thing.

The notion of intelligent design has been hijacked by those with a religious agenda to promote. Almost all proponents of ID do in fact have a religious agenda and they must be stopped from disseminating their ideology in public schools. The trick is to separate legitimate scientific investigation of intelligent design from religious creationism. As it stands now, most scientists are afraid to even talk about the subject for fear of being misquoted or having their own words used as religious propaganda. This has had a chilling effect on legitimate science that may take decades to repair. Ideology has no place in any public school science classroom and it must be stopped wherever it occurs. But one must also recognize that there have also been zealots on the evolutionist side who want to teach mechanisms of evolution that have no empirical support. The answer is simple and clear. Religious creationism must be eliminated from school curriculums and darwinian evolution must be taught not as fact, but in it's historical context. There is enough factual science, from anatomy to zoology to fill any school's scientific curriculum with non-controversial, factual science. Any teaching of darwinian evolution or creationism or "the controversy" is nothing more than a waste of time that could be better spent on real science.

Http://www.charliewagner.com


  
dnmlthr



Posts: 565
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2008,14:33   

Quote (charlie wagner @ Aug. 22 2008,20:27)

Ideology has no place in any public school science classroom and it must be stopped wherever it occurs. But one must also recognize that there have also been zealots on the evolutionist side who want to teach mechanisms of evolution that have no empirical support. The answer is simple and clear. Religious creationism must be eliminated from school curriculums and darwinian evolution must be taught not as fact, but in it's historical context. There is enough factual science, from anatomy to zoology to fill any school's scientific curriculum with non-controversial, factual science. Any teaching of darwinian evolution or creationism or "the controversy" is nothing more than a waste of time that could be better spent on real science.


What's your favourite claim in a highschool biology textbook for which there is no evidence? I mean, since this is a big issue for you, you must've run across plenty of them.

Edit: Speling, shortened the quote.

--------------
Guess what? I don't give a flying f*ck how "science works" - Ftk

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2008,14:59   

Quote (charlie wagner @ Aug. 22 2008,12:27)
The trick is to separate legitimate scientific investigation of intelligent design

And as soon as there is any, do remember to let us know.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
JohnW



Posts: 2767
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2008,15:04   

Quote (charlie wagner @ Aug. 22 2008,12:27)
The notion of intelligent design has been hijacked invented by those with a religious agenda to promote.

Fixed.

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

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

  
Sealawr



Posts: 54
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2008,15:35   

Quote (charlie wagner @ Aug. 22 2008,14:27)
Quote
We know full well what ID is and isn't.


As a lifelong atheist/agnostic, I resent the implication that ID and religious creationism are the same thing....Almost all proponents of ID do in fact have a religious agenda and they must be stopped from disseminating their ideology in public schools. .

Http://www.charliewagner.com


Got it.

You think creationist have polluted the real ID.

Evenif that's true, scientists who correctly pointed out that ID=creationism shouldn't have to then clean up the mess.

The solution is clear. †Take your problem to the Discovery Institute. † They were the ones whe pooped in the punchbowl. †If they really want to clean up the problem, they can separate the fruit juice from the floating bits.

Meanwhile, nobody in their right mind will drink the stuff.

--------------
DS: "The explantory filter is as robust as the data that is used with it."
David Klinghoffer: ""I'm an IDiot"

  
Sealawr



Posts: 54
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2008,15:39   

Quote (charlie wagner @ Aug. 22 2008,14:27)

And, I have to concede thats a pretty darn good aerial shot of a "contaminated" punchbowl.

--------------
DS: "The explantory filter is as robust as the data that is used with it."
David Klinghoffer: ""I'm an IDiot"

  
JAM



Posts: 517
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2008,16:59   

Quote (cewagner @ Aug. 15 2008,17:02)
Molecular motors Ė a lesson in nanotechnology from Nature
Roop Mallik



They are small, and there are billions of them inside you.

A lie. There are at least trillions.
Quote
Tiny

METAPHORICAL
Quote
machines, a thousandth of the thickness of human hair, but robust and designed

Assertion is not argument, Charlie.
Quote
for an amazing variety of functions.

And single ones have multiple functions, and multiple ones have partially overlapping functions--a profoundly unintelligent design.
Quote
Science fiction? Think again Ö this is real, as real as flesh and blood !! If you can get your hands on a high school biology text book, flip through to the mandatory schematic of an animal cell. Look closely, what you will see is not a floppy bag with random things thrown in here and there. There is amazing structural organization within the cell,

True...
Quote
with several compartments (e.g. the nucleus, Golgi bodies, mitochondria) at specific locations.

You're simply lying, Charlie. They aren't in specific locations at all.
Quote
Many of these compartments are specialized ďfactoriesĒ, each with its own assembly line which requires specific raw material as input and generates specific products.

But the interactions aren't specific. They are merely selective, a defect that an intelligent designer could overcome.
Quote
A constant give-and-take of materials occurs within these factories, because each is dependent on the other.

Yes and no. The constant give-and-take is the only way to overcome the lack of specificity.

For example, the exocytic and endocytic pathways overlap at multiple locations. Since you're fond of analogies, this is analogous to your sewage system mixing with your fresh water supply at multiple locations. An intelligent designer would have plumbed the cell with pipes, not dispersed fusion-happy lipid-bound organelles.

  
khan



Posts: 1525
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2008,17:08   

Quote (charlie wagner @ Aug. 22 2008,15:27)
Quote
We know full well what ID is and isn't.


As a lifelong atheist/agnostic, I resent the implication that ID and religious creationism are the same thing.

The notion of intelligent design has been hijacked by those with a religious agenda to promote. Almost all proponents of ID do in fact have a religious agenda and they must be stopped from disseminating their ideology in public schools. The trick is to separate legitimate scientific investigation of intelligent design from religious creationism. As it stands now, most scientists are afraid to even talk about the subject for fear of being misquoted or having their own words used as religious propaganda. This has had a chilling effect on legitimate science that may take decades to repair. Ideology has no place in any public school science classroom and it must be stopped wherever it occurs. But one must also recognize that there have also been zealots on the evolutionist side who want to teach mechanisms of evolution that have no empirical support. The answer is simple and clear. Religious creationism must be eliminated from school curriculums and darwinian evolution must be taught not as fact, but in it's historical context. There is enough factual science, from anatomy to zoology to fill any school's scientific curriculum with non-controversial, factual science. Any teaching of darwinian evolution or creationism or "the controversy" is nothing more than a waste of time that could be better spent on real science.

Http://www.charliewagner.com


Quote
Religious creationism must be eliminated from school curriculums and darwinian evolution must be taught not as fact, but in it's historical context.


It is what?

What is the difference between 'religious creationism' and 'magic man done it creationism'?

--------------
"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

Frequency is just the plural of wavelength...
-JoeG

  
Occam's Toothbrush



Posts: 555
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2008,17:24   

Quote
What is the difference between 'religious creationism' and 'magic man done it creationism'?

Nothing; they both unfairly dismiss 'space aliens done did it creationism.'

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

  
charlie wagner



Posts: 24
Joined: Aug. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2008,17:37   

Quote
What is the difference between 'religious creationism' and 'magic man done it creationism'?


What is the difference between darwinism and "magic man done it evolution?"

lets see what Professor Doolittle has to say on this subject:

http://www-biology.ucsd.edu/faculty/doolittle.html

"Tissue factor appears..."

"Prothrombin appears..."

"A Thrombin receptor is fashioned..."

"Fibrinogen is born..."

"Antithrombin III appears..."

"Plasminogen is generated..."

Antiplasmin arises..."

"A thrombin-activatable protein is unleashed..."

"Plasminogen activator springs forth..."

"Stuart factor appears..."

Wow!!! All that springing and leaping!!! With all due respect to
Professor Doolittle, he attributes these leaps and springs to gene
duplication and by undirected, random duplication and recombination of
gene pieces. The first problem is, however, that if a gene is
duplicated, it would not immediately have these new, necessary
properties, it would produce a protein with the old properties! How did
these new, duplicated genes acquire these new properties? If we relegate
the new functions to shuffling of gene pieces or beneficial mutations,
how many worthless, unusable proteins would have to be tried before the
correct one was "found"? Professor Doolittle also does not answer the
crucial questions of how much factor is formed, where is it formed and
how fast is it formed. Any changes in the exact location, quantity and
timing of the appearance of these factors would produce inappropriate
clots, that would harm the organism. All of the factors have to be
introduced at the same time, in the correct proportions and in the
correct location for the whole system to work.

In short, Professor Doolittle's explanation doesn't hold...blood :-)

How is this different from magic?




  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2008,17:55   

I propose we go back to discussing psychedelic music on this thread. I think it'd serve a lot more of a purpose.

Here, I'll start:

Jefferson Airplane, best album: After Bathing at Baxters
Pink Floyd: either Piper at the Gates of Dawn or Saucerfull of Secrets.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Venus Mousetrap



Posts: 201
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2008,18:06   

Quote (charlie wagner @ Aug. 22 2008,17:37)
Quote
What is the difference between 'religious creationism' and 'magic man done it creationism'?


What is the difference between darwinism and "magic man done it evolution?"

lets see what Professor Doolittle has to say on this subject:

http://www-biology.ucsd.edu/faculty/doolittle.html

"Tissue factor appears..."

"Prothrombin appears..."

"A Thrombin receptor is fashioned..."

"Fibrinogen is born..."

"Antithrombin III appears..."

"Plasminogen is generated..."

Antiplasmin arises..."

"A thrombin-activatable protein is unleashed..."

"Plasminogen activator springs forth..."

"Stuart factor appears..."

Wow!!! All that springing and leaping!!! With all due respect to
Professor Doolittle, he attributes these leaps and springs to gene
duplication and by undirected, random duplication and recombination of
gene pieces. The first problem is, however, that if a gene is
duplicated, it would not immediately have these new, necessary
properties, it would produce a protein with the old properties! How did
these new, duplicated genes acquire these new properties?

I know it's an esoteric process you may not have heard of, but it's called evolution.

If a gene is duplicated, the organism still has the functionality of the old gene, as you point out, which means that a mutation in that section is now no longer as dangerous to the organism. This is one reason why irreducible complexity is a load of bollocks; this gene duplication process is a safety net which gives the genome more material to play with - and not only that, but material which ALREADY is in a useful shape, and which could easily be bent to other shapes.

And guess what? Because this isn't some undefined, wishy-washy bullshit like 'intelligence only comes from intelligence', we can actually test it with simulations, maybe even by looking at real genes.

And guess what? When we look at DNA, we often find sequences which look EXACTLY LIKE they were duplicated in this way.

And then you come along and wonder why we can't accept the obvious truth that stuff looks designed. Hello? We can has evidence for our position. Try some.

Quote

If we relegate
the new functions to shuffling of gene pieces or beneficial mutations,
how many worthless, unusable proteins would have to be tried before the
correct one was "found"?


English plz?

Quote

Professor Doolittle also does not answer the
crucial questions of how much factor is formed, where is it formed and
how fast is it formed. Any changes in the exact location, quantity and
timing of the appearance of these factors would produce inappropriate
clots, that would harm the organism. All of the factors have to be
introduced at the same time, in the correct proportions and in the
correct location for the whole system to work.


You know this how? I don't believe you. Show me why this is true.

Quote
In short, Professor Doolittle's explanation doesn't hold...blood :-)

How is this different from magic?


Because one is testable, and one involves pixies.

Quote



  
JAM



Posts: 517
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2008,18:43   

Quote (charlie wagner @ Aug. 22 2008,17:37)
Professor Doolittle also does not answer the crucial questions of how much factor is formed, where is it formed and how fast is it formed. Any changes in the exact location, quantity and timing of the appearance of these factors would produce inappropriate clots, that would harm the organism.

You're lying again, Charlie:

Transgenic Mice Can Express Mutant Human Coagulation Factor IX with Higher Level of Clotting Activity
Authors: Yan, Jing-Bin; Wang, Shu; Huang, Wen-Ying; Xiao, Yan-Ping; Ren, Zhao-Rui; Huang, Shu-Zheng; Zeng, Yi-Tao1
Biochemical Genetics, Volume 44, Numbers 7-8, August 2006 , pp. 347-358(12)

Abstract:
To improve the available values of transgenic animals, we produced a mutant human coagulation factor IX minigene (including cDNA and intron I) with arginine at 338 changed to alanine (R338A-hFIX) by using a direct mutation technique. The R338A-hFIX minigene was then cloned into a plasmid carrying the goat ?-casein promoter to get a mammary gland-specific expression vector. The clotting activity in the supernatant of the transfected HC-11 cells increased to approximately three times more than that of wild-type hFIX. Nine transgenic mice (three females and six males) were produced, and the copy number of the foreign gene was very different, ranging from 1 to 43 in different lines. ELISA, Western blot, and clotting assay experiments showed that the transgenic mice could express R338A-hFIX, showing higher average levels of clotting activity than wild-type hFIX in the milk (103.76% vs. 49.95%). The highest concentration and clotting activity of hFIX reached 26 ?g/mL and 1287% in one founder (F0-7), which was over 10 times higher than that in human plasma. Furthermore, RT-PCR, APTT assay, and histological analysis indicated that hFIX was expressed specifically in the mammary gland without affecting the intrinsic coagulation pathway and physiologic performance of the local tissue.

Why, if you are correct, do you have to lie so much?

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2008,18:53   

Quote
How is this different from magic?


Some other things to add to that list: The sun rises. The moon rises. Lightning flashes. Ash spurts from volcanos. Clouds just appear in the air. Those gotta be magic too, right? :p

Henry

Edit:

Oh, and some plants can grow when placed in a vase with only water in it, no soil. Add that to the list.

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2008,19:17   

Quote (charlie wagner @ Aug. 22 2008,15:27)
 
Quote
We know full well what ID is and isn't.


As a lifelong atheist/agnostic, I resent the implication that ID and religious creationism are the same thing....There is enough factual science, from anatomy to zoology to fill any school's scientific curriculum with non-controversial, factual science. Any teaching of darwinian evolution or creationism or "the controversy" is nothing more than a waste of time that could be better spent on real science.

I call concern troll.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
tsig



Posts: 339
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2008,19:32   

Quote (cewagner @ Aug. 12 2008,15:51)
Quote
Why don't you tell them they are wasting their time and that you've in fact got it all solved already?


They are wasting their time.

There's not a shred of empirical evidence, either observational or experimental, that establishes a plausible nexus, actual or hypothetical, between the trivial effects of random mutation and natural selection and the emergence of the highly organized structures, processes and systems found in living organisms.

Just look at molecular motors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_motors#Examples

http://www.charliewagner.com

Consider the coke can and how it is intelligently designed for the human hand and how the tab on the top seems perfect for opening. Goddidit.

  
tsig



Posts: 339
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2008,19:34   

Quote (cewagner @ Aug. 12 2008,15:51)
Quote
Why don't you tell them they are wasting their time and that you've in fact got it all solved already?


They are wasting their time.

There's not a shred of empirical evidence, either observational or experimental, that establishes a plausible nexus, actual or hypothetical, between the trivial effects of random mutation and natural selection and the emergence of the highly organized structures, processes and systems found in living organisms.

Just look at molecular motors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_motors#Examples

http://www.charliewagner.com

Do molecular motors take molecular mechanics?

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2008,19:38   

Quote (tsig @ Aug. 22 2008,19:34)
Do molecular motors take molecular mechanics?

Yeah, that's okay.

Just leave your credit card with me, and leave that motor here, we'll have her running like a top by next Tuesday.

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

  
tsig



Posts: 339
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2008,19:48   

Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 18 2008,18:59)
Quote (cewagner @ Aug. 16 2008,17:55)
Quote
Did you even read what I said?


Not only did I read what you said, I went and read up on "Garden of Eden" patterns.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not just blowing you off. This interface between chaos theory and life is a subject that I have grappled with often.

In fact, it is safe to say that my understanding of it is still a "work in progress".

What continues to drive me on is an unshakable belief that a natural explanation will be found, that will fall squarely within the realm of science.

Debunking darwinism does not mean accepting religious creationism. All it means is that Darwin was wrong and we've got to keep looking for scientific explanations.

Not to play devil's advocate, but how is that possible when ID completely removes itself from the realm of science?

Saying Darwin was wrong is one thing, and one I fully support, but saying he's wrong because of some unknown and undetectable intelligence is nothing more than faith. †You might as well throw your lot in with YECs because you're playing in the same scientific ballpark.

Not trying to snipe here, but I'd really love to see just one example of how ID can be reconciled with scientific investigation.

What is Darwin wrong about?

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2008,19:49   

No, CW's been around for years. I believe he's honest about his agnosticism. He's just nuts.

Here's what PZ says about him, btw:

Quote
Charlie Wagner
AKA Little Blond Girl, Militant Agnostic, many others

Wanking, Morphing, Stupidity, Insipidity, Spamming

Weird anti-evolutionist with delusions of intelligence. Commonly popped up in response to any science post to claim that it showed evolution was wrong. I put up with him for many years; when he rejected my request to make only constructive comments in a particular thread, he defied me and posted the same insult repeatedly, and then insisted it was his privilege, went on a morphing spree, and threatened to spam the site every time my back was turned. Complete ass.


If you want to watch him act crazy about a different topic, ask him about how the entire medical community is conspiring to give you heart disease, for instance.

   
charlie wagner



Posts: 24
Joined: Aug. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2008,10:50   

From Pharyngula:

Occasionally PZ gets something right...

Most of what PZ says about me are damned lies.


  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2008,11:26   

Quote

As a lifelong atheist/agnostic, I resent the implication that ID and religious creationism are the same thing.


One can be an ignorant loon in denial of the fact that IDC has been documented to be a re-labeling of a subset of the content of "creation science".

Resenting reality seems a poor way to go through life.

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

    
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2008,11:33   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Aug. 23 2008,09:26)
Quote

As a lifelong atheist/agnostic, I resent the implication that ID and religious creationism are the same thing.


One can be an ignorant loon in denial of the fact that IDC has been documented to be a re-labeling of a subset of the content of "creation science".

Resenting reality seems a poor way to go through life.

Or put another way, just because Charlie can conceptualize in his own head a form of Intelligent Design that has no connection with Creationism, that does not mean that such a form of ID actually exists.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
charlie wagner



Posts: 24
Joined: Aug. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2008,11:40   

Quote
One can be an ignorant loon in denial of the fact that IDC has been documented to be a re-labeling of a subset of the content of "creation science".

Resenting reality seems a poor way to go through life.


Ah! The "big dog" comes out to play.

Hope you're healthy and well, Wes.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2008,11:55   

Quote

What is Darwin wrong about?


Pangenesis. That's not how heredity is done. However, Darwin's hypothesis of heredity required extreme amounts of sub-cellular complexity, a fact that various IDC advocate ignoramuses never bother to mention.

Is natural selection the main mechanism of evolutionary change? The question is still actively discussed now, though I think the genetic drift/neutral theory faction has the edge for asserting that drift or neutral change is the most common form of evolutionary change. Dawkins responded to a question of mine on this point saying that when we look at the level of genes or proteins, nearly all change appears to occur by drift, but when we look at the level of visible phenotypic traits, almost all of those appear to be due to natural selection. So even if technically "wrong" on the issue, the wrongness is due to data that didn't start being revealed until the 1960s, over a hundred years after "Origin of Species" hit the bookshelves.

Usually, people asserting "Darwin was wrong!" can't be bothered to substantiate just how. I've challenged some of those folks in the past, and either they decide that some other things are more pressing at the moment, argue that everybody knows that their claim is right, or rattle off a batch of ignorant tosh. I don't recall any of them being able to give a good technical summary of an actual issue upon which Darwin could justifiably be said to have been wrong, usually because the things they wish Darwin had been wrong about he was right about. Common descent as an explanation for life's history and diversity. Natural selection as a mechanism that explains adapative traits. Speciation as a process that occurs naturally. And that's just a few of the issues within evolutionary biology, and ignores Darwin's contributions to biology in general and geology as well.

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

    
charlie wagner



Posts: 24
Joined: Aug. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2008,12:54   

Quote
Usually, people asserting "Darwin was wrong!" can't be bothered to substantiate just how. I've challenged some of those folks in the past, and either they decide that some other things are more pressing at the moment, argue that everybody knows that their claim is right, or rattle off a batch of ignorant tosh.


Darwin was wrong about the power of natural selection.

He failed to provide a shred of empirical evidence, either observational or experimental, that establishes a plausible nexus, actual or hypothetical, between the trivial effects of random mutation and natural selection and the emergence of the highly organized structures, processes and systems found in living organisms.

He did address some highly organized structures, such as the eye, but he knew nothing about the nature of the cell. He can be excused for that failure.

I believe that it is self-evident that the eye did not evolve by the process
of mutation and natural selection. Not only is the rate of so-called
"beneficial" mutations ridiculously low, but the eye is an integrated
structure that fits in with the nerves,
bones and muscles of the body. Even if you can concede the possibility of
the eye itself evolving, you would have to account for the concurrent
evolution of the bones of the head, the eye socket, etc, the muscles that
control the eye, the nerves that carry the images, the blood vessels that
supply the eye, †the biochemical reactions that make vision possible and the
cerebral cortex necessary to process the images. Evolutionary biologists
forget, sometimes, that all of an organism is integrated together, the parts
and processes are not separate. For one to "evolve", all must evolve and in
a manner that allows the parts to function together. This would require such
a fantastically large number of intermediate forms with various combinations
of "beneficial" mutations that it puts the whole concept of evolution well
beyond the reach of chance. Darwinian evolution by natural selection is
merely a special case of the general procedure of problem solving by trial
and error. This method would never be successful in achieving the level of
organization that we see. It is too inefficient. And there would not be
enough room in the universe for all of the rejects.

But the really telling fact is that in the century and a half †following his claim, his successors have done no better. The "leap of faith" that he depended on has become longer and longer as deeper layers of organization are uncovered so that it would now take a miracle to explain these structures, processes and systems with the mechanism he proposed.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2008,12:59   

Quote (charlie wagner @ Aug. 23 2008,10:54)
This would require such a fantastically large number of intermediate forms with various combinations of "beneficial" mutations that it puts the whole concept of evolution well beyond the reach of chance.

Your incredulity is not evidence, Charlie.

I suspect you've been told this before.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2008,13:04   

Quote (charlie wagner @ Aug. 23 2008,12:54)
Quote
Usually, people asserting "Darwin was wrong!" can't be bothered to substantiate just how. I've challenged some of those folks in the past, and either they decide that some other things are more pressing at the moment, argue that everybody knows that their claim is right, or rattle off a batch of ignorant tosh.


Darwin was wrong about the power of natural selection.

He failed to provide a shred of empirical evidence, either observational or experimental, that establishes a plausible nexus, actual or hypothetical, between the trivial effects of random mutation...

Hold it right there.
So Darwin was wrong because he didn't discover genetics, DNA and all?

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2008,13:35   

Quote (charlie wagner @ Aug. 23 2008,13:54)
I believe that it is self-evident that the eye did not evolve by the process
of mutation and natural selection.

I find it self-evident that it did.

Ergo, "self-evidence" cancels. So, on with some actual science. Hint: reporting fictional junkyard observations following fictional tornados doesn't count.

(You gonna cut and paste your entire website, paragraph by paragraph?)

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2008,14:13   

Quote

Usually, people asserting "Darwin was wrong!" can't be bothered to substantiate just how. I've challenged some of those folks in the past, and either they decide that some other things are more pressing at the moment, argue that everybody knows that their claim is right, or rattle off a batch of ignorant tosh.


Charlie Wagner:

Quote

I believe that it is self-evident [...]


Preceded and followed by the tosh.

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

    
khan



Posts: 1525
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2008,16:16   

Quote (charlie wagner @ Aug. 23 2008,13:54)
Quote
Usually, people asserting "Darwin was wrong!" can't be bothered to substantiate just how. I've challenged some of those folks in the past, and either they decide that some other things are more pressing at the moment, argue that everybody knows that their claim is right, or rattle off a batch of ignorant tosh.


Darwin was wrong about the power of natural selection.

He failed to provide a shred of empirical evidence, either observational or experimental, that establishes a plausible nexus, actual or hypothetical, between the trivial effects of random mutation and natural selection and the emergence of the highly organized structures, processes and systems found in living organisms.

He did address some highly organized structures, such as the eye, but he knew nothing about the nature of the cell. He can be excused for that failure.

I believe that it is self-evident that the eye did not evolve by the process
of mutation and natural selection. Not only is the rate of so-called
"beneficial" mutations ridiculously low, but the eye is an integrated
structure that fits in with the nerves,
bones and muscles of the body. Even if you can concede the possibility of
the eye itself evolving, you would have to account for the concurrent
evolution of the bones of the head, the eye socket, etc, the muscles that
control the eye, the nerves that carry the images, the blood vessels that
supply the eye, †the biochemical reactions that make vision possible and the
cerebral cortex necessary to process the images. Evolutionary biologists
forget, sometimes, that all of an organism is integrated together, the parts
and processes are not separate. For one to "evolve", all must evolve and in
a manner that allows the parts to function together. This would require such
a fantastically large number of intermediate forms with various combinations
of "beneficial" mutations that it puts the whole concept of evolution well
beyond the reach of chance. Darwinian evolution by natural selection is
merely a special case of the general procedure of problem solving by trial
and error. This method would never be successful in achieving the level of
organization that we see. It is too inefficient. And there would not be
enough room in the universe for all of the rejects.

But the really telling fact is that in the century and a half †following his claim, his successors have done no better. The "leap of faith" that he depended on has become longer and longer as deeper layers of organization are uncovered so that it would now take a miracle to explain these structures, processes and systems with the mechanism he proposed.

Some are born tard, some achieve tardness, and some have tardness thrust upon 'em

--------------
"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

Frequency is just the plural of wavelength...
-JoeG

  
slpage



Posts: 349
Joined: June 2004

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 24 2008,11:54   

Quote (cewagner @ Aug. 12 2008,15:51)
Quote
Why don't you tell them they are wasting their time and that you've in fact got it all solved already?


They are wasting their time.

There's not a shred of empirical evidence, either observational or experimental, that establishes a plausible nexus, actual or hypothetical, between the trivial effects of random mutation and natural selection and the emergence of the highly organized structures, processes and systems found in living organisms.

Just look at molecular motors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_motors#Examples

http://www.charliewagner.com

Yeah, no evidence at all.

Funny how little minded folk can be so impressed by fancy diagrams and computer generated clips...

  
slpage



Posts: 349
Joined: June 2004

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 24 2008,11:56   

Quote (cewagner @ Aug. 12 2008,16:16)
Quote
Don't you find posting more or less the same thing under different names is not really advancing the cause? Do you think people are going to read such blog posts and be convinced? You say it is so, and it is so?


I always post with my real name, except on Pharyngula.
PZ doesn't like me so he blocks my name and IP address (with no success, I might add.)

As a parent of 4 children and a teacher for 33 years, I don't underestimate the value of repeating the same thing over and over.
You just never know who is paying attention.

Teacher?  Oh my....

  
slpage



Posts: 349
Joined: June 2004

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 24 2008,11:56   

Quote (cewagner @ Aug. 12 2008,16:35)
Quote
So, what happened then. According to you?


I don't have a clue...but neither do you.

Like everyone else, we just have to deal with being in the uncomfortable position of not knowing.

Projection.

  
slpage



Posts: 349
Joined: June 2004

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 24 2008,11:59   

Quote (cewagner @ Aug. 15 2008,17:02)
Molecular motors Ė a lesson in nanotechnology from Nature
Roop Mallik

They are small, and there are billions of them inside you. Tiny machines, a thousandth of the thickness of human hair, but robust and designed for an amazing variety of functions. Science fiction? Think again Ö this is real, as real as flesh and blood !! If you can get your hands on a high school biology text book, flip through to the mandatory schematic of an animal cell. Look closely, what you will see is not a floppy bag with random things thrown in here and there. There is amazing structural organization within the cell, with several compartments (e.g. the nucleus, Golgi bodies, mitochondria) at specific locations. Many of these compartments are specialized ďfactoriesĒ, each with its own assembly line which requires specific raw material as input and generates specific products. A constant give-and-take of materials occurs within these factories, because each is dependent on the other. In the big picture of things this incessant exchange of material keeps the factories of the cell functioning, which in turn is what keeps us alive.

Read entire article:

[URL=http://www.tifr.res.in/~roop/NaturesNanotech.htm]

Ah, the argument from metaphorical language and analogies!

Brilliant!

  
slpage



Posts: 349
Joined: June 2004

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 24 2008,12:01   

Quote (cewagner @ Aug. 16 2008,16:26)
All algorithms are the result of intelligent input.

Well, you see, assertions and illogical syllogisms have got me totally convinced.

I mean, ALL algorithms are designed by intelligence totally proves it all, doesn't it?

How about only a conscious mind can produce information?  Like that one, too?

  
slpage



Posts: 349
Joined: June 2004

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 24 2008,12:08   

Quote (charlie wagner @ Aug. 23 2008,12:54)
Even if you can concede the possibility of
the eye itself evolving, you would have to account for the concurrent
evolution of the bones of the head, the eye socket, etc, the muscles that
control the eye, the nerves that carry the images, the blood vessels that
supply the eye, †the biochemical reactions that make vision possible and the
cerebral cortex necessary to process the images. Evolutionary biologists
forget, sometimes, that all of an organism is integrated together, the parts
and processes are not separate. For one to "evolve", all must evolve and in
a manner that allows the parts to function together. This would require such
a fantastically large number of intermediate forms with various combinations
of "beneficial" mutations that it puts the whole concept of evolution well
beyond the reach of chance.

I see that your arrogance is inversely proportional to your khowledge of developmental genetics and the actions of genes.

  
charlie wagner



Posts: 24
Joined: Aug. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2008,14:40   

http://charliewagner.blogspot.com/2008....ow.html


  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5402
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2008,16:13   

Quote (charlie wagner @ Aug. 28 2008,15:40)
http://charliewagner.blogspot.com/2008....ow.html


Looks like the Bat Signal.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2008,16:25   

Bat^shit crazy signal.

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

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2008,20:05   

Quote (charlie wagner @ Aug. 28 2008,15:40)
http://charliewagner.blogspot.com/2008....ow.html


Dude. Check this out:



These were generated by means of BASIC code I adapted for my original Macintosh in April of 1986. It was written for ZBasic, a long forgotten Macintosh BASIC compiler that generated 68000 processor code. I don't recall the source of the original code.

The point being we've all been viewing and marveling at the Mandelbrot set for decades. It doesn't somehow wordlessly make your point. You'll have to argue it.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2008,07:26   

Holy archeology, I found the code. It is ZBasic, as I used operators unique to that compiler (such as << to denote a bit-shift to do fast binary multiplication). I still have the ZBasic manual. I had forgotten that there were versions of ZBasic for MS-DOS, CP/M, the Apple II, and even the TRS-80, as well as the original Macintosh. ZBasic programs were intended to be entirely portable between platforms, but that broke when event trapping was included in the Macintosh version. But the sheer speed of the Mac's 16/32-bit 68000 (effectively a blazing 6 Mhz) made that worthwhile.

(That's how old this stuff is.)

The fossil. Notice how brief the main computational loop is (starts at line 00150):

00010 REM Mandelbrot set, Slow BASIC demonstrator
00020 REM Produces arraysize * arraysize representation of the mandelbrot set
00025 COORDINATE WINDOW
00030 DEF DBLINT A-O,Q-Z
00050 ARRAYSIZE = 150
00060 DIM PIC(150,150)
00065 DIM O(8,8)
00070 WINDOW HIDE 0:WINDOW 3,,(42,60)-(470,130),2
00080 GOSUB "DITHER"
00090 INPUT "Enter Real Number (-200 to 50) ";ACR
00095 ACR=ACR<<6
00100 CLS
00110 INPUT "Enter Imaginary Number (-125 to 125) †";BCR
00115 BCR=BCR<<6
00120 CLS
00130 INPUT "Enter Side (max = 250) ";SIDE:SIDE=SIDE<<6
00140 GAP=(SIDE/ARRAYSIZE)
00141 REM
00145 REM Main computational loop
00146 REM
00150 FOR M=1 TO ARRAYSIZE STEP 10: PRINT "Working on row ";M
00160 AC=ACR + M * GAP
00170 FOR N=1 TO ARRAYSIZE STEP 10
00180 AZ=0 : BZ=0 : PC = 0 : S=0
00190 BC=BCR+N*GAP
00200 WHILE S<400 <<6 AND PC<100
00210 BZT=-((BZ*BZ)>>6):BZ=((AZ*BZ)>>6)*2+BC
00220 AZ=((AZ*AZ)>>6) + BZT +AC
00230 S=((BZ*BZ)>>6) + ((AZ*AZ)>>6):PC=PC+1
00240 WEND
00250 PIC(M,N)=PC
00260 NEXT
00265 TRONB:TROFF
00270 NEXT
00275 REM End computational loop
00276 REM
00280 CLS:WINDOW CLOSE 3:WINDOW 2,,(181,66)-(331,216),2
00290 FOR M=1 †TO ARRAYSIZE
00300 FOR N=1 TO ARRAYSIZE
00310 IF PIC(M,N)=100 THEN PLOT M,151-N:GOTO "OUT"
00320 IF PIC(M,N)< O(M MOD 7,N MOD 7) THEN PLOT M,151-N
00330 "OUT":NEXT
00340 NEXT
00350 "LOOP" :TRONB:TROFF:GOTO "LOOP"
00360 END
00370 "DITHER"
00380 REM Generate recursive ordered dither threshold matrix
00390 PRINT "Generating Threshold Matrix..."
00400 I=0:J=0:K=1:N=0:P=3
00410 REM 'p' is order of array, size is(2^p)*(2^p)
00420 P=2^P
00430 GOSUB "RECURSE"
00440 RETURN
00450 "RECURSE"
00460 IF K = P THEN O(I,J)=N:N=N+1: K=K/2 :RETURN
00470 K=2*K:GOSUB "RECURSE"
00480 I=I+K:J=J+K:K=2*K:GOSUB "RECURSE"
00490 I=I-K:K=2*K:GOSUB "RECURSE"
00500 I=I+K:J=J-K:K=2*K:GOSUB "RECURSE"
00510 I=I-K:K=K/2:RETURN

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
charlie wagner



Posts: 24
Joined: Aug. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2008,09:09   

Quote
The point being we've all been viewing and marveling at the Mandelbrot set for decades. It doesn't somehow wordlessly make your point. You'll have to argue it.


There is no point. I just like to post pretty graphics and thoughtful poetry for your amusement and edification.

A Dream Of Death
W.B. Yeats

I dreamed that one had died in a strange place
Near no accustomed hand,
And they had nailed the boards above her face,
The peasants of that land,
Wondering to lay her in that solitude,
And raised above her mound
A cross they had made out of two bits of wood,
And planted cypress round;
And left her to the indifferent stars above
Until I carved these words:
She was more beautiful than thy first love,
But now lies under boards.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2008,09:36   

Quote (charlie wagner @ Sep. 01 2008,09:09)
There is no point.

You had me at that.

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2008,09:59   

Quote (charlie wagner @ Sep. 01 2008,10:09)
Quote
The point being we've all been viewing and marveling at the Mandelbrot set for decades. It doesn't somehow wordlessly make your point. You'll have to argue it.


There is no point. I just like to post pretty graphics and thoughtful poetry for your amusement and edification.

Then you've got to get yourself a better Mandelbrot generator. There are much more beautiful color assignments to be had.



ETA: I used the Mac version of this simple application to generate the above.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Jkrebs



Posts: 365
Joined: Sep. 2004

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2008,10:12   

Thanks for the link to the program.  I needed a replacement for the old System 9 program I've used for years.  I always end my calculus class with a discussion of the Mandelbrot set (and also Euler's Identity) because they are so cool.

  
charlie wagner



Posts: 24
Joined: Aug. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2008,14:13   

Quote
Then you've got to get yourself a better Mandelbrot generator. There are much more beautiful color assignments to be had.


The "gold standard" is still Fractint.

http://spanky.triumf.ca/www/fractint/fractint.html


  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2008,14:41   

Quote (charlie wagner @ Sep. 01 2008,14:13)
The "gold standard" is still Fractint.

No, it's not.





Edited by Wesley R. Elsberry on Sep. 01 2008,15:42

--------------
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 Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Jkrebs



Posts: 365
Joined: Sep. 2004

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2008,15:06   

I have an old fractal generator (Fractal Designer) that not only can be used to explore the Mandelbrot set as the one Bill pointed me to, but allows you to enter your own equations and parameters to produce countless other fractal sets.  Does anyone know of anything like that, free and preferably for Mac?

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2008,16:12   

To steal a book title; "Endless forms most beautiful"

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

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2008,17:13   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 01 2008,16:12)
To steal a book title; "Endless forms most beautiful"

Originally, this phrase is in the concluding sentence of "On the origin of species...".

Here's the full quote, perhaps Charlie will find some poetry in there.
Quote
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling 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.

Personally, I find this view more exciting than being designed by a FSM.

  
charlie wagner



Posts: 24
Joined: Aug. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2008,18:54   

Quote
No, it's not.


Agreed. I spent the last 2 hours playing with "Apophysis"

Very cool for graphic artists, which I am not.

I like Fractint because it generates just about all the fractal types, not just the IFS class of fractal "flame" algorithms.

  
charlie wagner



Posts: 24
Joined: Aug. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2008,16:13   

Quote
"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling 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."




its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one;

I find this most interesting and informative, and I agree completely with Darwin.

Darwin doesn't say where these first life forms came from, only that they evolved over time. He was not able to answer two fundamental questions:

1. where did the first forms come from?
2. what is the mechanism of this subsequent evolution?

I offer two answers:

1. the first forms came from outside the earth with all the programming necessary to adapt to ambient conditions on earth.
2. What you call evolution is the dynamic unfolding of these pre-existing algorithms.

In addition:

1. evolution as we know it is probably over and future events will be variations on already existing patterns,
dessimations and extinctions

http://www.charliewagner.net/hoyle.htm

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2008,16:30   

Quote (charlie wagner @ Sep. 03 2008,16:13)
1. the first forms came from outside the earth with all the programming necessary to adapt to ambient conditions on earth.
2. What you call evolution is the dynamic unfolding of these pre-existing algorithms.

1: From where?
2: As much DNA has been sequenced, can you point to a sequence that shows one of these algorithms?

kthnxbye.

--------------
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 Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
khan



Posts: 1525
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2008,16:34   

Quote (charlie wagner @ Sep. 03 2008,17:13)
Quote
"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling 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."




its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one;

I find this most interesting and informative, and I agree completely with Darwin.

Darwin doesn't say where these first life forms came from, only that they evolved over time. He was not able to answer two fundamental questions:

1. where did the first forms come from?
2. what is the mechanism of this subsequent evolution?

I offer two answers:

1. the first forms came from outside the earth with all the programming necessary to adapt to ambient conditions on earth.
2. What you call evolution is the dynamic unfolding of these pre-existing algorithms.

In addition:

1. evolution as we know it is probably over and future events will be variations on already existing patterns,
dessimations and extinctions

http://www.charliewagner.net/hoyle.htm

What the heck is: 'dessimations' ?

--------------
"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

Frequency is just the plural of wavelength...
-JoeG

  
JohnW



Posts: 2767
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2008,16:53   

Quote (khan @ Sep. 03 2008,14:34)
What the heck is: 'dessimations' ?

I assumed it was an avant-garde spelling of "decimations", i.e. mass extinctions.  But then I assumed that sweeping claims were usually accompanied by at least a little bit of evidence, so what do I know?

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

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

  
khan



Posts: 1525
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2008,16:55   

Quote (JohnW @ Sep. 03 2008,17:53)
Quote (khan @ Sep. 03 2008,14:34)
What the heck is: 'dessimations' ?

I assumed it was an avant-garde spelling of "decimations", i.e. mass extinctions. †But then I assumed that sweeping claims were usually accompanied by at least a little bit of evidence, so what do I know?

Are creationists forbidden to have spell-checkers?

--------------
"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

Frequency is just the plural of wavelength...
-JoeG

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2008,16:59   

Quote (charlie wagner @ Sep. 03 2008,17:13)
1. where did the first forms come from?

2. what is the mechanism of this subsequent evolution?

1) Darwin did not set out to answer the first question, as is clearly indicated by your quote.

2) The "one long argument" of Origin is Darwin's answer to the second. Nearly 150 years later the scientific community retains a consensus that Darwin succeeded in identifying the single most important mechanism of evolutionary change (variation and selection). Whether you accept this explanation or not has no bearing upon this flat-ass fact.

Instead you propose:
† † † †
Quote
1. the first forms came from outside the earth with all the programming necessary to adapt to ambient conditions on earth.

2. What you call evolution is the dynamic unfolding of these pre-existing algorithms.

The algorithm is generally described as "random mutation and natural selection." The processes of adaptation and speciation described in the standard RM+NS model enabled living organisms to track the countless contingent and inherently unpredictable changes in environments and ecosystems with which they have been confronted throughout the 38 million centuries (or so) that have passed since the OOL. Even with such tracking, the run of the vast majority of species has ended in extinction, presumably when these variations become too extreme to track. Indeed, the successes, failures and interactions of some species mold the ecological context for the successes and failures of others, all embedded in a contingently changing physical and environment. †

"The dynamic unfolding of these pre-existing algorithms" would require storage in advance of the countless adaptations, speciation events, ecological interactions, and even extinction events that have accompanied this endless succession of changing environments and ecosystems, as well as a program determining in advance the order in which these changes unfold. Yet the environmental and ecological transitions that life has confronted, and to which the surviving organisms adapted, resulted from physical processes (planetary, geological, meteorological, astronomical, etc.) that are themselves inherently contingent and unguided and cannot themselves possibly have been "arranged," "planned," or "predicted." Moreover, we are talking the varied environments and apposite adaptations of every extinct and every extant lineage of descent found within the astronomically complex ramification of the tree of life.

With that in mind, "the dynamic unfolding of these pre-existing algorithms" becomes utterly implausible and even absurd.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
charlie wagner



Posts: 24
Joined: Aug. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2008,20:41   

Quote
1: From where?
2: As much DNA has been sequenced, can you point to a sequence that shows one of these algorithms?


From "elsewhere" :-)

While the DNA has been sequenced, there is a whole layer of programming that is at least as important and hardly studied: epigenetics

"In biology, the term epigenetics refers to changes in gene expression. These changes may remain through cell divisions for the remainder of the cell's life. Sometimes the changes last for multiple generations. However, there is no change in the underlying DNA sequence of the organism, instead, environmental factors cause the organism's genes to behave (or "express themselves") differently. The best example of epigenetic changes in eukaryotic biology is the process of cellular differentiation. During morphogenesis, totipotent stem cells become the various pluripotent cell lines of the embryo which in turn become fully differentiated cells. In other words, a single fertilized egg cell - the zygote - changes into the many cell types including neurons, muscle cells, epithelium, blood vessels et cetera as it continues to divide. It does so by a process of activating some genes while silencing others."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics

†  
Quote
The "one long argument" of Origin is Darwin's answer to the second. Nearly 150 years later the scientific community retains a consensus that Darwin succeeded in identifying the single most important mechanism of evolutionary change (variation and selection). Whether you accept this explanation or not has no bearing upon this flat-ass fact.


Science is based on evidence, not argument.
IMHO RM+NS is incapable of doing what you suggest it can do. Even Darwin himself knew that.

†  
Quote
"The dynamic unfolding of these pre-existing algorithms" would require storage in advance of the countless adaptations, speciation events, ecological interactions, and even extinction events that have accompanied this endless succession of changing environments and ecosystems, as well as a program determining in advance the order in which these changes unfold.


So what? The adult organism is the result of pre-existing programming that unfolds from a single cell. And this storage requires very little mass and volume. The "space seed(s)" could easily contain all the required programming.
†  
Quote

I assumed it was an avant-garde spelling of "decimations",



No, it was a spelling error.

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2008,22:49   

Quote (charlie wagner @ Sep. 03 2008,21:41)
IMHO RM+NS is incapable of doing what you suggest it can do.

An argument from incredulity that gets you exactly nowhere in this discussion - the same distance traveled by "self-evident," by the way. †
Quote
Quote
"The dynamic unfolding of these pre-existing algorithms" would require storage in advance of the countless adaptations, speciation events, ecological interactions, and even extinction events that have accompanied this endless succession of changing environments and ecosystems, as well as a program determining in advance the order in which these changes unfold.

So what? The adult organism is the result of pre-existing programming that unfolds from a single cell. And this storage requires very little mass and volume. The "space seed(s)" could easily contain all the required programming.

Re-read the above. I've said nothing whatsoever about storage requirements.

I am addressing the absurdity of envisioning the predetermination and preprogramming of sequences of adaptations that are specific to highly particular geological, environmental, and ecological circumstances - when those successions of physical circumstances are themselves inherently contingent, unguided, and unpredictable.* An a-prior program such as you describe would necessarily embody either foreknowledge of or control over endless, parallel sequences of highly contingent, unique, and unpredictable planetary and environmental developments - many of which emerge from the action and interactions of living organisms themselves - over billions of years.

Is that what you are proposing? A "designer" with complete foreknowledge and/or control of the geophysics and biophysics of planet earth - foreknowledge with a resolution sufficient to anticipate thousands/millions of specific environmental and evolutionary niches billions of years in advance?

*ETA: You are into fractals. Then you know about non-linear dynamics - the various "butterfly effects" that render long term, high resolution prediction and anticipation of turbulent physical systems inherently impossible. That certainly characterizes the unfolding of life on earth, and the environments to which it is adapted.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2008,02:51   

Quote (charlie wagner @ Sep. 03 2008,20:41)
 
Quote
1: From where?
2: As much DNA has been sequenced, can you point to a sequence that shows one of these algorithms?


From "elsewhere" :-)

While the DNA has been sequenced, there is a whole layer of programming that is at least as important and hardly studied: epigenetics

1: Elsewhere? For all you know it could have come from the centre of the earth.

2: I'll take that as a no then. Pathetic. You might as well claim that there are invisible unicorns in DNA, you've the same amount of evidence for that.

--------------
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 Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
charlie wagner



Posts: 24
Joined: Aug. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2008,10:10   

Quote
For all you know it could have come from the centre of the earth.


That may not be far from the truth...

  
charlie wagner



Posts: 24
Joined: Aug. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2008,12:21   

Quote
the absurdity of envisioning the predetermination and preprogramming of sequences of adaptations that are specific to highly particular geological, environmental, and ecological circumstances - when those successions of physical circumstances are themselves inherently contingent, unguided, and unpredictable.


An argument from incredulity that gets you exactly nowhere in this discussion -

Now let's see...where did I hear that?

  
Venus Mousetrap



Posts: 201
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2008,12:42   

Quote (charlie wagner @ Sep. 04 2008,12:21)
Quote
the absurdity of envisioning the predetermination and preprogramming of sequences of adaptations that are specific to highly particular geological, environmental, and ecological circumstances - when those successions of physical circumstances are themselves inherently contingent, unguided, and unpredictable.


An argument from incredulity that gets you exactly nowhere in this discussion -

Now let's see...where did I hear that?

This is not incredulity. It can be mathematically shown that chaotic influences render a system unforecastable - the whole field is called chaos theory. Even a system of three bodies under gravity is chaotic.

How can you not know this? Weren't you a teacher?

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2008,12:46   

Quote (charlie wagner @ Sep. 04 2008,13:21)
Quote
the absurdity of envisioning the predetermination and preprogramming of sequences of adaptations that are specific to highly particular geological, environmental, and ecological circumstances - when those successions of physical circumstances are themselves inherently contingent, unguided, and unpredictable.


An argument from incredulity that gets you exactly nowhere in this discussion -

Now let's see...where did I hear that?

No, Charlie, you are mistaken about that. My argument is:

1) The succession of changes, over billions of years, of the physical and ecological environments to which living organisms have displayed adaptation during the history of life would itself have been inherently unpredictable. This is due to the uniqueness and complexity of the causal factors, the huge time scales, the non-linear unpredictability of many of the processes, the vast number of parallel ecological niches, and the fact that living organisms themselves shape or even become the environments to which other organisms adapt.

2) The huge variety and inherent unpredictability of these successive changes render impossible the pre-programming or front loading of biological adaptations, because such pre-programming would require either foreknowledge of inherently unknowable future events, or control over those events that is nowhere in evidence.

There is no argument from incredulity in the above.

If you disagree with the above, then argue your case. Perhaps you will argue that 1) above, or 2), or both, are mistaken. Get busy. Engage my actual argument.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2008,12:49   

Quote (charlie wagner @ Sep. 04 2008,12:21)
Quote
the absurdity of envisioning the predetermination and preprogramming of sequences of adaptations that are specific to highly particular geological, environmental, and ecological circumstances - when those successions of physical circumstances are themselves inherently contingent, unguided, and unpredictable.


An argument from incredulity that gets you exactly nowhere in this discussion -

Now let's see...where did I hear that?

Where's the evidence for *your* hypothesis? (which you have not clearly defined, BTW. Is that "front loading"?)

What predetermined evolution, and how?

How would you make the difference between a spontaneous mutation and a "preprogrammed" mutation?

If a preprogrammed mutation is advantageous, that would be subject to natural selection, wouldn't it?

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2008,13:09   

Quote (charlie wagner @ Sep. 04 2008,10:10)
 
Quote
For all you know it could have come from the centre of the earth.


That may not be far from the truth...

Which is? Do enlighten me.

--------------
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 Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
charlie wagner



Posts: 24
Joined: Aug. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2008,18:24   

Quote
1) The succession of changes, over billions of years, of the physical and ecological environments to which living organisms have displayed adaptation during the history of life would itself have been inherently unpredictable. This is due to the uniqueness and complexity of the causal factors, the huge time scales, the non-linear unpredictability of many of the processes, the vast number of parallel ecological niches, and the fact that living organisms themselves shape or even become the environments to which other organisms adapt.



Absolutely true...



Quote
2) The huge variety and inherent unpredictability of these successive changes render impossible the pre-programming or front loading of biological adaptations, because such pre-programming would require either foreknowledge of inherently unknowable future events, or control over those events that is nowhere in evidence.



That is an assumption that you're making based upon your personal incredulity.
Pre-programming would not require a knowledge of future events.
Which makes biochemical machines much more advanced. The fact that
living organisms are beyond the ability of the human mind to design and
construct them seems to be powerful evidence for the existence of a
higher intelligence. The protein synthetic apparatus cannot only
replicate itself, but it can also construct any other biochemical
machine if it's given the proper instructions in the form of genetic
code and the basic functional units to work with. Since proteins can be
put to almost unlimited uses, this makes the cell somewhat akin to a
universal automaton with almost limitless potential. That's probably the
reason why life is so ubiquitous on the earth and probably elsewhere in
the universe. The unlimited potential of the protein synthetic apparatus
to dynamically respond to almost any conditions.*

*Many people who proclaim intelligent design are really stealth
creationists. I'm not so naive that I've missed that. They are using
this as a way to get religion into the public schools, despite the fact
that it is specifically forbidden by the constitution. Unfortunately,
this has given the concept of intelligent design a bad name. Do not
confuse me with these people. I have no religious agenda and I am
adamantly opposed to teaching creationism in the public schools. I am
also adamantly against spending one cent of my tax dollars to support
religious schools in any way. I am opposed to paying for transportation
to religious schools, I'm opposed to spending taxpayer dollars on
textbooks for religious schools and I am adamantly opposed to prayer in
any form in the public schools.
† † †The fact is, I'm a fairly uncommon species of ID'er, being as I
have been an atheist for most of my life and I am now an agnostic. I see
no evidence for a benevolent and all-powerful god and frankly, any
mention of religion or god often produces an advanced dyspepsia. If you
want to know more about me, you can check out my website below.
† † †Anyway, I also consider darwinian evolution to be probably the
biggest hoax in the last millenium. How it got as far as it has with
absolutely no observational and experimental evidence to support it
boggles my mind. Think about it for a moment. You've been had. The
evidence that is claimed is just not there. Take a look. Don't believe
me, if you don't want to. It's a story that people made up, and it
sounds good and it took hold of people's imaginations. It then grew over
time as it was promoted as the TRUTH by generations of evolutionists and
taught in institutions of higher learning by renowned professors. Part
of it's strength comes from a fear of creationism. This battle between
religion and science has been waged for centuries. This is just one more
battle in that war. Both science and religion claim to have truth on
their side. The only problem with evolution is the facts were NOT there
and science got caught with it's metaphorical pants down around it's
knees. Creationists arguments against darwinism are mostly right on the
mark. Instead of fessin' up, science has chosen to wage a rhetorical war
with creationists. This war will be lost, because the theory is so
defective that even a layperson can see through it. If we want to save
science, we have to stop promoting an obsolete, useless theory and get
busy doing what we should be able to do best, find the truth. And if the
truth is unattainable because we have no way of determining it by
observation or experiment, we should retreat from the battlefield, admit
that we don't know and probably never will and get on with the true
business of science. And leave the rhetoric and hyperbole to the
philosophers and pundits.

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2008,20:43   

Quote (charlie wagner @ Sep. 04 2008,19:24)
Pre-programming would not require a knowledge of future events...[major snippage of irrelevant passages borrowed from Charlie's website]

Let's see if I can accurately parse what you are saying.

Earlier you stated: "An algorithm is a finite set of well-defined instructions for accomplishing some task which, given an initial state, will terminate in a defined end-state."

You also earlier stated: "What you call evolution is the dynamic unfolding of these pre-existing algorithms."

If I understand you correctly, you are postulating the storage of algorithms consisting of well-defined instructions that, given specific initial states, terminate in defined end-states.

You don't state whether those initial states are also stored with the algorithms.

If initial states are stored with the algorithms, and hence an algorithm always terminates in a given end state once activated, you are essentially postulating the storage of specific end-states. If so, what is your explanation for how such pre-defined algorithmic results happen to dovetail with specific, highly contingent, inherently unpredictable later environments absent foreknowledge?

If the initial states are not pre-stored with the algorithm, then the algorithm is awaiting some sort of input to set initial conditions and determine which outcome will be actualized and observed among the myriad of possible outcomes. This is what I take you to mean when you call this a "dynamic" process. It follows that you need a theory - at least some sort of sketch - of how the initial conditions are set, detected, or otherwise fed into your imaginary algorithms. And, more important, you need a theory describing how such specific initial conditions result in adaptive (not just different, but adaptive) outcomes relative to an organism's specific environmental/ecological context, absent foreknowledge of those contexts.

In short, what you need is feedback regarding the relative reproductive success of various end-states. We propose that selection provides that "dynamic" feedback - but you reject selection.

So, then, what IS your "mechanism" for mating algorithm to environment by means of varied initial conditions?

(As you can see, hand waving regarding "advanced dynamic algorithms" and 50 cents gets you a cup of coffee.)

So: Do tell.

(minor edits for clarity)

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 05 2008,02:55   

I'm cross posting this post from qetzal
†  
Quote

† †  
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 03 2008,19:09)
By "lab tested" I mean something that is tested period. †For instance, if two sets of genes are known, and are said to be from a common ancestor, it should be possible to extrapolate the common ancestral gene (and intermediate genes) via computer simulation. †Then you should be able to test the resultant genes for viability by altering and inserting the DNA into the living organisms.

Been done. Multiple times. Here's just one example:

† † †
Quote
J Mol Biol. 2007 Jun 15;369(4):1060-9. Epub 2007 Apr 5.

Extremely thermophilic translation system in the common ancestor commonote: ancestral mutants of Glycyl-tRNA synthetase from the extreme thermophile Thermus thermophilus.

Shimizu H, Yokobori S, Ohkuri T, Yokogawa T, Nishikawa K, Yamagishi A.

Department of Molecular Biology, Tokyo University of Pharmacy and Life Science, 1432-1 Horinouchi, Hachioji, Tokyo 192-0392, Japan.

Based on phylogenetic analysis of 16 S and 18 S rRNAs, the common ancestor of all organisms (Commonote) was proposed to be hyperthermophilic. We have previously tested this hypothesis using enzymes with ancestral residues that are inferred by molecular phylogenetic analysis. The ancestral mutant enzymes involved in metabolic systems show higher thermal stability than wild-type enzymes, consistent with the hyperthermophile common ancestor hypothesis. Here, we have extended the experiments to include an enzyme of the translation system, glycyl-tRNA synthetase (GlyRS). The translation system often shows a phylogenetic tree that is similar to the rRNA tree. Thus, it is likely that the tree represents the evolutionary route of the organisms. The maximum-likelihood tree of alpha(2) type GlyRS was constructed. From this analysis the ancestral sequence of GlyRS was deduced and individual or pairs of ancestral residues were introduced into Thermus thermophilus GlyRS. The ancestral mutants were expressed in Escherichia coli, purified and activity measured. The thermostability of eight mutated proteins was evaluated by CD (circular dichroism) measurements. Six mutants showed higher thermostability than wild-type enzyme and seven mutants showed higher activity than wild-type enzyme at 70 degrees C, suggesting an extremely thermophilic translation system in the common ancestor Commonote.


Note that it doesn't just show that the inferred ancestral sequence works. It shows that the inferred ancestral sequence has specific properties predicted based on evolution!


Does that evidence not count? You said
 
Quote
†Anyway, I also consider darwinian evolution to be probably the
biggest hoax in the last millenium. How it got as far as it has with
absolutely no observational and experimental evidence to support it
boggles my mind.

Please retract that statement or say why qetzal has got it wrong.

Or just ignore this post.

--------------
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 Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
dvunkannon



Posts: 1377
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 05 2008,13:00   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Sep. 04 2008,21:43)
Quote (charlie wagner @ Sep. 04 2008,19:24)
Pre-programming would not require a knowledge of future events...[major snippage of irrelevant passages borrowed from Charlie's website]

Let's see if I can accurately parse what you are saying.

Earlier you stated: "An algorithm is a finite set of well-defined instructions for accomplishing some task which, given an initial state, will terminate in a defined end-state."

Glad to see Charlie's solved the Halting Problem. Get that Fields Medal ready.

--------------
Iím referring to evolution, not changes in allele frequencies. - Cornelius Hunter
Iím not an evolutionist, Iím a change in allele frequentist! - Nakashima

  
charlie wagner



Posts: 24
Joined: Aug. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2008,16:02   

Quote
Glad to see Charlie's solved the Halting Problem. Get that Fields Medal ready.


The question is, given a program and an input to the program, whether the program will eventually halt when run with that input. In this abstract framework, there are no resource limitations of memory or time on the program's execution; it can take arbitrarily long, and use arbitrarily much storage space, before halting. The question is simply whether the given program will ever halt on a particular input.
But with the halting problem, there is only one input. In nature, there are an unlimited number of inputs available to the program.
It's early on in this work. It seems significant to me that the
"instruction manual", the part that controls the functioning of the
genes is many times larger than the coding sequences themselves. The
idea that this non-coding region of the genome was "junk, left over from
evolution", is most likely wrong. The really important instructions may
well reside in the non-coding regions, rather than in the coding regions.
I believe the genome is
dynamic and responsive, rather than static and passive. I believe that
the mechanism is present for dynamic modifications to occur. The genome,
whether each individual genome or some kind of universal genome, made up
of a pool of all of the instructions that can be exchanged among
participants, is nothing short of a universal automaton. It can
manufacture any other biochemical machine, no matter how complex it is,
from the basic functional units, proteins, which can be manufactured in
infinite numbers and varieties.
All that is needed is the correct
information and the basic functional units.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2008,17:06   

Quote (charlie wagner @ Sep. 11 2008,16:02)
 
Quote
Glad to see Charlie's solved the Halting Problem. Get that Fields Medal ready.


The question is, given a program and an input to the program, whether the program will eventually halt when run with that input. In this abstract framework, there are no resource limitations of memory or time on the program's execution; it can take arbitrarily long, and use arbitrarily much storage space, before halting. The question is simply whether the given program will ever halt on a particular input.
But with the halting problem, there is only one input. In nature, there are an unlimited number of inputs available to the program.
It's early on in this work. It seems significant to me that the
"instruction manual", the part that controls the functioning of the
genes is many times larger than the coding sequences themselves. The
idea that this non-coding region of the genome was "junk, left over from
evolution", is most likely wrong. The really important instructions may
well reside in the non-coding regions, rather than in the coding regions.
I believe the genome is
dynamic and responsive, rather than static and passive. I believe that
the mechanism is present for dynamic modifications to occur. The genome,
whether each individual genome or some kind of universal genome, made up
of a pool of all of the instructions that can be exchanged among
participants, is nothing short of a universal automaton. It can
manufacture any other biochemical machine, no matter how complex it is,
from the basic functional units, proteins, which can be manufactured in
infinite numbers and varieties.
All that is needed is the correct
information and the basic functional units.

What are you doing about it then?

--------------
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 Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Lowell



Posts: 101
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2008,17:13   

Nice cut-and-paste from wikipedia, Charlie:
 
Quote
The question is, given a program and an input to the program, whether the program will eventually halt when run with that input. In this abstract framework, there are no resource limitations of memory or time on the program's execution; it can take arbitrarily long, and use arbitrarily much storage space, before halting. The question is simply whether the given program will ever halt on a particular input.


--------------
The resurrection of Jesus Christ is one of the most well documented events of antiquity. Barry Arrington, Jan 17, 2012.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2008,17:42   

Ouch. Straight up plagiarism to go along with his main course of hand waving.

   
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2008,17:53   

Quote (charlie wagner @ Sep. 11 2008,17:02)
It's early on in this work. It seems significant to me that the
"instruction manual", the part that controls the functioning of the
genes is many times larger than the coding sequences themselves...

None of which is responsive, in the slightest degree, to the questions I posed here.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2008,18:01   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Sep. 11 2008,23:53)
Quote (charlie wagner @ Sep. 11 2008,17:02)
It's early on in this work. It seems significant to me that the
"instruction manual", the part that controls the functioning of the
genes is many times larger than the coding sequences themselves...

None of which is responsive, in the slightest degree, to the questions I posed here.

I do hope, for the sake of my appreciation of your intellectual contributions, that you are not SURPRISED by this. ;-)

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2008,18:24   

Quote (dvunkannon @ Sep. 05 2008,13:00)
 
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Sep. 04 2008,21:43)
Quote (charlie wagner @ Sep. 04 2008,19:24)
Pre-programming would not require a knowledge of future events...[major snippage of irrelevant passages borrowed from Charlie's website]

Let's see if I can accurately parse what you are saying.

Earlier you stated: "An algorithm is a finite set of well-defined instructions for accomplishing some task which, given an initial state, will terminate in a defined end-state."

Glad to see Charlie's solved the Halting Problem. Get that Fields Medal ready.

Maybe I'm slow today, but could you step through how Charlie's quote (of Wikipedia, yet again) implies solution of the halting problem?

There are any number of issues on which Charlie needs correction, and certainly plagiarism is no sign of virtue, but I'm not sure the charge laid above is justified.

ETA: OK, I can see that the no-knowledge pre-programming comment combined with the definition can lead to that implication. Never mind.

Edited by Wesley R. Elsberry on Sep. 11 2008,18:36

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

    
Venus Mousetrap



Posts: 201
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2008,18:28   

Charlie: nice, but the evidence shows that it's junk... occasionally easily identifiable junk which allows us to predict evolutionary relationships, exactly as if they had evolved. Do we just ignore that?

Not only that, but the theory of evolution gives the perfect reason for junk to be there at all - you try programming an evolutionary algorithm, and I bet you junk will form spontaneously. You'd actually have to specifically remove it if you didn't want any. Do we just ignore that and go with your reasoning, which has no evidence whatsoever?

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2008,18:38   

I think dvunkannon was confusing 'algorithm' with 'any finite program'. Easy error to make.

   
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2008,18:43   

of course, i'm not an expert in those fields so the error could be mine.

   
charlie wagner



Posts: 24
Joined: Aug. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2008,18:43   

Quote
What are you doing about it then?


Making pretty fractals...



and pies!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HC7KABegj0

  
charlie wagner



Posts: 24
Joined: Aug. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2008,18:46   

Quote
Nice cut-and-paste from wikipedia, Charlie:


Yes...So what?

  
charlie wagner



Posts: 24
Joined: Aug. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2008,18:55   

Quote
Straight up plagiarism to go along with his main course of hand waving.


Gosh, you sound just like a Republican!!

Use a red-herring to divert attention from the real issue.

[
Quote
Fair use is a doctrine in United States copyright law that allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders, such as use for scholarship or review. It provides for the legal, non-licensed citation or incorporation of copyrighted material in another author's work under a four-factor balancing test. It is based on free speech rights provided by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The term "fair use" is unique to the United States, and recently to Israel and the UK as well; a similar principle, fair dealing, exists in some other common law jurisdictions. Civil law jurisdictions have other limitations and exceptions to copyright.

United States trademark law also incorporates a "fair use" defense, which also stems from the First Amendment of the U.S. constitution.

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2008,18:56   

Quote (Louis @ Sep. 11 2008,19:01)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Sep. 11 2008,23:53)
 
Quote (charlie wagner @ Sep. 11 2008,17:02)
It's early on in this work. It seems significant to me that the
"instruction manual", the part that controls the functioning of the
genes is many times larger than the coding sequences themselves...

None of which is responsive, in the slightest degree, to the questions I posed here.

I do hope, for the sake of my appreciation of your intellectual contributions, that you are not SURPRISED by this. ;-)

Louis

I'll admit I was hoping for an answer that was at least wrong.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
charlie wagner



Posts: 24
Joined: Aug. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2008,19:00   

Quote
Charlie: nice, but the evidence shows that it's junk... occasionally easily identifiable junk which allows us to predict evolutionary relationships, exactly as if they had evolved. Do we just ignore that?

Not only that, but the theory of evolution gives the perfect reason for junk to be there at all - you try programming an evolutionary algorithm, and I bet you junk will form spontaneously. You'd actually have to specifically remove it if you didn't want any. Do we just ignore that and go with your reasoning, which has no evidence whatsoever?


With all due respect, you are about 10 years behind the curve. Start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2008,19:01   

Quote (charlie wagner @ Sep. 11 2008,19:55)
Quote
Fair use blah blah blah

You weren't accused of copyright violation numbnuts, you were accused of plagiarism.

   
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2008,19:02   

I retract the word 'numbnuts'. It was undignified.

   
rhmc



Posts: 340
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2008,19:05   

Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 11 2008,20:02)
I retract the word 'numbnuts'. It was undignified.

but highly accurate.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2008,19:05   

Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 11 2008,17:01)
Quote (charlie wagner @ Sep. 11 2008,19:55)
 
Quote
Fair use blah blah blah

You weren't accused of copyright violation numbnuts, you were accused of plagiarism.

Wow. So according to Charlie, if some undergrad gets nailed for plagiarism on a term paper, it's okay because it's 'fair use'?

There's nothing that magical term won't cover!

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2008,19:06   

Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 11 2008,17:02)
I retract the word 'numbnuts'. It was undignified.

Is 'dumbass' closer to what you're trying to evoke?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2008,19:28   

Charlie!



(The Flying Spaghetti Monster shown to be fractal.)

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
charlie wagner



Posts: 24
Joined: Aug. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2008,19:34   

Quote
Let's see if I can accurately parse what you are saying.

Earlier you stated: "An algorithm is a finite set of well-defined instructions for accomplishing some task which, given an initial state, will terminate in a defined end-state."


Correct.
Quote

You also earlier stated: "What you call evolution is the dynamic unfolding of these pre-existing algorithms."


If I understand you correctly, you are postulating the storage of algorithms consisting of well-defined instructions that, given specific initial states, terminate in defined end-states.


Correct. But the "end states" are the cellular machinery and the basic body plans. (homeobox, etc).
Quote

You don't state whether those initial states are also stored with the algorithms.


Most are, but there is epigenetic inputs as well, which
probably originate in the ambient environment.

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2008,19:40   

Quote (charlie wagner @ Sep. 11 2008,20:34)
Quote
Let's see if I can accurately parse what you are saying.

Earlier you stated: "An algorithm is a finite set of well-defined instructions for accomplishing some task which, given an initial state, will terminate in a defined end-state."


Correct.
 
Quote

You also earlier stated: "What you call evolution is the dynamic unfolding of these pre-existing algorithms."


If I understand you correctly, you are postulating the storage of algorithms consisting of well-defined instructions that, given specific initial states, terminate in defined end-states.


Correct. But the "end states" are the cellular machinery and the basic body plans. (homeobox, etc).
 
Quote

You don't state whether those initial states are also stored with the algorithms.


Most are, but there is epigenetic inputs as well, which
probably originate in the ambient environment.

Fine.

Now address my question regarding how this postulated combination of stored algorithms and mostly (but not entirely) stored inputs manages to generate organisms that are adapted to highly contingent, unforeseeable environments that arise millions and/or billions of years after the pre-storage of those algorithms.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Jkrebs



Posts: 365
Joined: Sep. 2004

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2008,20:13   

What a beautiful fractal - is it from the Mandelbrot set, or do you know?

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2008,20:29   

Quote (Jkrebs @ Sep. 11 2008,21:13)
What a beautiful fractal - is it from the Mandelbrot set, or do you know?

It is a chunk of the Mandelbrot. Taken from a spiral that can be seen at:

x = -1.941558464320810

y = 0.000112771806258

w = 0.000000382674917

If you have the Mandelbrot on Cocoa application it is the gallery image entitled, aptly enough, "double helix."

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2008,20:32   



ETA: The Flying Spaghetti Monster family clasping appendages.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2008,22:26   

Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 11 2008,19:02)
I retract the word 'numbnuts'. It was undignified.

Steve, I'm shocked! You are normally so proper and dignified. What happened?

Was it the idea that plagerism and copyright violations are not the same thing? Was it the support from wiki in the following link? What?

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
dvunkannon



Posts: 1377
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2008,22:55   

Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 11 2008,19:38)
I think dvunkannon was confusing 'algorithm' with 'any finite program'. Easy error to make.

Hi Steve,

Charlie's definition of algorithm (which I was criticising via crushing satire) equaled finite program, as does the Wikipedia "an algorithm is a sequence of finite instructions". It's exactly that point which makes the claim in his definition so funny that algorithms are known to halt (or not). If there is another rigorous definition of algorithm that includes inifinite sequences, I'm unaware of it.

In passing I'll mention WB Langdon's paper I cited on the Sciency thread a couple days ago in which he shows that on a statistical basis, the answer to the Halting Problem is No, as algorithms get longer and longer.

Cheers,
David

--------------
Iím referring to evolution, not changes in allele frequencies. - Cornelius Hunter
Iím not an evolutionist, Iím a change in allele frequentist! - Nakashima

  
dvunkannon



Posts: 1377
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2008,23:50   

Quote (charlie wagner @ Sep. 11 2008,17:02)
The genome,
whether each individual genome or some kind of universal genome, made up
of a pool of all of the instructions that can be exchanged among
participants, is nothing short of a universal automaton. It can
manufacture any other biochemical machine, no matter how complex it is,
from the basic functional units, proteins, which can be manufactured in
infinite numbers and varieties.
All that is needed is the correct
information and the basic functional units.

That is just so much handwaving BS.

The genome (a string of DNA) of any creature is not an automaton. You could argue that a ribosome is an automaton. DNA is a sequence of instructions, but the instructions set in not "Turing complete" because there is no looping construct. There is no way to tell the ribosome to go back thirty codons or forward five.

The ribosomal automaton reading the DNA sequence cannot make any other biochemical machine. It can make linear strings of 20 amino acids. Many drugs are not proteins. Sugars and fats are not proteins. All biochemistry does not equal protein chemistry.

Further, these amino acids are not infinite in variety. They are 20 out of many many more. We can create biochemical machines that use amino acids that no genome codes for, no tRNA transcribes.

The analogy of computers to biology is often overstated. You have done so.

--------------
Iím referring to evolution, not changes in allele frequencies. - Cornelius Hunter
Iím not an evolutionist, Iím a change in allele frequentist! - Nakashima

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 12 2008,02:51   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Sep. 12 2008,00:56)
Quote (Louis @ Sep. 11 2008,19:01)
 
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Sep. 11 2008,23:53)
Quote (charlie wagner @ Sep. 11 2008,17:02)
It's early on in this work. It seems significant to me that the
"instruction manual", the part that controls the functioning of the
genes is many times larger than the coding sequences themselves...

None of which is responsive, in the slightest degree, to the questions I posed here.

I do hope, for the sake of my appreciation of your intellectual contributions, that you are not SURPRISED by this. ;-)

Louis

I'll admit I was hoping for an answer that was at least wrong.

Pauli's "ganz falsch" applies to many things, but we encounter it most clearly in the various species of creationism.

Love your optimism. ;-)

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
charlie wagner



Posts: 24
Joined: Aug. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 12 2008,10:24   

Quote
Now address my question regarding how this postulated combination of stored algorithms and mostly (but not entirely) stored inputs manages to generate organisms that are adapted to highly contingent, unforeseeable environments that arise millions and/or billions of years after the pre-storage of those algorithms.


Sorry to disappoint you but I don't know.

The only thing I know for sure is that I don't know everything.

Quote
One thing only I know, and that is that I know nothing.
Socrates

  
charlie wagner



Posts: 24
Joined: Aug. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 12 2008,10:49   

Quote
That is just so much handwaving BS.

The genome (a string of DNA) of any creature is not an automaton. You could argue that a ribosome is an automaton. DNA is a sequence of instructions, but the instructions set in not "Turing complete" because there is no looping construct. There is no way to tell the ribosome to go back thirty codons or forward five.

The ribosomal automaton reading the DNA sequence cannot make any other biochemical machine. It can make linear strings of 20 amino acids. Many drugs are not proteins. Sugars and fats are not proteins. All biochemistry does not equal protein chemistry.

Further, these amino acids are not infinite in variety. They are 20 out of many many more. We can create biochemical machines that use amino acids that no genome codes for, no tRNA transcribes.

The analogy of computers to biology is often overstated. You have done so.


How do you know that a genome is not an automaton?
How do you know that a genome cannot make any other biochemical machine?
How do you know that amino acids are not infinite in variety?
How do you know that biological processes are not analogous to our concept of computers?

The human brain is an analog computer and much research has been done with DNA computers:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_Genes

Talk about "hand-waving"!

  
charlie wagner



Posts: 24
Joined: Aug. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 12 2008,11:10   

This is worth printing out here.
(from Wikipedia)

What is a Computational Gene ?

A computational gene is a molecular automaton consisting of a structural and functional part which is designed such that it might work in a cellular environment. The structural part is a naturally occurring gene, which is used as a skeleton to encode the input and the transitions of the automaton. The conserved features of a structural gene (e.g., DNA polymerase binding site, start and stop codons, and splicing sites) serve as constants of the computational gene, while the coding regions, the number of exons and introns, the position of start and stop codon, and the automata theoretical variables (symbols, states, and transitions) are the design parameters of the computational gene. The constants and the design parameters are linked by several logical and biochemical constraints (e.g., encoded automata theoretic variables must not be recognized as splicing junctions). The input of the automaton are molecular markers given by single stranded DNA (ssDNA) molecules. These markers are signalling aberrant (e.g., carcinogenic) molecular phenotype and turn on the self-assembly of the functional gene. If the input is accepted, the output encodes a double stranded DNA (dsDNA) molecule, a functional gene which should be successfully integrated into the cellular transcription and translation machinery producing a wild type protein or an anti-drug. †Otherwise, a rejected input will assemble into a partially dsDNA molecule which cannot be translated.

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 12 2008,12:11   

Quote (charlie wagner @ Sep. 12 2008,11:24)
Quote
Now address my question regarding how this postulated combination of stored algorithms and mostly (but not entirely) stored inputs manages to generate organisms that are adapted to highly contingent, unforeseeable environments that arise millions and/or billions of years after the pre-storage of those algorithms.


Sorry to disappoint you but I don't know.

The only thing I know for sure is that I don't know everything.

Quote
One thing only I know, and that is that I know nothing.
Socrates

But that's the most important question Darwin originally, and evolutionary theory since, have answered.

Vague talk about automatons and algorithms that goes no distance to address this central question gets you nowhere if you can't offer a more compelling explanation than the one we have in hand.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
dvunkannon



Posts: 1377
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 12 2008,12:52   

Quote (charlie wagner @ Sep. 12 2008,11:49)
† † †
Quote
That is just so much handwaving BS.

The genome (a string of DNA) of any creature is not an automaton. You could argue that a ribosome is an automaton. DNA is a sequence of instructions, but the instructions set in not "Turing complete" because there is no looping construct. There is no way to tell the ribosome to go back thirty codons or forward five.

The ribosomal automaton reading the DNA sequence cannot make any other biochemical machine. It can make linear strings of 20 amino acids. Many drugs are not proteins. Sugars and fats are not proteins. All biochemistry does not equal protein chemistry.

Further, these amino acids are not infinite in variety. They are 20 out of many many more. We can create biochemical machines that use amino acids that no genome codes for, no tRNA transcribes.

The analogy of computers to biology is often overstated. You have done so.


How do you know that a genome is not an automaton?

Because I've read descriptions of the genetic machinery of the cell. The genome is stored information, not the machine that reads the information.
† † †
Quote

How do you know that a genome cannot make any other biochemical machine?


Because we know that the product of the ribosome is a linear string of amino acids, and we know that there are other biochemical objects that are not linear strings of amino acids.
†  
Quote
How do you know that amino acids are not infinite in variety?

Because we've counted the amino acids used in protein synthesis, there are 20. We know others, but protein chemistry only uses 20. There are only 64 slots in the code table of the gemone, some amino acids are specified more than once.
Quote
How do you know that biological processes are not analogous to our concept of computers?

No analogy is perfect. The instructon set of the genome is not Turing complete.

† †  
Quote
The human brain is an analog computer and much research has been done with DNA computers:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_Genes

Talk about "hand-waving"!

Yup, that article is full of it. Full of speculation. But note that no genome has a "computational gene", this is a human invention (yet to be proved) that leverages existing natural functions, but adds things that have never existed in a natural genome.

--------------
Iím referring to evolution, not changes in allele frequencies. - Cornelius Hunter
Iím not an evolutionist, Iím a change in allele frequentist! - Nakashima

  
cewagner



Posts: 41
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2008,18:04   

http://enigma.charliewagner.com

Monday, September 29, 2008
Out Of Her League

Sunday, September 21, 2008
These People are Friggin' CRAZY!!!

   
simmi



Posts: 38
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2008,19:03   

Quote (dvunkannon @ Sep. 12 2008,13:52)


† † † †  
Quote

How do you know that a genome cannot make any other biochemical machine?


Because we know that the product of the ribosome is a linear string of amino acids, and we know that there are other biochemical objects that are not linear strings of amino acids.


Hate to be pedantic, but this is not strictly true. †The ribosome itself is a gene product, and it's not (only) a protein. †The catalytic part consists of RNA. †The genome doesn't only produce proteins - it also produces RNA, some of which is catalytic (ribozymes), others which play other roles (mRNA, tRNA).

Everything else you said was correct, and even what I said above fits into what you said - RNA polymerase can be thought of as an automaton, just like the ribosome.

  
  185 replies since Aug. 11 2008,18:35 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (7) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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