AE BB DB Explorer


Action:
Author:
Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):


form_srcid: Chris Hyland

form_srcid: Chris Hyland

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is 23.20.33.176

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

form_author:

form_srcid: Chris Hyland

q: SELECT AUTHOR, MEMBER_NAME, IP_ADDR, POST_DATE, TOPIC_ID, t1.FORUM_ID, POST, POST_ID, FORUM_VIEW_THREADS from ib_forum_posts AS t1 LEFT JOIN (ib_member_profiles AS t2, ib_forum_info AS t3) ON (t1.forum_id = t3.forum_id AND t1.author = t2.member_id) WHERE MEMBER_NAME like 'Chris Hyland%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC

DB_err:

DB_result: Resource id #4

Date: 2006/01/19 01:01:14, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
More information on the Intelligent Designers = Space Aliens theory here.

Date: 2006/01/19 04:17:08, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Why does the Disco ignore this?

Im pretty sure knowing the identity and purpose of the designer is the last thing they want to happen. As soon as ID becomes testable it's finished. Although they'd still try and get it taught in schools.

Date: 2006/01/19 05:07:11, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Here's a conversation I've had too many times:

Religious Person: Why don't you follow the bible?

Me: Because its self contradictory and innacurate, the creation and noahs flood are not only scientifically innacurate, but are just rip-offs of older stories. Plus theres a lot of weird stuff in there about how you shouldnt eat shellfish and how you can sell your daughter into slavery.

Religious Person: Yes but all thats in the old testament you dont have to follow that literally.

Me: Thats good then, because the ten commandments are in the old testament and i rather fancied going on a killing spree this afternoon, followed by a spot of coveting this evening.

RP: Well, obviously you have to follow those but you need to study the bible and undertsand which bits are literally true and which arent.

Me: Fair enough, please may I borrow your copy of the official church guide to which bits of the bible are true and which arent.

RP: There isnt one.

Me: Well if all morality comes from the bible, and you have to decide yourself which bits are true and which bits arent, how come there arent still people selling their daughters into slavery and stoning each other to death. Is it in fact because morality is based mainly on human history and experience.

RP: I guess so.

And the moral of this story is: The bible is completely consistent with science if you ignore the bits which didn't happen.

Date: 2006/01/19 05:30:49, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Will those morons ever stop babbling about "Junk DNA"?

Especially as people have known about functional non protein coding RNAs for about twenty years as far as I'm aware. Im not sure how this has anything to with ID.

Date: 2006/01/19 06:23:08, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Thats terrible, makes me glad I live in the heathen moral-free secular West.

Date: 2006/01/19 07:04:09, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Is that lunatic preacher in the USA "Pat Robertson?"

I live in England, and until he was on the news for his remarks over Katrina, most people i told about Roberston thought i was making him up. In a country run by him i would have been burned for heresy years ago.

Date: 2006/01/22 13:41:45, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
You allow, however, that translation errors have occurred, and hyperbole, metaphors, and other figures of speech were used.

I agree its not fair to try and interpret the entire bible literally, but why then should we not just take the resurrection etc as metaphor.

Quote
can you you tell us why people now live as tenth as long as they did back then?

An interesting question for further creationist research. Presumably either God altered their genes to extend their lifespan, or altered ours to shorten it.

Date: 2006/01/23 02:48:35, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Isn't it a bit odd that UD has banners that link to This Page.

Quote
The bottom line is that while the math and science in support of guided non-Darwinian evolution is extraordinary, compelling, and interesting to a fault

No comment, although I'm interested to see if the next edition of Pandas replaces intelligent design with 'guided non-Darwinian evolution'.

Quote
Someone needs to slap these clergy upside the head and tell them they don’t have to compromise their faith in God to accommodate some godless story of evolution foisted upon us by the likes of Richard Dawkins or the National Academy of Atheist Sciences.

I thought he was banning people for talking about religion?

Date: 2006/01/23 03:55:14, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
You see, you comfort yourself that you have rationally decided against believing, but in fact that’s not the case at all—it is impossible for you to believe unless you are drawn by God.

Does this mean that god chooses who believes in him and who doesnt? That seems a little unfair. If people did believe but then lost their faith does this mean god abondoned them, or they didnt really believe all along?

Date: 2006/01/23 06:29:04, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Does this mean that god chooses who believes in him and who doesnt? That seems a little unfair. If people did believe but then lost their faith does this mean god abondoned them, or they didnt really believe all along?

Quote
Yes—and yes it seems unfair—and yes it means that they really didn’t believe all along (or that they will return, as it were.) If you are actually interested in this theological position, I have started a series on it here


I have read your posts on predetermination, although I have been told many times that all of my actions are selfish and sinful, i have never been told that this is all preditermined and there is nothing i can do about it. Is a good act then defined as one that is done in pursuit of god, or one that is done by someone who is preditermined to follow god?

This does go some way to explain why a lot of people say you need religion to have morals, but it also widens the gap between religion and atheism if there are many people who simply cant be saved. And im sure you've heard this one before, but i take exception to being told that my good deeds are selfish and evil when someone else, (referring to the majority of religious people) whos primary motivation for good deeds is securing eternal life for themselves is not selfish.

Date: 2006/01/24 12:03:36, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Ideas and evidence in science

1) Students should be taught:
...
b. how scientific controversies can arise from different ways of interpreting empirical evidence [for example, Darwin's theory of evolution]
...


Although it could be misused, when i was being taught evolution in high school, creationism was occasionally referred to as an example of misrepresentation of scientific evidence. Since i did my gcse's fairly recently ('99), the bacterial flagellum was discussed both as an example of how molecular evolution is misunderstood (ie the 'take away one part' argument, although ID and IC were not named), and how just because we don't know something doesn't mean we never will.

Do you have any links to examples of how current schools have been teaching creationsim/ID, or how the new legislation will help them? I will then be certainly writing to my MP and whoever else can think of.

I have recently been worried to learn as well there are several AIG ministeries in the UK, I think i might have to pop along to their talk at Liverpool university.

Date: 2006/01/24 13:09:34, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
do you have any links to examples of how current schools have been teaching creationsim/ID, or how the new legislation will help them?

This is pretty disturbing.

Quote
Legislation lays down that independent schools can go their own way in many things - they do not have to abide by the national curriculum

Do will know if this will apply to the new schools Tony Blair is proposing?

Quote
for children at ACE schools the literal interpretation of Genesis permeates everything they are taught. ... Tom Price has five children at the school, and loves that they are being taught that the six-day creation story is a fact


Im surprised Richard Dawkins didn't made a bigger deal out of this in his program.

Date: 2006/01/25 04:00:31, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
It costs about £30K/year to atend Eton, it has fantastic facilities 24Hr accomodation and the kids are fed. Do you have any idea why a prison is so much more expensive/year?

Apparently it costs about £600 a week to keep someone in prison, which works out as £31200 a year so comparable to Eton. Although apparently this is still value for money.

http://www.civitas.org.uk/pubs/prisonValue.php

I dont know about most prisons but the prison near where i grew up was exactly like a center parcs, and our school and many local sports teams used to use their gym and other facilities as there were a lot better than we had. So this may account for some of the costs.

My MP is a liberal democrat so he already is against Tony Blairs plans, but im sure they wouldn't mind one more reason to reject them.

Date: 2006/01/26 02:26:58, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Well it doesnt sound too unbelievable any more, thats pretty worrying.

Quote
was it Pat something?


Its Pat robertson, if you go to this link it has a video about the dover case which includes a clip of what he said. Wikipedia also has a great list of quotes. I think its important we let everyone know the kind of people that support creationism in America.

Does anyone know what percentage of the population are religious? I know on the census it was pretty high but in polls i thought it only came to about 20%.

Date: 2006/01/26 04:23:17, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
I am starting to think that ID should be taught. Taught for exactly what it is


I agree, it is a great example of how prior bias can affect the interpretation of scientific evidence, which is something that needs to be taught. Irreducible complexity is a good example of how evolution does not work simply by incremental addition of parts and therefore a good introduction to duplication, HGT cooption etc. Also it would be useful to explain how the argument from ignorance is not a valid scientific argument, and that the 'gaps in the theory of evolution' are in fact questions which lead to new lines of scientific enquiry. I think teaching ID in this manner may actually be of some benefit to high school education, and long as the standards were stated clearly so they were not open to abuse.

Date: 2006/01/31 04:57:34, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
I have just printed it out and will read it later


It’s an interesting read, although if you’re looking to try and refute it I wouldn’t bother. I asked him a series of questions on his post on UD, and just got this in reply:
Quote
I don’t know how many times I have to say this but chance never had anything to do with either evolution or development. Got that? Write that down.


The problem with any 'frontloading' hypothesis is that it requires complete predetermination of all environmental and random genetic changes. However since he has stated in other posts on UD that he believes this is the case, this gets around most criticisms of his theory.

Date: 2006/02/04 14:05:14, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
No one has ever seen a dog turn into a cat in a laboratory

I did once, although i was in the bathroom when it happened, and the lab door was open so people say the dog just wandered out and a cat wandered in. But it did happen goddamnit!

Date: 2006/02/04 14:09:09, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
A great quote from Stewart Lee, creator of Jerry Springer The Opera:
Quote
In the West, Christianity relinquished the right to be protective of its icons the day Virgin Mary snow globes were put up for sale at the Vatican.


I found that cartoon unfunny offensive and in bad taste, but i couldnt imagine living in a place where that kind of thing was censored. Then i remembered that Tony Blair is trying to pass a law that will make mocking religion illegal. Although i hope the dont take advice on the punishment from the people in this story otherwise im in big trouble.

Date: 2006/02/04 14:24:02, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
But there was nothing there anyway except John Davison singing to himself

Hopefully when he realises no one cares he'll get rouund to answering my questions about his hypothesis.

Quote
I honestly believe the best way to stop the whole ID movement is to encourage them

I agree, maybe we should help by coming up with some research ideas for them, at least that might shut them up for a while. The problem is the great deal of people who think that the design inference and Darwins black box are enough to prove design and disprove evolution, and that no more science can be done until everyone else agrees with them.

Date: 2006/02/04 14:30:14, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Maybe Pat Robertson, although i think he does occasionally advocate violence, at least of the godly retribution kind.

Date: 2006/02/05 12:37:01, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
The speech codes are not for immigrants
Although there's a good chance they weren't immigrants, or even the children of immigrants, you do have a point. Under UK law these people are excercising freedom of speech, but if I made a banner saying 'The people who said that the cartoonists should be beheaded should be beheaded', I am commiting an act of incitement to racial violence.

Quote
And as immigration policies continue, expect to wave bye-bye to many more liberties
Unfortunately the immigrants are just scapegoats here. It helps if instead of thinking as the law being made to protect immigrants, the immigrants are just used as an excuse to enact the laws. I suspect we would have the same laws if there had been no immigration into Britain for a hundred years.

Date: 2006/02/06 01:56:28, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
As far as legal immigration goes, apart from in a few communities where immigrants do cause problems, most people in Britain do not have a problem, indeed in the long run the economy does benefit. As far as refugees and asylum seekers are concerned, the annoying thing is that Britiain should have very few, as according to the Geneva convention refugees should stop at the first safe country they come to. Our law however is such that it is very easy to stay in Britain once you have been refused asylum, and so a large number head here, and our European neighbours do everthing in their power to help them get here.

Although in many cases of Islamic extremism (and I include the protesters with the banners under this description), the problem is caused by people who have been here for many generations, most of the problems in communities are caused by an influx of illegal immigrants.Even the racist fascist british national party will admit that most of the problems are caused by illegal immigrants due to government policy, as opposed to legal immigration, which is what they ussually claim.

Date: 2006/02/07 09:45:05, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
But it was blatantly obvious for some time that this guy condoned terrorism.


This is a real problem but i don't understand why this is the main thing people have against him when we've known for years:

He was the main planner and financier of the 1998 Yemen hostage taking and murder of British citizens.

He spent several years attempting to set up a terrorist cell in Oregon and provided fake passports among other things.

He has given money to al-qeada.

Legally he shouldnt be in the UK in the first place as he married a woman who was still married to her first husband.

Incedentally although he claimed he sustained his injuries fighting in Afghanistan they were actually a punishment for stealing when he was living in Saudi Arabia.

Regarding the riots: did anybody else find it weird that citizens in middle-eastern countries managed to get their hands on large quantities of Danish flags at extremely short notice.

Date: 2006/02/07 13:06:15, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
He seems to have got confused and thinks that the bacteria magically mutate the correct genes to cause resistance:
Quote
Bacteria being poisoned don’t wait around for a lucky mutation to solve the problem. They turn on a chemical defense complex that actively seeks a solution.


He also thinks that mutation in bacteria is Lamarckism and therefore disproves Darwinism:
Quote
This is a Lamarckian mechanism - inheritance of acquired characters


Quote
Random mutation on the other hand depends on sheer luck for the background mutation rate to hit the right gene in the right way
So increasing the mutation rate just makes it slightly less 'lucky'. He's also acting like this completely rules out uncontrolled random mutation, and that all bacteria have this mechanism.

Date: 2006/02/07 13:25:07, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
AA, while discriminating on the basis of race, does not assert that any group of people is inferior or superior to any other.
No, but it does assume that a particular group of people are inherently racist(At least thats how it works in Britain). Does that make it racist? I dont know. According to the Oxford English Dictionary
Quote
Racism: The theory that distinctive human characteristics and abilities are determined by race.
Quote
Racialism: Belief in the superiority of a particular race leading to prejudice and antagonism towards people of other races, esp. those in close proximity who may be felt as a threat to one's cultural and racial integrity or economic well-being.

Date: 2006/02/07 14:16:12, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
The reasoning being that simply making discrimination illegal doesn't stop it, which is certainly true.
I agree this is a big problem, but i know several people whos lives have been adversly affected  because of it. Also in Britain the law is written specifically to refer to minority discrimination, so it is perfectly legal for a minoirty boss to hire according to race. Another problem is that, for example, the metropolitan police decided that they were going to preferentailly hire 'ethnic' officers, but when asked could not give a description of what this was. At first they said, it what they tell us they are, which was replaced by, 'if they look darkish', finally resorting to 'we just go with what the home office tells us'. A friend of mine was rejected from a degree course because they had 'filled up their quota of white British people', but when asked could not give a good definition of what non-white was, or how they would decide before they had seen the people. Ironically my friend is American, so we can only assume they looked at 'ethnicity = caucasian' and the fact the name sounded English.

Date: 2006/02/08 02:55:10, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
What I'm trying to say about miracles is that if they occur, they are within the laws of nature, even if they are not within our current abilities to reproduce ourselves.
I couldn't have put it better myself

Quote
but it was also an attempt to do away with a need for God altogether
Since most antievolutionists seem to think we believe Darwin is still the ultimate authority on evolution, it is worth noting that he believed that god was the ultimate cause who created life, after which the process of evolution began.

Quote
The point of ID is that if the evidence points to a designer, we can't exclude it because we don't want it to be true.
This point seems to be lost under all the philosophical arguments about god and materialism: The evidence does not point to a designer. There are many arguments about whether evidence of design requires evidence of a designer, whether it violates the first ammendment etc, but they are currently irrelevant because their is no evidence of intelligent design in biological systems.

I know it cant be helped but it does sadden me that we have to resort to philosophical and political arguments, surely there must be laws which make it illegal to decieve children in schools.

Date: 2006/02/08 03:28:44, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
However, he is just plain wrong when he says that mutations are totally random

It is quite hard to work out on UD sometimes what they mean by random. In the antibiotic resistant post DaveScott uses nonradom to mean that the bacteria knows specificaly which genes it needs to mutate in order to gain antibiotic resistance. In my reply I use random to be the opposite of this, ie despite all the factors that affect mutation in parts of the genome, this does not have much affect on the chance that the correct mutation will be made to confer resistance. I seem to be having the same problem when talking to JAD about his theory, when I say that chromosome rearrangements are random and selectable, perhaps i should say 'mostly-random'.

Date: 2006/02/08 04:02:17, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
I know, but everyone else has been banned and i feel left out. The problem is there are several definitions of random and arguments about semantics are not my strong point. Anyway now Salvador Cordova is attacking systems biology which is my area and that makes me mad :angry:
Quote
Natural selection is death, and the last time I checked, death did not have the power to “bring together parts of a system” for any purpose whatsoever
Although i do fear i may be wasting my time.

Date: 2006/02/12 03:30:30, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Most of the biochemists and molecular biologists i work with, would probably agree that darwinian evolution is of little importance to their work, and that they could get on fine without it. They are just happy to clone their genes, assay their proteins, run their gels, and all the other things that they do that I dont entirely understand but am very glad I dont have to do myself.

As i bioinformatician, what I  do is give them the sequences and location of their genes, predicted structures and functions of their proteins, and all the other genomic information that they need to do their experments. The analysis of high-throughout data, be it genome sequncing and gene/protein prediction, or gene expression analysis etc, underpins much of modern biology. This also extends to medical research and drug discovery, one of my jobs is to locate drug targets in mircoorganisms using systems biology, and other people in my lab use molecular modelling to design drug candiates bases on the structures of these targets.

The point of me saying all this is that all of what I do along with most of the rest of the people in my field, does depend on 'how' these things evolved. Ive seen a lot of people on a lot of different threads saying that this doesnt matter, but unless the work of a designer is purposefully created to mimic a non designed system, it really does, designed systems have very different properties from non-designed systems. When we 'borrow' algorithms from computer science and electronic engineering to use on biological data, we have to adapt them to assume the formation of the system, be that a DNA sequence, a protein structure, or a molecular network, was the result of non-guided evolution, otherwise they dont work. I admit that many scientists do not even consider evolution when doing their work, but I have heard many people say that if we assumed it didnt happen, or we assume that organisms are designed, it wouldnt make a difference. Without evolution, modern biological and medical research would slow to a crawl.

Date: 2006/02/12 04:31:22, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Then there are also the heavenly planets where we will also find many of the same life forms of humans, animals, plants etc, except without anything imperfect e.g no disease, no growing old, no death, nothing bad going on at all, simply the enjoyment of pleasures by perfected people on into eternity.
Do hindus believe that this will eventually happen on earth, if so hinduism and futuirism have more incommon than i would have guessed.

I think a creationist once said, "If there is no creation story then there is no origional sin, therefore no need for christ to come to earth". I dont claim to be an expert on the bible, but this seems fairly sensible to me. Evolution says that their was no adam and eve (see above), and that man is not created in the image of god, and was unplanned. This seems pretty incompatible with christianity, if im wrong could someone explain it to me.

Having said that i used to work with someone who did a degree in phylogenetics and was a creationist. She didnt belive in evolution in any form, but it formed the entire basis of her work, and didnt affect how well she worked at all. I think perhaps that is easier for scientists, especially biologists to reconcile evolution with faith, as it is easier to ignore philosophical and theological implications, and therefore seperate the two.

Date: 2006/02/15 01:07:42, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
nothing in evolution make sense except in light of prescribed evolution from complex stem cell common ancestor...then everything fall neatly in place
I think Davsions had a stroke.

Date: 2006/02/16 03:13:58, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
I can't find who is being quoted here.  Can someone point me to it?
It was someone called 'moderatordingleberry', since he makes reference to prescribed evolution, and Davison has referred to Wesley as dingleberry before (Im not American what does dingleberry even mean?), I assumed it was him. That was before i saw that it was a quote from a DaveScott post on UD, so its probably just some random troll. The quote is in this thread somewhere i think.

Date: 2006/02/16 04:59:03, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
I cant remember exactly when I first heard about ID, it was sometime last year a couple of months before the Dover lawsuit, when I was browsing google news at work. Id heard of creationists before, but just brushed them off as weird religious people that werent really that important. This article talked about a large number of scientists who dissented from evolution, and that it was now possible to empirically detect design in biological structures. Specifically it mentioned the works of Behe and Dembski. So I looked them up on pubmed, and the only recent papers I found were comments and letters defending their books, or talking about how the 'Darwinians' were censoring them.

It turns out my university library had Darwins black box and No Free Lunch, so i decided to see what the fuss was all about. After deciding that they either needed a refresher course in evolution or they had some ulterior motive, i decided to check the internet, and found the NCSE website.

What really got me interested in the arguments was Behes statement to the effect 'Now that we can see inside cells we see that they are full of machines that have the characteristics of design', whereas most of the work in my field of bioinformatics shows that proteins and biological systems have distinctive characteristics of non-design. The fact that they seem to ignore this, and continually state 'design is obvious in nature' is of constant amusement to me.

Date: 2006/02/16 11:58:40, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
By the sound of it he is saying that all rearrangements are preprogrammed, based on the fact that particular sites in the genome are more likely to be involved in rearrangements than others. My main problem with frontloading, assuming that it was specifically designed to produce current species, is that the frontloader would have to have complete foreknowledge of all the random mutations and environmental conditions that would occur. Apparently the first bird hatched from the egg of a reptile this way. Also in comparing phylogeny with ontogeny he says that the environment is in no way involved with evolution as it isnt involved with development, and i think developmental biologists would have something to say about that.

Many lower species actually have genomes much larger than ours, but genome size has more to do with cell size and cell division rate than complexity. Plus, as far as Im aware, gene expression play just as much if not more of a role in evolution that chromosome rearragements.

Date: 2006/02/17 03:56:33, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
We've been looking for it.  Haven't been able to find it.  Not in the writings of any of the IDists, not in the natural world, not anywhere.
Thats because no one has found any, even if we assume that the motivations and philosophies of all the people involved are irrelevant. Lets also assume that the motivations, ablities and identities of the designer are not required to detect design. The problem is that ID proponents are saying they have the evidence. Dembski for example, says he has mathematical methods that can detect design, however he has yet to prove this. He has neither proved that non-intelligence is incapable of generating CSI, nor had he proved that his methods can distinguish design from non-design. Until this happens, whether or not the maths or the logic of his arguments add up is irrelevant. Im sure mathematicians will hate me for saying that, but in biology all that matters is that it can be proved to work, Dembski has not attempted this as far as I am aware.

Date: 2006/02/17 05:58:10, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Even if they had an actual comparitive method, they'd still have to assume the existence of "non-design".
You're right of course, but to give them the benefit of the doubt, it may be possible to test on non biological systems, perhaps using genetic algorithms, or some form of artificial life. Also, if Dembski has calculated the probability of the flagellum evolving, it should be possible to apply the same method to a biological system where we understand more about its evolution. Assuming the maths holds up to scrutiny, which it apparently doesn't, that might not prove intelligent design but it would be useful for them.

Of course if this worked it probably would have been done by now.

Date: 2006/02/17 06:54:41, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Well, at least here’s one critic of Darwinism who isn’t a Christian fundamentalist.
Im quite confused now, how as this got anything to do with design? I hear the term non-Darwinian evolution all the time, how is it support for Intelligent Design?

Quote
“If an alien found human engineering on Mars…”
“… Would they be able to detect products of intelligence and deduce that these objects had not evolved from the surrounding materials by chance?”
Maybe, and maybe this deduction can be transfered in to a mathematical process that can reliably infer design, but i have yet to see any empirical evidence of this.

Quote
So why is William Paley a has-been?  Sounds like they should hire his modern counterparts, like Michael Behe.
I never got the 'design is obvious in nature argument', to me there obviously isnt design in nature, luckily im supported by the evidence.

Quote
Doesn't that mean that the common ancester of humans and all other apes (which JAD and DS accept) had to be more complex than humans or any ape?
It depends what is meant by complex. I imagine by Dembskis definition the common ancestor would be more complex, but this is unlikely to correlate with phenotypic complexity. An analysis of metabolism for exapmle suggests that an ancestral eukaryote will have more metabolic genes than a human, but obviously does not make it a more complex organism in the sense most people would understand.

Date: 2006/02/17 12:38:42, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Its what I like to call the Tony Blair policy generation fallacy:
[Something][must be done]
[This half-assed badly thought out vaguley worded policy invented by a focus group] is [something]
[This half-assed badly thought out vaguley worded policy invented by a focus group] [must be done]

anyway...

Im just having a hard time picking a hole in DaveScotts logic, oh wait hang on...

Quote
3) no accidental means of assembly - controversial but none demonstrated
Yeah i think thats the problem, replace that with
Quote
3) no accidental means of assembly - empirical data showing that the flagellum and other complex biological systems  could not have evolved from unguided processes
and im sold.

Quote
Davidson smiled, somewhat ruefully, and said, “Well, I’m not sure, but I know that standard single-base-pair mutations won’t do it” — meaning, as he later explained to me, the textbook neo-Darwinism every college biology student learns.
I think i was about 14 or 15 when i was first taught about evolution in school. Was i taught that it was entirely due to single base pair mutations? Nope. Was i taught about gene duplication, horizontal transfer and co-option? Yes. Did the Ohio critical analysis of evolution lesson come after the one where they teach that its all about single base pair mutations? If so Ive figured a way to solve that problem.

Date: 2006/02/17 15:02:49, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Quote
Im sure mathematicians will hate me for saying that, but in biology all that matters is that it can be proved to work,
Much in NDE is also unproved.
Ill rephrase: in biology all that matters when you have a mathematical system that makes predictions is that it can be proved to work. I write programs that make predicitons based on biologial data, and it doesnt matter how good or bad the maths is, you have to prove that your method works on real data, has Dembski done this? I am not saying his method is rubbish, but I am saying he has not proved it. Until then it is not evidence for design.

Quote
But that IS the problem. In biology, everything has to interface perfectly.

No it doesn't. I think ths is a big part of the problem and the confusion, the assumtion that these system are perfect. A lot of these things are 'cobbled together' very crudely by any standards. It is often obvious to us how improvements could be made. In regards to how cooption works, you have to extrapolate to thousands or millions of members of a population, and maybe only one needs the proteins with the right mutation to come together (which are ussually floating around in solution, bumping into each other). When most people use analogies like parts in a garage, scrap in a junkyard etc it fails to take into account the nature of protein structure. They are often very malleable, and a small change can alter the biological function but still leave an active protein. For example in the flagellum we may say that removng one protein will cause the system to cease functioning, but we are making the assumption that the other proteins in the system were the same when this one was added. This is very unlikely to be the case, so evolution would predict that we see flagellum in other bacteria with parts missing, where the proteins that they would interact with are different, and that is what we see (and im not referring to the secretory system, there are many other examples).

Quote
Behe did his search of the literature and he testified that there were no good pathways in the literature.
I will have to find the link but there is a quote from Behe where he says that the evidence that would convince him involves a detailed step by step account of the pathway involving a list of individual mutations and time periods in which they occured. This is of course currently impossible for any system, including those that he accepts did evolve, such as haemoglobin. I dont think Behe is lying, and i think he may have read some of the articles, especially as there are books on the subject. But no one is attempting to produce an explenation that will satisfy him as it is unessecary as far as most scientists are concerned.

Date: 2006/02/19 06:49:03, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
When will morons like Pat Hayes cop to the fact that seeing the Virgin Mary’s face in a sidewalk stain is not the equivalent of seeing design in an interdependent network of subcellular biological nanomachinery so complex it makes the US Space Shuttle and all the supporting infrastructure at Cape Canaveral, right down to every nut, bolt, transister, and bit of software code, look simple in comparison?
This may be true, but parts of these networks are so inefficent and susceptable to error, that a NASA engineer would be immediately fired for designing them. DaveScot really is digging himself a hole by talking about networks and seems to be missing the main point. It is true, that engineers, mathematicians, and sociologists were working with networks long before biologists, so when biologists realised they needed to analyse biological networks they asked for help. I was possible to predict structural properties you would expect of biological networks assuming they had evolved as opposed to had been designed, and the networks indeed had these properties. Its nice to see PZ meyers post on genetic networks, systems biology is finally getting the recognition it deserves, :) . Although in one sense it is right to dismiss circuit boards as a bad analogy, it is interesting to note then when electronic circuits etc. are evolved with genetic algorithms, they exhibit the properties of biological networks. Creationists might see design in the networks, but I spend all day looking at them and I certainly dont, and Ive talked to dozens of engineers who work with them, and they dont either.

[quote]No one hijacked any of my threads. I deleted your comment because it was lewd. You’ve been warned over and over that I won’t tolerate lewdness here yet you persist. That’s too bad. I’ve no choice at this point but to exclude you from further participation here.[quote]

Sure some of Davisons posts were pretty fanatical, but i never would have described him as being lewd, even to people over here, or did i miss something.

ps for a good explination of why biological networks dont look designed see Deanne M. Taylor's posts on this thread.

Date: 2006/02/21 02:17:54, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”
Firstly, although this list is often contrasted with project Steve, I see no reason why someone couldn't honestly sign both. Secondly if it read [QUOTE]We are skeptical of claims for the ability of natural processes to account for the complexity of life. We believe that the scientific evidence overwhelmingly points to an intelligent designer being responsible for the creation and adaptation of life on earth." It might represent their position a little better.

Date: 2006/02/21 23:13:01, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
I dont know if this statement has much to do with evolution, drug discovery is a pretty inefficient process, so most of the failures wont have anything to do with the evolution of pathogens. Its simply a way of saying why the drugs are so exprensive. I think it costs about $800 million in total to get a drug onto the market, and many get most of the way there to fail in clinical trials. I dont think it has yet got to the point where it is worth the companies spending the money fighting the anti-science movement, although i wouldnt rule it out in the future.

Date: 2006/02/22 00:23:20, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Wouldn't that argue against there being a single adam (I've seen the y chromosome proves adam spiel) and/or a single eve (the seven daughters of eve)
There wasnt a single adam, there were many, probably thousands if you just include humans, nd of course evolutionarily speaking there is no clear barrier between species. When you hear genetic Adam or Eve referred to it means 'most recent common ancestor', so before them there are also many people who are the ancestors of all humans. Adam lived between 60-90 thousand years ago and Eve 150000 years ago.

Over at UD it seems that one of the main points of disagreement is we say natural causes is the null hypothesis and they say intelligence is the null hypothesis. Therefore to prove evolution and discount design we have to experimentally evolve the falgellum and a nucleus in the lab with modern bacteria. Of course, being the philosopher that I am, my general response to this would be 'What!?, are you a f****ing moron!?', does anyone have a slightly more eloquent way of putting this other than to point out that this is impossible so therefore a waste of time, because this doesnt seem to work. Neither does pointing out that we can infer the evolution of certain systems from our study of the evolution of others.

Date: 2006/02/22 03:58:05, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
one of the effects of having established churches in the UK (i.e. the Church of England and the Church of Scotland) is that schools regularly have classes like Religious Instruction and have religious school assemblies on a daily or weekly basis, with the odd trip to the local church thrown in. You would think that all this exposure to Christianity as children would increase the amount of religious people, but in truth the exposure is so watered down, so rote, that the effect has been the opposite.
I completely agree: because religion was part of the school routine, it became something to be made fun of and not taken seriously. Even though many teachers taught us religion as fact, most of the children when I left primary school had become at least agnostic because they no longer respected religion. It is also interesting to note that Tony Blair usually plays down his religion, except when it suits him, and his cheif press officer once said 'We dont do god'.

In answer to question 2, one thing i notice in deabtes is that people who dont understand the science often say that ID may afford attempts to answer the big questions such as why are we here, what is our purpose, etc. As George Monbiot put it:
Quote
Darwinian evolution tells us that we are incipient compost: assemblages of complex molecules that – for no greater purpose than to secure sources of energy against competing claims – have developed the ability to speculate. After a few score years, the molecules disaggregate and return whence they came. Period.
This is the problem: that many religious people believe that evolution renders life meaningless and without purpose, therefore they will reject it regardless of the scientific evidence. Personaly i feel sorry for people who think this, and suggest they have a long hard think about the things that really matter in life, but it is so important to them that nothing will change their minds. As Terminator once put it:
Quote
There is no fate but what we make

Date: 2006/02/22 05:01:42, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/847#comments

Apparently a pig containing a jellyfish gene is not a reliable indicator of design, because of horizontal gene transfer.

Date: 2006/02/22 05:15:05, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Your right, but the fact that they were all voted out suggests they were not representing the will of the people very well. I dont think the former board members should have to pay, although ignorance of the law is a crime, ignorance of science isnt, and i believe they were tricked in to adopting this policy. Most of the time though I am against 'elected officials are just acting in the will of the people so the people deserve what they get' arguments, mainly because its the argument used by suicide bombers.

Date: 2006/02/23 01:12:13, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Dr. Cheesman said he believed in creationism as a young man but developed doubts after he started studying geology, which he admits conclusively shows the world is billions of years old.

But his perusal of biological evidence has convinced him that evolution and the idea of natural selection and mutation of living organisms is not the key to all of life.
I would say after studying biology the evidence conclusively supports evolution, maybe I should peruse it a little longer.

Quote
For starters, it cannot explain how the whole process of life on Earth began, he said.

"If you look at the research into the origin of life, there isn't a single, plausible hypothesis or even proposed mechanism [within evolution] that would have worked," he said.

"That is the biggest shortcoming in the whole evolutionary scenario."
This is probably new to Canadians

Date: 2006/02/23 01:58:15, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Does NeoDarwian theory predict the impossibility of a flagellum or nucleus evolving in a laboratory culture?
A: The ancestral organism to E. coli that evolved the flagellum no longer exists. B: The process likely involved horizontal transfer from other unknown organisms. C: Even if it could happen using modern bacteria, it may take thousands or millions of years. So yes, as far as an actual laboratory experment that could be performed in all our lifetimes goes, it is pretty much impossible, and the prediction is meaningless. If your going to try and make witty smackdowns, i suggest reading up on a little biology.

Quote
As a related question for the biologists, I assume nobody is saying that chromosome rearrangements dont occur, just that they are not that huge a mechanism in evolution, and that when they do occur, they are frequently fatal?  I just want to rid myself of the last remaining sympathy for what JAD might be trying to say with his front loading hypothesis.
Chromosome rearrangements do occur, mostly they have no phenotypic affect whatsoever, occasionally they do cause problems, Down's syndrome is an example. It is likely that many of the differences between humans and chimps for example, are caused by chromosome rearrangements, but there is no reason though to suspect that this was not a product of evolution. Just as much if not more of the phenotypic difference is caused by small mutations in promoter sequences and transcription factors, affecting gene expression, I dont see how this is accounted for by frontloading models. Plus whoever 'frontloaded' in the first place would have to have complete foreknowledge of all random mutation and environmental conditions.

Date: 2006/02/23 02:37:08, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
No one can account even in a plausible way for how a system like the flagellum can have evolved.
No one is saying that we have an exact pathway, especially not to Behes requirements. But based on the understanding we have of the mechanisms of evolution, this is by far the most likely option. There is no part of the flagellum that couldnt have concievably come about by the mechanisms we are aware of. We have to infre our knowledge of the evolution of other protein complexes to this one, if this does not satisfy you then that is just too bad. Behe has to prove that the falgellum couldnt have evolved, and he tries to do so by use of bad analogies and misrepresentation of the nature of biological systems. I am happy to try and explain this, but some of it I did in a previous post in response to your questions about cooption. The flagellum exists in many different configurations in many different bacteria with various different parts missing, in each case the other parts, especially those that 'would interact' are also slightly different. As i said before a small change in a protein can lead to a large change in its functional properties, or vice-versa. To fully understand requires more knowledge about protein structure than i can explain in a couple of paragraphs.

I am sorry if I am coming off sounding like an arrogant scientist, but that is just the problem. I read Darwins black box before I had heard of the Pandas thumb, or the NCSE, or Talk Origins, or the Discovery Institute, and I knew that it was a load of rubbish. To fully appreciate that fact you do need to understand biochemistry and evolution quite well. This is the biggest problem with the whole ID debate, it has made the public distrust scientists, and demand techincal explenations. Do you really think that I do not really believe waht I am saying, or that I am ignoring the evidence for ID even though I see some truth in it?

Date: 2006/02/26 13:32:35, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
I'm of the opinion, and have been for some time, that the DI is NOT a ground-up grassroots organization.

It's a top-down political machine.
Quote
In my more cynical moments I sometimes wonder if the Discovery Institute and perhaps some or most of the fundamentalist movements are not just a big conspiracy to make religion look foolish.
In some of my more conpiracy theorist (read: drunken) moments I wonder if it isnt a conspiracy to get the public to distrust scientists.

Date: 2006/02/26 13:40:20, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
5. An error-correcting mechanism in cells which is different from the one currently known to be operating, and sufficient to protect unexpressed genetic material for billions of years.
I would actually have some respect for the frontloaders if their theory was that we were all just some big experiment (some, not much). But of course they reveal their true colours when they claim (as they all do) that man is a specific end goal of this process (how else could we be created in gods image?). So once theyve explained number 5, they also have to explain how they anticipated every single environmental change on earth over billions of years, so they knew what environment their creations would have to survive in.

Date: 2006/03/01 05:32:03, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Chris,

Did I miss an earlier post about co-option? I am interested in understanding how people think this works.

I can't quite remember what I said in my post, it was an earlier one that seems to have gone. I think your question was based on a 'parts in a garage' analogy, which does not capture many important aspects of these systems. A good example of cooption is in the bacterium Sphingomonas chlorophenolica, which is able to digest PCP, which was first introduced into the environment 70 years ago. This process is performed by three enzymes, which were coopted from other metabolic processes by gene duplication. This can happen because although the enzymes are made up of hundreds of amino-acids, the majority of them form a globular structure that serves mainly to hold in place the few amino acids in the binding site of the enzyme that are involved in the chemical reaction. A mutation causing a change in one of these amino acids can have a large effect of the specificity of the enzyme, and of course because it is a duplicate this will have no affect on the fitness of the organism. At the moment the PCP degradation is a very inefficient process, but we would predict that eventually further mutations will increase the efficiency of the enzymes. This process works of course, because these proteins are in solution, and are free to interact at will. Obviously something like the flagellum is a lot more complicated, but this same process seems to have occurred with protein complexes, often due to the duplication of an entire complex.

Date: 2006/03/02 05:13:19, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
We don't know a lot about how the body plans get realized in embryonic devlopment.
No, but we do have some idea and are learning more all the time.

Quote
I do think that science will ultimately prove whether species are capable of mutating into new species, and whether they are capable of generating new body plans in the ways described by Darwinian evolution.
I agree, but I am curious what kind of proof you would require.

It seems your argument is that a universe with a god would be very different than one with out a god. I am perfectly happy to accept that this is true, in fact so does Richard Dawkins. The problem is that the supporters of ID claim to have evidence of the former. I am open to the possibility that evidence will be found, but to say that it what is currently presented is evidence to even the most basic scientific standards is simply dishonest. I have read dozens of papers by biologists, chemists, engineers and mathematicians which all argue that biological systems exhibit the characteristics we would expect if they had arisen by evolutionary processes, so ID has a long way to catch up.

Quote
Was Miller's God totally surprised at the emergence of man? Did he say, Oh My, look at this!
This is a good question, and I have never heard a religious person answer it. Presumably an omnipotent god would know this would be the result even if he didn't specifically plan it, but I don't know.

Quote
Sure, with four aces you couldn't tell. But with sufficent levels of unlikelihood, one comes to the conclusion a thing was not random.
The point is that to calculate the level of unlikelyhood for something such as the flagellum to any degree of accuracy is pretty much impossible at the moment. I wish it wasn't it would make my job a lot easier.

Date: 2006/03/02 07:01:29, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
I woman used to work in my lab who was a creationist due to her religious beliefs. She absolutely did not believe that evolution occured or that humans evolved from ape-like ancestors. Her PhD however was in phylogenetics, so obviously she could not combine her beliefs with the science. She was very passionate about her work, and published several papers in good journals, so I could not say, as I supspect Richard Dawkins would, that her beliefs made her a worse scientist, she was simply able to seperate the two. When she talked about it, she said that she had to do this because there was simply no scientific evidence that supported her beliefs, and she would be dishonest if she tried to pretend otherwise. She found the philosophical implications of evolution offensive, but she knew that it could not affect her scientific judgement, and this is what made her a good scientist, and what makes ID proponents bad scientists. I dont think intelligence has much to do with it.

It is the agnostic engineer types that confuse me the most, I imagine they're just more comfortable with the idea of approaching complex systems as designed entities.

Date: 2006/03/02 12:05:17, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
2 They don't have any biology training to know how successful evolution is, or how large the mountain of evidence is
This is why it is quite important for them to get ID in schools. I speak to engineers on a fairly regular basis, who are all systems biologists. As much as the engineers over at UD can claim these systems are obviously the product of design, the engineers I speak to point out the exact opposite, and can cite many papers by prominent engineers backing them up. This is because they have been exposed to a large amount of biology training before they heard of ID, if it were the other way round it might be different, and like you said anyone with good techincal knowledge can argue even the daftest point fairly well. Of course being on a mission from god doesn't particularly help either.

Date: 2006/03/02 12:24:38, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Im not American so apologies if this is a daft question, but why is it a legal issue how cable companies charge for channels, as long as they're not fleecing people?

I get TBN Europe and I'd be tempted to keep it if I had to choose. Half the people on it are a bunch of xenophobic racist bigots telling me that I'm going to h*ll, and I find that oddly comforting.

Date: 2006/03/02 23:33:11, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
However, I admit that my own obsessional interest in his motives and psyche isn't shared universally
I think firguring motives is pretty important, so if you have any insights please post them. I don't think the odd post over here does any harm, although Im not sure what he hopes to accomplish.

Quote
And all dogs are still in the same species....weird eh?
We say that now becuase we know they can interbreed. A scientist who ony had one fossil of each to go on would probably conlcude otherwise.

Date: 2006/03/03 03:34:58, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
I do not see any positive scientific evidence for design, is their anything specific that you see as good evidence?

Quote
the flagellum as it now is cannot have any parts removed
So, if that is the definition of irreducible complexity then its completely useless. No-one is saying that when a part was added the the parts it binds to were exactly the same as they are now. Several different bacteria have flagellum with various parts missing. Saying that the Ecoli flagellum could not have evolved because you couldnt gradually assemble the parts in their current form is attacking a complete strawman argument.

Quote
How can we be 99.4 the same as a species with 1/3 our brain size? a species with a different form of locomotion? a species which cannot speak?


That is the question science is now beginning to answer. In regards to the chromosome number, the prediction was that two ancestral chromosomes fused to form one, this is exactly what happened, and we are able to line up the sequences quite nicely. Some of the differences you mentioned are caused by quite small differences in the DNA. Remeber that very small changes, especially in promoter regions and transcription factors, can cause very large phenotypic changes. The more we understand about evolution and development, the more these differences are beoming understandable.

Date: 2006/03/06 01:40:57, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
The fact that the author of the article is a postdoc in cell biology suggests he might just know a little bit more about this than DS, and in any case the article links to a Nature paper. So we either have a) the author is simplifying for a non specialist audience, or b) he is an impostor masquerading as a cell biologist to rake in all the money and fame that is associated with academic science, hmm...

This seems to be a common tactic on UD, if you try and simplify a scientific concept you get accused of lying or being wrong, which is ironic considering they speak mainly in bad analogy. It is a shame that 'junk DNA' has become synonymous with 'non protein coding DNA', but its just a simplification. If that is the best criticism he can come up with then the article must be pretty solid.

Date: 2006/03/06 02:28:11, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Or...

That explains the money the DI's getting.

Date: 2006/03/06 07:44:36, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
I dont know how many times I have to say this to ID supporters, you can't just come up with a hypothesis and then say that it is right until someone else proves it wrong, you need evidence to back up your claim. Which particular evolutionary biologists have you contacted and what were their responses?

Date: 2006/03/06 09:47:18, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Now they're on to cold fusion:
Quote
It shows yet again how all the talk about science being a disinterested search for the truth whose practictioners welcome challanges to their pet theories is so much hot air.
Is it worth ponting out that there are hundreds of articles on cold fusion in the literature.

Date: 2006/03/06 12:36:31, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Yes im having trouble working out your point shi, so assuming what you say is true what is your explanation for the phenomenon? It is now possible to detect homology between proteins that have incredibly low sequence identity, and I can only assume that methods will get progressively better, unless teaching evolution is banned of course :).

Quote
The sad situation today is that the experts are finding problems all over the place with Darwinism but they are not being open with the laymen.  The laymen is led to believe that everything is fine with Darwinism.
May I ask how you came by this information then if you are not an evolutionary biologist?

Date: 2006/03/07 02:18:12, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Admittedly apart from this coversation I haven't payed much attention to Ruse's views, but I don't think his constant use of the words 'Dawrwinist' and 'evolutionist' is helping science's cause anmore than Dennet's religion bashing.

Date: 2006/03/08 09:59:29, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
The biological entity should have evolved to such a degree that it can no longer be said to be related to the original.
Please define 'can no longer be said to be related to the origional'.

Date: 2006/03/09 06:40:07, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Modern developments in physics and computer science have lent support to the thesis

….

Just thought I'd point out that '....' replaces
Quote
but empirical evidence is needed before it can begin to replace our contemporary world view.

Also the author points out right at the start of the article that the evidence points toward evolution and a heliocentric universe.

Date: 2006/03/09 10:34:32, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Wow I'm in group 1, I feel so special ???. I guess it's because I don't post there that often. Although I am very grateful to them and other blogs like telic thoughts and IDthefuture for linking to all those articles that in no way support their position but I'm too lazy to find myself.

Date: 2006/03/12 12:31:26, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
By positive evidence, do you mean that you don't want what might be considered negative evidence, such as problems with the theory?
I mean evidence that actually points to an intelligence as opposed to just pointing out supposed problems with evolution.

Quote
You say there are other flagella with parts missing. I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying they are simpler or use other designs than the one Behe has popularized?

I'm not sure what you mean about assembling the parts in their current form - how do you suppose a system like the flagellum could have evolved? An inability to assemble them gradually is exactly what Behe claims.


Behes point as far as I can see is that if you removed a protein from the Ecoli flagellum it would cease to function, I have no problem accepting this. It does not follow however that the system could not have evolved by addition of parts. Say the part that we remove, part A, causes the flagellum to cease functioning and we suspect that it was the last part to be added, and is attached to parts B and C. Saying that this means that part A couldn't have been added by evolution assumes that the structure of parts B and C were the same as they are now when part A was added (and the structure of part A was the same for that matter). Maybe there is some evidence I haven't seen that proves this assumption, in which case I'd be grateful if you'd point me to it.

Quote
Re us and chimps - does no one find the chromosome fusing odd? Is it usual for chromosomes to successfully fuse?
Usual enough for us not to find it odd, we see it in plants quite often i think.

Quote
That the differences between us and chimps are caused by quite small differences in DNA is interesting - nonetheless we still have 30 or 35 million base pair adjustments, plus a chromosome fusion to account for.
Some of them are, for example the difference in brain sizes is caused mainly by differential expression of certain hormones during development(at least thats the most likely explination), which requires relatively few mutations in promoter regions and transcription factors. The point is that every single advance, be it the comparison of a new genome or some new advance in evodevo answers more questions regarding evolution and solidifies the theory. ID proponents for some reason like to say that these advances only help to show how the species barrier is becoming more and more of an obstacle for evolution, whereas every paper I read on the subject shows the exact opposite.

Quote
and it also suggests that those on the evolution side could be equally motivated by inner desires to find a certain type of worldview vindicated. And it denies any possibility that they could be persuaded by evidence or facts, so what you're really saying is that 'we are right because we are right.'
I can never really understand this point, atheists don't belive in god because they see no evidence of a god, not because they would rather there wasn't. If I saw evidence there was a god, then I'd say 'you know what I was wrong', and then I'd pay my friend the money I bet him whe I was 9(I see myself more of an apatheist, although that probably wouldn't stop me going to ####). This is not the opposite of christianity, the disproof of the existence of god would have a lot more effect for christians, so I don't think you can say scientists are just trying to protect the atheist worldview.

Quote
I have a problem with the statement that science "cannot" believe in the supernatural.
Do you have a problem with the statement 'Science cannot believe in the supernatural as there is currently no way to distinguish a phenomenon as supernatural'?

Quote
I do not think it is even possible to have a world that is the result of an intelligent plan but which is also not detectable as such
Richard Dawkins completely agrees with you.

Quote
because to say that is to say that randomness and chaos are perfectly capable of producing the very same things that intelligence and planning can produce. Which renders intelligence meaningless and impotent.
What do you mean by the very same things? At the moment we know of no intelligence that can produce what we see in the natural world, and there are many things we have created that the natural world could not. In the future it is possible that we will be able to create improved versions of everything in the natural world. Im really not sure why anything we observe in this universe renders intellegence meaningless.

Date: 2006/03/13 06:41:38, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
There seems to be a confusion between the lower limit of sequence identity at which we can reasonably infer homology, and the lower limit at which it is possible for the protein to retain its original function. The second of these, in many cases at least, is lower than the first. Up until recently, we couldn't reliably detect homolgy below about 20-30% identity, but it is now much lower than that in many cases, due to more sophisticated methods.

If we have a protein structure, we can perhaps estimate the amount of change it can tolerate before it ceases to function. These estimates ussually rely on changing a number of amino acids simultaneously, this is obviously different to changing them individually, as each change will produce a protein with a slightly different structure, which has a different set of mutations that it will tolerate. We can perhaps say that there are several essential amino acids that perform the activity of the protein, and they cannot be changed, but beyond that we cant really give good lower limits. I have seen several proteins that appear to be homologous and have similar active site structures that have well below 15% sequnce identity.

Quote
In short, some conserved genes should show this pattern, AB 90%, AC 75%, AD 40%, AE 15%, AF 15%, AG 15%.
Can we have evidence that this hasn't occured please, I am also still waiting for this information that evolutionary biologists are aware of (apart from the dozens that I have spoken to apparently) that shows problems with evolution that they are not telling the public about.

Date: 2006/03/13 07:03:14, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Also The Intelligent Design Society of Kansas

Date: 2006/03/13 08:29:20, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
But if you understand my point, you would know what I am looking for and what is lacking is an animal gene that has obvious homologs in yeast and bacteria and is equally related to these homologs.
What do you mean by obvious homologues? I assume you mean a reasonable level of sequence identity, why would you expect this to be the case?

Date: 2006/03/13 10:11:20, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Can you at least cite evidence which says that all the cytochrome c's should stop at exactly 15% sequnce identity to each other.

Date: 2006/03/13 13:36:05, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Fair enough, but then Im not sure I understand, your claim seems to be that there is a limit for how much the sequence of a protein can change and still retain its function, and for essential proteins therefore they will essentaily settle at the same level of divergence for all species. The problem I see is that if you have a protein, with a list of mutations that it will tolerate, as soon as you make a mutation the list changes, to a degree depending on the mutation, maybe mutations that would have been tolerated before now will disrupt function, and vice-versa. It is currently impossible to predict what this limit may be, and there is no reason to suspect that proteins will all reach the same level of maximum divergence over time. Assuming that they do however, you have provided no evidence that this hasn't happened.

Date: 2006/03/14 01:06:19, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
I am not an expert on the flagellum, I have no idea how it may have evolved, and i have not read Nick Matzke's essay, so I couldn't really respond to a critique of it. One point though is that I was at a conference last year where several people who are experts demonstrated that partial motility is better than no motility at all, so Im going to have to take their word for it.

My problems regarding IC are mainly based on other examples of protein complex evolution that I am more familiar with, and in these cases one method of evolution is as I said before: the acestral model is without part A, but the structures of parts B and C are different so that they system does function, it almost certainly functions much less efficiency, and may not even perfrom the same function. The affinity for A binding to B and C is probably very low at this point, however over time it will get higher as this will increase the efficiency of the system, and this process will likely be caused by mutations in A B and C. Eventually B and C will mutate to the point where they can no longer function without A, hence the system will no longer function if A is removed.

This is just one method of course, and may not apply to the flagellum i don't know, but there are many more similar routes. But the point is that IC says in principle if you remove a part and the system ceases to function, then that part could have not been added by evolution, and this is not true.

Quote
Only plants? I'm wondering how it would work. I would think that for two creatures to sucessfully mate they would need to have the same number of chromosomes. Wouldn't it have to happen in one generation, to go from 48 to 46 chromosomes, and wouldn't there have to be several siblings get this mutation perhaps from the same mother, so that they could mate and continue the new species? Or wouldn't it have to occur in the mother and father together?
Not only in plants, its just been more studied in plants because it happens more often, you'd be suprised how different chromosome structure can be an hybridization is still possible, see http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/02/life_will_find_a_way.php for an example. It is very possible for example, that human and chimp DNA could hybridize, but even if it could, the difference in gene expression during development would kill any embryo, and as I mentioned it is this that likely causes the major difference between us and chimps, and is probably a major method of evolution across species barriers.

Quote
How about CSI and IC?
CSI and IC simply say that there is a low probability of systems evolving by certain routes. I have already pointed out what i think problems with IC are. CSI in my opinion in its current form is completely unapplicable to biological systems due to a number of factors, including its definition of complexity, specification and information, and the current impossibility of calculating the probability that the flagellum evolved naturaly. In any case, it has not been proven to work on anything other than anecdotal examples. Im not sure how anyone can say they are positive proof of ID, as opposed to arguments from ignorance.

Date: 2006/03/14 09:40:11, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
expectations of a conserved sequence that should show signs of stability at a recognizable identity (such as 35%)

Can you provide a source for this, I see no reason to expect that if proteins do stop evolving at some maximum level, all homologues will show the same level of sequence identity.

Date: 2006/03/14 12:54:47, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
When seeking truth compromizes self interest (grants, salary to feed family, career), self interest takes over, at least for most sane people.
So imagine if the goverment suddenly announces funding for ID, and it is acceptable to believe and research in either, you think evolutionary biologists are all going to turn round and say they didn't believe in 'Darwinism' all along?

Date: 2006/03/14 14:55:13, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
So imagine if the goverment suddenly announces funding for ID, and it is acceptable to believe and research in either, you think evolutionary biologists are all going to turn round and say they didn't believe in 'Darwinism' all along?

You dont think so.  Are you from outer space or just naive?
I speak to evolutionary biologists fairly regularly, and none of them have expressed doubts about evolution, from grad students to well known professors. Are you saying:

a) I am lying now, and I don't believe in evolution.

b) They are lying to me.

c) The evolutionary biologists I have spoken to belive in evolution, but the rest don't.

Ill give you a clue, it's definately not a).

I'm still not sure how any fact you've stated so far refutes evolution, could you restate the one fact you think does this, with links to the relevant evidence.

Date: 2006/03/14 15:06:09, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
One of the 5 year goals:
Quote
One hundred scientific, academic and technical articles by our fellows

Scientific achievements:

   * An active design movement in Israel, the UK and other influential countries outside the US
   * Ten CRSC Fellows teaching at major universities
   * Two universities where design theory has become the dominant view
   * Design becomes a key concept in the social sciences Legal reform movements base legislative proposals on design theory


I think they're a bit behind schedule

Date: 2006/03/15 11:12:46, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
So your point is that the molecular clock hypothesis does not always hold, and some lineages diverge faster than others, how does this refute 'Darwinism' exactly. Like jeannot said, modern phylogenetic techniques do not use it, and they have turned out to be more accurate. Can I confirm that by 'Darwinism' you mean 'current evolutionary theory'?

Date: 2006/03/15 12:04:42, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
no matter which theory you have in mind, the current one is still a Darwinism.
I don't think I have heard Darwinism referred to as a noun before. I am just trying to get you to state which particular fact you think refutes evolution, along with evidence. Is it that some genes should have diverged to equal sequnce identity due to reaching functional limits, or that animal cytochrome c proteins are equally distant from yeast but shouldnt be due to differing mutation rates.

Date: 2006/03/15 12:33:17, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Apparently I need to do some english homework as well as biology homework. :p

Date: 2006/03/16 00:27:07, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
I have also not been able to verify whether Darwin’s Origin of Species (or any other work) has ever been peer-reviewed.
Wich thread is that on, is it worth pointing out that Darwin and Wallace published a joint paper with the Linnean society before the publication of origin? Probably not.

Date: 2006/03/16 11:58:00, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
The truth that you only know about clock but nothing else is no basis for asserting the clock to be the only perspective to explain the fact.
It has been pointed outto you that scientists are well aware with the problems with the molecular clock theory, and as edmund points out, this is taught to undergraduates(at least in my university anyway), and modern phylogentic methods do not use it. The paper you mention has been cited many times and is in a general biology journal so you can hardly say evolutionary biologists hide the truth from the rest of us. I am not sure that the difference between genotypes and phenotypes falsifies evolution: organisms with similar phenotypes but different genotypes are the result of neutral non-selectable mutations, and similar genotypes but very different phenotypes are the result of the effects we are starting to learn about from fields such as evodevo. I dont see how these are ad-hoc hypothesis, yes many people have been wrong about things over the years, but please tell us how any of this refutes unguided common descent (my ad-hoc definition of Darwinism).

Date: 2006/03/16 13:26:51, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
To be fair, thats ussualy because they highlight a topic that completely disagrees with their theories. Thats the main reason I keep going, all the interesting papers that support evolution. That and the comedy.
Go disagree somewhere else. Whos laughing now? -ds

Date: 2006/03/16 13:33:16, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
But since we control the journals, we have so far managed to supress the hundreds, nay thousands, of resulting papers.
I always find it ironic that they claim ID is being kept out of the literature and at the same time give a list of 'peer reviewed ID articles'.

In my opinion in the 'post ID world' a new generation of spokespeople will emerge who will argue what they will probably call 'non-darwinian evolution', or possibly 'guided evolution'. They will no longer argue for a designer, but when pushed will say that their theories likely point to a designer in the same way the current proponents will say that the designer is likely god. Then if we're lucky this dilution will continue there is nothing left and we can get back to more productive things.

Date: 2006/03/16 23:10:12, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
The theory is only a partial truth.
Quote
1, the theory is inadequate, it is only a partial truth.
Scientists are not saying that it is known exactly how a species evolve into a new species, that doesn't mean the current theory is wrong. I think the main problem is understanding, when a scientist says 'microevolution extends to macroevolution', a layperson might take that to mean 'accumulations of mutations in protein sequences is adequate to create new species', which is almost certainly wrong. New evidence from evodevo, systems biology etc are letting us know more and more about how species evolve, the point is that all this evidence suggests that our current ideas are on the right path. When trying to explain this of course it gets very complicated when we don't know the whole story yet. ID proponents do mainly bring up problems with evolutionary theory and some of them might be worthy of discussion; the problem is that most of them aren't, a lot of them are obvious untruths, plus they claim to show empirical evidence of design. As far as scientists go, do you think that a lot of them suspect design or think the current theory is completely wrong, or just have one or two problems with current parts. I seriously doubt the former.

Date: 2006/03/17 03:12:17, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
He keeps going on about this I wonder how many engineers he has spoken to who study biological systems. In my experience they certainly have a different take on the whole thing.

Date: 2006/03/17 06:03:01, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
What is it that prevents tried & true design detection methodology from being used in biology?
Tried & true eh?

The design inference has been applied to mount rushmore, lottery results, election fixing, Shakespearian sonnets and many other examples that are applicable to complex biological systems.

Date: 2006/03/17 15:53:37, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
All the evidence of evolution presented in scientific papers are merely cases of micro evo.
Please define micro evo, speciation has been observed in the wild and in the lab, and advances in molecular biology help us to understand how larger jumps have occured, ape to man is not really much of a problem anymore. You're right it is not fair to dismiss the claims of intelligent people without hearing them out, luckily the claims of the ID movement are ludicrous. Many people have examined the claims of Dembski Behe et al and found them to be utterly without merit, so it is not fair to say we insult their intelligence by ignoring them.

Date: 2006/03/18 01:10:46, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
AFAIK, there is no evidence of "larger jumps" in the evolution of life, if by "jumps" you mean changes occurring in one generation.
I didnt mean speciation jumps, but small changes in things other than protein sequences, ie gene regulation, can cause large phenotypic changes that creationists say are impossible. This is why I don't like the term microevolution.

Date: 2006/03/18 08:28:58, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
One of them is a thermodynamics lecturer in the UK, I think in Sheffield.
He's in Leeds, I think his work in thermodynamics is good, he's a fellow of the royal institute of physics. He explains his purely scientific objection to evolution in this book. Im sure there are several non-religous scientists who support ID, that doesn't change the fact that the movement is primarily a religious one.

Date: 2006/03/18 17:30:15, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Scientists in other fields have started to question the “vary stuff” part of the hypothesis. Engineers, mathematicians, computer programmers and information theorists understand the statistical problems presented by the phenomenon of combinatoric explosion, which evolutionary biologists ignore as being surmountable with time and probabilistic resources, with no hard analysis of the probabilities involved.
Interestingly all the engineers, mathematicians and computer scientists I've spoken to say intelligent design is a pile of shite, so maybe we're both wrong.

Quote
Hi Dr Mackintosh

I am curious how your research in flame stability etc. gives you the insight to state in your recent letter to the Times that:-
"Evolutionary thinking is teetering as a way of looking at the evidence, not because of some isolated problems here and there, but because the whole structure is scientifically wrong."
I would ask him for you but he works across campus from me and I'm far to lazy to walk all that way, so Ill answer the question for you: it doesn't. Although there's an interview with him in our student paper where he says pretty much the same thing, luckily the head of the biology department is also interviewed and points out that intelligent design is a pile of shite.

Date: 2006/03/18 17:36:15, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
We observe that socks disappear, and we can collect data on the frequency of the disappearance and on what kinds and variations of socks the gnome prefers.
That's more research than intelligent design currently has, although to be fair the need to account for the loss of socks has been around longer than the need to stem the tide of feminists and homosexuals.
Disclaimer: the second half of the previous sentence is intended as a joke, and should not be taken as proof that scientists make baseless insulting accusations, so I don't want any complaints. The stuff before the comma is as true as the day is long.

Date: 2006/03/19 05:11:30, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Mike Gene's essay made the point that a weak form of the flagellum wouldn't be able to overcome Brownian motion.
Again I havent read Mike Genes essay, but again experts in the field say that partial motion is better than no motion at all. A hevent read Ken Millers essay either, his point seems to be that if you go by a strict definition of IC, then the existance of the type III system means it isn't. The fact that IC attacks a staw man anyway makes this irellevant.


Quote
Do they have surface sensors which detect tiny particles that are emitted or break off of a food source?
The flagellum operates intermitantly so the bacteria move around randomy, obviously in most cases this would confer some advantage. Ecoli has chemical sensors, which set of a signalling cascade when they sense nutrients, which makes the flagellum spin less regularly, therefore it is more likely to move toward the food source.

Quote
You speak of parts A, B, and C evolving together, so that the subsequent removal of one part would of course cause nonfunction. But all this is speculation until we can understand systems closely enough to know if it is plausible.
This is a well studied phenomenon. As I said I dont know if it applies to the flagellum but it does apply to other complex systems.

Quote
You can hope that it isn't true, but so far as I know, there just isn't any knowledge of how it could occur
Again it is well studied in other systems, it might not apply to the flagellum I don't know. I dont really know that much about the flagellum, I imagine Mike Genes essay makes many specific points that I wouldnt be able to attempt to answer without doing a lot of research. I can only answer the charge that in principle a complex containing multiple proteins that are essential to function could not have evolved. It is possible no one has a clear idea of how the flagellum evolved, I'm not sure how this in any way supports the assumption that it was designed. Our view of evolution may change drastically, there may be other factors that we haven't considered, self-organization is a promising example, that are as important as natural selection. Maybe there are currently unknown laws of nature that dictate to some extent how evolution has played out. Maybe evolution is finished. The point is Dembski, Behe et al claim to have positive empirical evidence of design, that is what the whole debate is about.

Surprisingly different chromosome structure can hybridize and produce viable offspring. As I said it is likely that humand and chimp chromosomes could hybridize, however the differences in gene expression during development would kill any embryo.

Regarding my view point, I read no free lunch and darwins black box, and several essayss at the discovery institute before I'd even heard of the NCSE or pandas thumb or talk origins. My objections to CSI are not to how his method works in principle, but how he applies it to biological systems, at the very best he can say it has a low probability of evolving in the same way that someone has a low probability of winnig the lottery. What gets me irate about it again is based on the fact that this is presented as positive evidence of design in life. I am even willing to give Dembski the benefit of the doubt and say that it may be possible to detect design without knowing about the designer. He might even be right, the point is he hasn't even started to prove it yet, but claims he has and that he has put another nail in the coffin of 'Darwinism'.

Date: 2006/03/19 06:50:55, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Sorry, but you’re going to have use your real name if you want to claim those credentials. -ds
So we can assume that DaveScot isnt an engineer and didn't work for Dell. I thought that law only applied if you were being annoying.

Date: 2006/03/19 07:11:22, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
but the immense scope of the task of developing new drugs is partly justified in the commercial by the evolution of new pathogens.
You don't have to tell me I work with malaria(although to paraphrase the EU 'A disease that primarily affect the poorer parts of Africa is not suitable for funding because it is not vommerically viable' ). You might be right about corporate pressure, but I get the impression that in America not using the word evolution will score some points with the general public as well. Its different in Britain becuase its illegal to advertise prescription drugs, so I dont know what drug company commericals are like. But GSK seems perfectly willing to force known dangerous antdepressants on healty kids, so I wouldnt put anything past them.

Date: 2006/03/19 08:03:57, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Quote (Chris Hyland @ Mar. 19 2006,12:50)
Sorry, but you’re going to have use your real name if you want to claim those credentials. -ds
So we can assume that DaveScot isnt an engineer and didn't work for Dell. I thought that law only applied if you were being annoying.

I belive Dynamic Dave indeed worked at Dell.
Dave Springer worked for Dell, apprently to claim qualifications like that DaveScot will have to start using his real name on the blog.

senatorchunk:
Quote
Here are some current examples of departments/centers that are taking this new integrative approach.

...
At MIT, the Broad institute:

http://www.broad.mit.edu/mpg/
...
At the Cornell Genomics Initiative:

http://www.genomics.cornell.edu/focus_areas/evolutionary/
...


davescot:
Quote
MIT doesn’t mention evolution.
...
Cornell paid lip service to evolution but didn’t staff the project with a single evolutionary biologist.


From the Cornell website:
Quote
CHAIRS

   * Charles Aquadro - Professor, Evolutionary Genomics
   * Richard Harrison - Professor, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology

From the MIT website:
Quote
Patterns of genetic variation shed light on recombination, demography, admixture, and evolutionary selection in the human population.


Edit: Just noticed the post that says DaveScots post about PT trackbacks is inane has been deleted.

Date: 2006/03/19 08:19:11, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Thanks for the correction, most of my knowledge on the subject comes from a couple of seminars I went to over a year ago, so its a little sketchy.

Date: 2006/03/20 00:50:28, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
The purposeful arrangement of parts, the well-arranged universe, the information encoded in the DNA, Hubert Yockey speaking on origin of life, calls life an axiom and  unsolvable within science. It begins to add up.
Add up to what? purpoesful arrangement of parts is a tautology. Hubert Yockey said intelligence is not required and that intelligent design is rubbish. If the universe was not 'well aranged' and we saw life then maybe that would be a better argument for intelligence. The fact still remains that there is no positive evidence for an intelligent cause in evolution.

Quote
we should not discuss abiogenesis in our arguments because there isn't much to defend.  
True, that doesn't mean it was designed though.

Quote
Except it doesn't know almost anything really interesting.
I think most scientists would disagree with you.

Date: 2006/03/20 04:45:47, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
They'll tell you it is all because of the fall of man. Apparently before the fall all bacteria, snakes, spiders, sharks, lions dinosaurs and all the other dangerous critters were in fact vegetarian, and what we see now is all a result of the fall. Im just waiting for a fundementalist to tell me that God destoryed the vitamin C gene so we'd have to eat lots of fruit as a kind of ironic punishment for eating from the tree of knowledge.

Someone at uncommon descent, I think it was Salvador Cordova, told me that it would be better if we treated antibiotic resistance as a planned germ warfare attack. I didnt ask him about the implications for god but I imagine he would have said it was satan.

Date: 2006/03/25 05:31:55, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
If I understand correctly, you think that the proteins can co-evolve. But just saying you think it can be done doesn't seem to get to the heart of the problems with it. Yet two people say they have read Behe's book and aren't impressed. you were one of them. I am a bit stumped by this.  know you have probably already stated it, but why do you consider IC to be attacking a straw man?
Simply my problem with the concept is that if you take a protein away from a complex and the complex ceases to function, this does not mean the complex could not have evolved by stepwise addition of parts. Secondly even if it couldn't this is not the only route of evolution. Maybe a staw man isnt the best term to use, but Behe is ruling out one path of evolution and then saying that the system is designed.
Quote
I guess I find myself asking, in light of what I have read not only about the flagellum but the complexity of the cell and DNA and replication and so forth, at what point might a design inference become rational? What would it take? To me the construction of these things seems so very like something we would do that I tend to actually find it difficult to envision the Absolute, Infinite God doing it. It looks like the handiwork of a being more like us.
I agree with you more than the people who say the perfection of the flagelum is an argument for design. In a few decades I expect it to be very inefficient compared to what we can create. To be honest I am not sure where the 'tipping point' would be for me where a design inference would be warranted, the first step would be the hypothesis of design making better predictions about the system than the non-design hypothesis. Also evidence that actualy contradicts evolution instead of just evidence we cant currently explain would help.
Quote
I answered that at the very least, random mutations just wasn't adequate. There has to be at least one more major factor that we have not discovered, similar to the way that Darwin had not discovered genes. But if we end up finding these sticky laws and self-organizational principles, it is going to look like a grand, intelligently set-up scheme anyway.
Maybe, I don't pay much attention to these laws of physics anthropic principe arguments, but from what I have read I have not seen scientific evidence for intelligence. My position has always been that there is no evidence that an intelligence has actively interfiered with evolution, or created organisms whole, as far as Im concerned if these laws are found it will strengthen my position on the whole thing, it just means that evolution becomes more probable. On the other hand you might be right and if the laws of physics were set up there is no reason that god wouldnt also control evolution as well, and we should find evidence, this is not an unreasonable argument: there just isnt any evidence yet.
Quote
As for me, I don't have a problem with a low probability event from time to time. I have a problem with evolution seeming to require a steady diet of them.
What I mean is that saying the particular path of mutations that led to us is very improbable is fair enough, in the same way that saying that the chance of everyone who has ever won the lottery winning in that order is also very improbable. For each mutation that led to the development of the falgellum in a particular bacteria, there were millions that didn't in the same generation. Dembski does not model evolution as a branching and pruning process, which is what it is.

Date: 2006/03/26 22:17:55, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Why is it a tautology, and why is a tautology always wrong?
Because he is taking it for granted that a biological complex that performs a specific function is purposeful, which implies intention. And then he says that this implies intelligence, ie 'a purposeful arrangement of parts proves that the parts were arranged purposefully'. It's not wrong, it just doesn't go any way to proving his point.

Quote
Frankly, I don't know what he means when he says that life is an axiom and unsolvable within science.
Me neither.

Quote
But it is life that it is well arranged for. It's looking like the whole inanimate world lends support to the animate world.
Maybe my physics is lacking but I don't see how that in any way is scientific proof that it was set up by an intelligent force, and even if it is that does not have any bearing on evolution. If fundemental laws are found that affect in some part how evolution has played out, this will not prove the ID claim that an intelligence actively interferes with evolution.

Date: 2006/03/29 01:12:02, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
DaveScot:
One notable thing remains true. The more of the genome we manage to reverse engineer, the more complex we find it to be. The more complex it is the more unlikely the ability of time and chance to have managed the organizational feat. Of course the tipping point where molecular scale complexity in living things became obviously too much for time and chance to account for was 40 years ago for the more astute and objective among us. For those with a vested interest in not looking like morons for believing the simplistic Darwinian time and chance fairy tale the tipping point hasn’t been reached yet but it’s nearing a bursting point. The more informed boys still clinging to it have a liberty bell of cognitive dissonance ringing in their cranial cavities as we speak. They either reach a tipping point, accept where it leads to quiet the bell, or go nuts. I think it’s too late for some of them and they’ve taken the road less travelled. Their only hope of a normal life from here is through the world of modern mind-manipulating pharmaceuticals to help them cope with a reality that doesn’t fit their fixed mental model of reality i.e. cognitive dissonance. These poor souls will become relics of a mistaken past they cannot part with. Pitiable eccentrics clinging to the genetic equivalent of a flat earth theory. Genomic Luddites. A rotten shame really as many of them are otherwise fairly bright people that might have contributed something useful to the world if they’d just swallowed their pride and admitted their error.

No ... words ... to describe it ... should've ... sent a ... poet.

Very nice to see Dembski once again bringing up a paper that in no way advances his arguments.

ps I don't know why people are still arguing about the church burnings, in Europe we always turn to the most obvious suspects; Norwegian black metal bands.

Date: 2006/03/29 01:47:35, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
"whatever, the genome is way too complex and evolutionists are jerks"
Isn't that the entire ID argument in a nutshell?

Date: 2006/03/29 02:42:25, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
A Greek postdoc who used to work in my lab told us that in many cases the textbooks would be quite long, and the chapters on evolution would be at the end, so there would conviniently be not enough time to teach it.

Date: 2006/03/29 23:56:05, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
There is a large amount of functional noncoding DNA in the genome that is nessecary and therefore wont be lost. Promoter regions and telomeres are an example, but there are also many functional RNAs that are transcribed but not translated that play many vital roles including Post-transcriptional regulation, cell differentiation, cell death regulation, developmental regulation, dosage compensation, chromosome inactivation and DNA demethylation to name a few. Im not sure what this has to do with ID, I imagine the argument is that ID would predict that a designer would not leave useless DNA in the genome. However since scientists have known about functions of non coding DNA for about 20 years Im not sure if the argument carries much weight.

Date: 2006/03/30 22:10:15, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
DS: This is illustrative of the mindset of Darwinists. Demonstrate simplicity and extrapolate to complexity. This is the stuff of science fiction - like imagining that because a cannon can launch a shell a few miles a sufficiently large cannon can shoot a manned shell to another planet.
So kind of like imagining that because your explanatory filter can spot when someone has rigged an election or cheated on the lottery it's perfectly reasonable to assume it can detect design in biological organsims?

Date: 2006/04/02 12:41:42, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
But as we know, the chances of repeating any sequence is very low, and yet is 100% guaranteed to unfold randomly. But the pattern to the throwing of dice is meaningless and incapable of accomplishing anything, so far as we can see. So I don't think the two are comparable at all. No matter how many times we run the lottery, there isn't any importance to who wins in what order. It doesn't build anything.

Quote
I don't know about Dembski, but it is hard to see how this idea of pruning could work to create billions of highly ordered and complex systems, or IC systems in which it is very hard to see how many small steps could have each been selected as positive when it does not appear that each one could have been positive. You know the Dawkins experiment about "Methinks it is like a weasel"? There are some good arguments against it.  

I did say it wasnt a good analogy, I havent heard any decent analogy describing biological evolution. I think IC is a different argument from probability, Im not trying to argue that an entire protein or set of proteins will from form random sequences or anything like that, so I am inferring that there is some kind of path. Thinking about it perhaps the probabilistic arguments are irrelevant, if the flagellum had to evolve by entirely new proteins evolving spontaneously from hundreds of simeltaneous mutations in random sequence, that IDists would have a good argument, although I dont think any biologist is claiming that. On the other hand if it could have formed by succesive mutations, then the population size and mutation rate of E.coli mean "search space" or whatever people are calling it these days is explored fairly quickly. I will have a look through NFL again and remind myself exactly how Dembski calculates his probability.

The weasel program was meant to demonstrate cumulative selection not evolution.

Quote
But the more we find out about biology, the more a designer hypothesis seems the less improbable of the two.
Why? I read several evolutionary biology papers a week and I think the exact opposite. I don't even think that biological systems have the 'appearence' of design. Just because Im a scientist doesn't mean Im right of course but I certainly haven't heard a designer hypothesis that explains the evidence better than current evolutionary theory.

Quote
Maybe not active interference, but it certainly ups the likelihood of the pre-existence of consciousness.
This may be an irreconcilable philosophical difference, sufficed to say any of the laws I described would not be any more proof of this consiouness to me than if they did not exist. Having said that I am perfectly willing to accept the existence of a god, but I would still need scientific evidence of his involvement in evolution.

Quote
So all those are nonrandom? So the ability to intelligently and purposefully turn on mutation events evolved randomly?
I had this problem over at UD, the best way to look at it is that random means that the organism does not know which mutations will increase fitness.

Quote
It cannot be retraced I guess, but there needs to be plausible ideas for how these systems could have evolved.
Presumably you mean that we need an evolutionary path for every single system for it to be scientifically acceptable to infer that it did evolve?

Quote
At one point I kept a list of paleontologists who tried to find some kind of saltation theory that could somehow coincide with a belief in evolution.
I would say that modern evolutionary theory certainly does not rule it out.

Quote
As to flaws. Homology.
Why is that a flaw, have I missed something?

Quote
I'm pretty sure I already linked to an essay by Frank Tipler about the problems with the peer review process, how it enforces orthodoxy, and resists innovation.
This may be true in some cases, but in many cases journals are so eager to publish innovative 'against the grain' work that big name journals can end up publishing bad papers.

EDIT: And no Im not referring to Strenberg or any other 'ID' paper.

Date: 2006/04/03 03:08:59, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
I agree that this is not a scientific argument but science does play an important advisory role. The current law is that a pregnancy cannot be terminated if the fetus can survive outside the mother and since the laws were introduced, the age has been reduced according to the latest science. In the UK there is currently a big move to reduce the age further as it has been shown that fetuses can be viable at 20-22 weeks. This does depend on the abortion law being concerned with fetus viability, which is based on a moral argument. If it was decided for example, that the abortion age was to be decided  based on the ability to suffer, then the limit would have to be reduced to 18 weeks based on science. So when thordaddy says:
Quote
Science doesn't WANT to be apart of this discussion because it doesn't align with correct political ideology.
he technically is wrong as the science is perfectly in line with the current law (ish). On the other hand if the law were to state that an abortion cannot be performed on anything that is describable as a human life, then he would be right that the science would not fit in with a liberal pro-choice perspective, but that would be because of the moral argument not the science. So we can argue all we want about what scientifically constitues a human life, but as Flint said that argument is irrelevant to the current law which is based on embryo viability. If you want to argue that the law should be changed to include any idea of a human life, then that is a moral argument.

I dont know about the US, but in the UK there is no 'right to an abortion' the woman must convince two doctors that carrying the pregnancy to term would result in physical or mental damage to her and/or the baby. I know people who have been refused abortions (due to the availability of adoption, financial grounds usually don't suffice), and there are many cases of women being refused abortions even in cases of rape. The only people I know who have had abortions got them due to mental health problems and extreme health risks.

Date: 2006/04/03 03:28:13, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Regarding probability arguments and the evolution of systems, it is also probably worth pointing out that short random sequences being bound by a transcription factor, and random rearrangement of short protein domains resulting in novel protein interactions is a fairly common phenomenon (evolutionarily speaking). I suspect that this gives evolution a lot to play with, although I imagine there's some very good reason why it doesn't count as generating specified complexity.

Date: 2006/04/03 03:37:22, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
it would seem that some of our cells are either conscious or create consciousness as a collective.
I would say answer B.
Quote
it doesn't matter to me because consciousness ALONE does not define human life.  This only poses a problem for those that determine and define human life based on consciousness.
I dont think there are many people who define human life based soley on consciousness.

Date: 2006/04/03 05:20:21, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Perhaps instead of moral arguments I should have said non-scientific arguments.

That is just my experience of the law in the UK, and the wording of the law does say you can't just have one because you want one, although I doubt doctors are that strict in all cases and my experiences might be the exception as opposed to the rule. I suspect wealthier or more privileged people are less likely to accidentally get pregnant and possibly are better at persuading doctors that they will by psychologically damaged. More details.

Date: 2006/04/03 05:25:30, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Every living thing is symmetrical.  That has to carry some weight.
About as much weight as saying "why dont we see fossils with just one eye, two eyes can't have evolved at the same time".

Date: 2006/04/03 23:32:07, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
The evolution of symmetry of organisms is well understood, I really hope this isn't your only reason for supporting ID.

Date: 2006/04/03 23:41:55, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
If you are saying that evolution requires speciation to be solely the result of changing alleles in populations then you are misrepresenting modern evolutionary theory.

Secondly, it is now possible to detect genes that are the result of lateral tranfer in eukaryotes so there should be plenty of data supporting your hypothesis.

Date: 2006/04/04 00:43:17, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
If "pain" is the argument against animal cruelty then animal activists are clearly ignoring another suffering "animal."
Hence the reason many anmal right groups want the limit reduced to 18 weeks.

Quote

Your life is your own to dispose of as you please.
The fruits of your labor belong to you.
You can enter and exit any contractual relations you choose, whenever you choose.
You can say or do anything you like so long as you don’t interfere with the rights of others to do the above.

If you compare all the other laws and moral codes that exist to these, you will see that they all subject the individual to some arbitrary tyranny in the name of gods or “society.” Everything else is just some people trying to benefit at the expense of others.

We try to defend the rights of minorities. What minority deserves more defense than the minority of one?

We promote democracy. What is more democratic than ruling yourself without interference from others?
Most people I know who share these values believe that fetuses do not have these rights.

Quote
What exactly has abortion done other than abolish responsibility and convinced a generation of women that aborting their children is hardly different than picking a new shade of lipstick?
This is at best true in a minority of cases, iterestingly the people who are more likely to take this attitude are the people who are more likely to have many unwanted pregnancies. Again I can't speak for America but in the UK there is no evidence your statement is true at all, despite many calls form pro-life groups that it is. In my opinion it is a horrific insult to the thousands of women who do not take this decision lightly.

Date: 2006/04/04 01:18:13, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
The version I always liked was "could Jesus microwave a burrito so hot that He Himself could not eat it?"


Also, could he draw a triangle where the internal angles don't add up to 180 degrees.

Edit: and no he can't use spherical geometry.

Date: 2006/04/04 02:30:37, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Thats just the point, he didn't say that it should happen, he said he thinks it will happen. I have now read several articles in mainstream and alternative media that say that scientists are now generally condoning manmade genocide because of this.

Date: 2006/04/04 03:21:56, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Well we understand the developmental mechanisms, the genes that active the simeltaneous expression of other genes on the different sides of the body, producing symmetry. We see how these developmental networks are conserved across phyla, and so have some understanding of how these mechanisms evolved. We also understand how random forces affect ontogoney causing differences between the different sides such as position of hairs, fingerprints etc (and maybe freckles Im not sure). Obviously when I say understand I don't mean fully understand, but its far from a problem for evolution.

Date: 2006/04/04 03:56:47, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
The easiest thing to do, when we can't find an
answer, is to throw up our hands in despair.
This is exactly what science does not do, it continues to look for an answer. Knowing that there are so may things that we do not know is what makes science so exciting. To science, creationsim is exactly what you said, it is saying 'we haven't found an answer, so the question is unanswerable'. I would hate to see what would happen to science if this became commonplace.

Date: 2006/04/04 12:41:23, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
There is something wrong with the communication process on ToE


I agree, but it is a problem not easily solved. You can't teach the theory of evolution as an evolutionary biologist understands it to a high-school student or a layperson who does not have time to fully learn it. Consequently things are learnt that are not strictly true, as with all subjects that are taught at these various levels. Up to and including doing a biochemistry degree, I would have said that saltation was not compatible with modern evolutionary theory, however now I have done much reading I understand that it is. If I had left with just a high school science education, I would have said that change in allele frequency is sufficient to create the new species that we see and account for the complexity we see in life, but I now know that is not true.

The problem then comes when someone says something that has been 'watered down' the creationists accuse them of making false or unscientific statements that do not fit the data. I have experienced it many times, I make a simplified scientific statement on a creationist website, as I assume that not everyone I am speaking to is a scientist, and someone who has some knowledge of the science then assumes I am an idiot and wrongly interpreting evidence because of my atheistic commitment to materialism or whatever. For most of the people on this board and others the science is something they do in their spare time.

Most gaps in the fossil record are likely to be the result of missing fossils, but from what I understand from reading evolutionary biology papers saltation is also likely and we would expect to see it in the record. The point is I wouldn't expect most people who aren't geeks and spend time reading sceintific papers to know that. Nor should people have to for that matter.

..................

That's the problem with creationist kooks in general, they learn about several specific scientific points from different disciplines so its actually quite hard to argue with them. For example I couldn't argue with a creationsit about radioisotope dating even though I know their arguments are rubbish as far as geologists are concerned. You have to be some kind of polymath or memorise the entire of talkorigins . I honestly think you could fill a degree in anticreationsim.

Date: 2006/04/05 01:39:07, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
I would have thought it would be worse if there is a gay gene. At the moment it is assumed to be purely psychological. Therefore people say it is a choice, and try to cure it through psychological means. If it is genetic, then they will say it is a disease, and no doubt the templeton foundation will fund research into a cure.

Date: 2006/04/05 03:07:43, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Quote  
But back down here on reality-based earth, I realize that I will die, that my body will decompose into its constituent parts, and that those parts will be taken up into later generations of life.  I suppose in a wiggly sort of way this is immortality.

Not very satisfying, is it?

I find it quite comforting, and have done ever since I was a child and used to sit in the garden: imagining bits of myself pushing up through the grass as trees and crawling around as insects. The fact that people seek more still puzzles me, and seems to be one of the main reasons in my experience that people are religious other than tradition.

Date: 2006/04/05 03:22:07, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Apologies if I missed it somewhere in the thread, but could you define exactly what you mean by human life, and then science may be able to tell you when it starts. A zygote is alive, but then so is an egg and a sperm. If you define a human life genetically then life begins at conception. You might define life as consciousness, so then it starts a bit later. You might define a seprearte living entity as one that can that can live independently of the mother, in which case it starts later. Science cannot answer this philosophical question, but I fail to see how this makes science worthless.

Date: 2006/04/06 06:53:17, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
You appear to have responded to some of my points in the gay gene thread:

Quote
Problem is, organizing factors or emergent properties all seem to change the nature of our universe. They all seem to require some fundamental intelligence.
Why?

Quote
Why do you read several evolutionary papers per week?
I am a biologist, I have to read papers. In October I came back of a two week holiday to find something I had been working on for months had been published by someone else, the field moves pretty fast. My works involves the study of complex biological systems, understanding how they evolved is vital for properly analysing them. Plus after reading several arguments by creationists when I first heard this debate, I decided my knowledge of evolutionary biology was lacking. Unlike creationists, I rectify this by reading evolutionar biology papers.

Quote
Are you familiar with cosmic fine tuning?

Quote
There is no way for God to be omnipotent or omniscient unless God is actually everywhere, and in everything.
Fair enough, if this is true we should be able to detect it with more than arguments from ignorance.

Quote
What do you think of the information based arguments for ID?
I find it ironic that complex specified information was originaly defines as exactly what evolution is supposed to create. Do you have anyone other than Dembski in mind, I think his is the only information based argument I have read, and as applying it to biology relies on IC, it amounts to an argument from ignorance.

Quote
It's too bad you guys over there have different names and I am clueless what's going on.
I post under the same name, although not very often, it gets quite frustrating.

Quote
It may be that the organism turns on a mutation feature, and in a specific area of the genome, and then suddenly gets the mutation for digesting nylon.
Does that happen? Im not to up on this, I was under the impression it was to do transposons. In any case Demski says this does not count as gsin of CSI.

Quote
Behe complains that there are none in the literature that are really any good.
Behe also said he requires a list of every single mutation and the time at which each one occured, I dont expect to see that any time soon.

Quote
Saltation?
Yes, it is known that mutations in regulation can produce quite different yet viable phenotpyes, which if selectable may appear as a jump in the fossil record.

Quote
No only do homologous structures in closely related species arise from different genes, but nonhomologous structures can arise from the same gene.
Do you mean different transcription factors activate them in the developmental cycle? I don't see this as a problem I see it as a method of macroevolution.

Quote
Quote
This may be true in some cases, but in many cases journals are so eager to publish innovative 'against the grain' work that big name journals can end up publishing bad papers.

I suspect that this greatly depends on just which grains are being rubbed.
Well the DI maintain a list of 'ID' papers published in peer reviewed journals. I asked an editor from Nature about this and he said they hadn't recieved any submissions describing new research in ID,  and several other people have said the same. The templeton foundation asked the DI for research proposals and recived none, and despite being asked many times what they would do with a research grant, Dembski at least has never come up with an answer. As an example John Davison published a paper in the journal of theoretical biology, it goes over a lot of data and describes a potential mechanism. Im really not sure what ID has that it could publish at this point.

Date: 2006/04/06 07:03:48, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
DaveRAFinn

I was not referring to you when I said creationist kooks don't worry, I havent seen any evidence to put you in that category. Your hypothesis is interesting, but if there is a large amount of lateral gene transfer between eukaryotes this should be detectable, indeed some examples have been published.

If I understand right you are saying that somehow animals can absorb genetic material from other organisms and pass it on to their offspring? I would expect this to be quite easy to prove if it were true.

Date: 2006/04/06 08:51:46, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
That's easy we just inject all the survivors with the gay gene.

Date: 2006/04/06 09:25:49, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
ID avocates ask for us to demonstrate thousands of years of evolution in the lab. Therefore the only way to refute it is to speed up time. I have asked my physicist friends to get on it.

Date: 2006/04/06 10:24:18, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Ha, good summary!

Date: 2006/04/06 12:16:59, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
We would but we have computers in there that cost half a million dollars and they don't like us to spill beer on them.

Quote
This behavior, like most behaviors, can be modified especially if one is educated about the prevalence of disease, domestic violence and early morality that correlates STRONGLY with the practice of homosexuality.
Dont forget electric shock therapy, that works to. Incedentaly, disease and domestic violence also correlate strongly with religion, but it doesn't mean that if you point this out people will stop being religious.

Date: 2006/04/06 13:02:52, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
If you are referring to my post:

I never questioned your statistics, I simply said that pointing it out to homosexual people will not make them 'repent'.

I never said thay homosexiality is 'normal'.

I never said you were a fundamentalist.

I never expressed animosity towards religion.

What makes you think I am an ideologue?

Date: 2006/04/07 02:06:44, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Why and/or how are we teaching the "complex set of behaviors" of homosexuality to grade school children?  And secondly, what is the strong science that LEADS one away from the free-will hypothesis?


Regarding free will you seem to be confusing two issues. Indeed it is a choice to live a homosexual 'lifestyle' and to have homosexual sex. But I am curious as to what evidence you have that in the majority of cases the feelings of attraction towards the same sex are a result of free will.

Most gay people I know started to have these feelings at the same time or slightly later than the rest of us do. Many people struglle with it for years and it can take a psychological toll, especially when they have been raised in an environment where they have come to regard it is sinful. Additionally if they decide to come out they can expect much ridicule and bullying, especially if it is at a young age. Im not sure what you mean by teaching that homosexuality is normal, but it is very important that people who are gay are taught that there is nothing wrong with that. Of course they should be taught the statistics about AIDs etc, I certainly was when I was in high school, in the US is there a deliberate attempt to hide this information?

Teaching people that it is not OK to be gay will not make less people gay it will just make more people depressed and unhappy.

Date: 2006/04/07 05:51:35, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
The first rule of the CBEBs club is - don't talk about the CBEBs club.

Possible club motto: CBEBs give IDiots the heeby geebies.  
How is that pronounced, we don't want it to sound too much like Cbeebies.

Quote
The designtologists are convinced that there is a 'global conspiracy' of scientists - are we starting one?  Or is it just that no-one has invited me yet

We thought about it, but then we realised that puposefully keeping ID out of the literature because it hasn't actually produced any research isn't strictly a conspircay.

Date: 2006/04/07 12:17:53, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Our disagreement appears to rest mainly on the fact that you believe homosexuality to be a choice. You ask for proof otherwise, Im not sure what form this would take, as I would guess you think gay people are lying about this fact.

Quote
An evolutionary pathway to a "homosexual" orientation seems contradictory on its face.
I never said there was one, assuming it's psychological that does not mean it is the result of free will. However as I pointed out before, the existence of a 'gay gene' will lead many people to feel justified in calling it a genetic disease.

Quote
Homosexuals and Lesbians differentiate in many respects in terms of their "gay" behaviors.
Lesbians are homosexuals.

Quote
Nothing wrong?  If the behavior shows overrepresentation in terms of AIDS, STDs, drug abuse, domestic violence and early morality then how can you say there is "nothing wrong" with that behavior?

Again they should be told this, Im not saying you should encourage people to be gay, but people do commit suicide because they are gay in a society where it is seen as a sin. Students have an over representation of stds, religious people have an over representation of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STDs, teen pregnancy, and abortion. I do not think we should tell people religion and going to university are wrong, but these things are more of a choice than being gay. Again just because you are gay does not mean you go out and sleep with loads of random guys and take drugs, these things are choices, being attracted to the same sex is not.

Quote
But you're assuming an unmalleable biological "orientation."  What's the evidence, I ask?
I am happy for ther sake of argument to assume its psychological, but in the vast majority of cases it is not a choice, unless of course there is a big gay conspiracy I am not aware of. As for malleability, electric shock therapy has been shown to do the trick.

Quote
Is "nothing wrong" the equivalent of saying it's "normal?"
The most important question. No it is not, nothing wrong means that they are not automatically bad people, or sinners. They need all the information about the statistics you mentioned, and then they may or may not choose to live that lifestyle.

Date: 2006/04/09 13:14:25, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Thordaddy,

Do you think that if children are taught these statistics about homosexuality (and I don't know what they teach in the US but I was certainly taught that gays get more STDs), then a large number of men will decide not to become gay after all?

Do you disagree that if we also teach these statistics, then it is also OK to say if you think you are gay this does not automatically make you a sinner or a bad person?

Do you disagree that the attraction to the opposite sex is not a choice, and a person can then decide to live as a homosexual without descending into a life of drugs and promiscuous unprotected sex.

Date: 2006/04/09 14:28:06, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
I knew a few medical students when I was doing my degree, and in our city homosexuals were behind immigrants and students for STDs percentage-wise.

Date: 2006/04/09 14:46:47, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Close to 600 years ago the established authorities of the Western world – people who everywhere commanded unquestioned respect– knew as an incontrovertible fact that the sun and all the planets revolved around the Earth….When a devout Christian named Copernicus propounded as fact that the Earth and all the planets actually revolved around the sun, and offered mathematical evidence, he was quietly dismissed as deluded….The revolution of the sun and planets around the Earth was not an assumption, declared the pope of the day, but a well-established fact, and these dangerous meddlers were popularizing their nonsensical views among students, teachers, parents, administrators and policymakers.
This is my favourite argument I hear IDists make, even better than 'engineers recognise design' and 'the more data we get the less likely evolution is'. Im pretty sure the current pope supports ID if he's not a creationist, and I imagine the pope in Darwin's day didn't take to kindly to his theory. They might as well use the example of Darwin's theory winning over creation in the 1800's as a metaphor for what they hope to accomplish.

Quote
Even though educated people understand that ID is not about supernatural causation
I'd believe that if it wasn't for the fact that all the major ID proponents attack naturalism. Also, the last time I posted on UD and pointed out that simeltaneously refusing to identify the designer and attacking naturalism is a bit of a mixed message, I was met with bible quotations in response.

Quote
“Evolution has solved the problem of anoxic survival millions of years ago…”
The phrase “solved the problem” implies the possession of intelligence and purpose.
In this case intelligence and purpose is attributed to a “force”.
For f**ks sake, thats almost as bad as saying
Quote
When scientists have to continually look to nature to figure out how to do things well, doesn’t it become apparent at some point that we’re dealing with embodied intelligence?

Date: 2006/04/10 06:24:24, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
1) The extent to which society should tolerate homosexual behavior
I'm very curious to know your definition of homosexual behaivour.

Date: 2006/04/10 06:57:26, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Sex or sexual contact between members of the same gender. Romantic kissing, petting, and well.....you know.
Oh ok, I just thought you might be classing drugs STDs etc as typical homosexual behaivour like some other people on this thread whos name I wont mention.

Quote
Here's an interesting question: what role should societal condemnation play? Even if a society doesn't illegalize a certain behavior, it is still possible to make life difficult for people doing it (note: I am not saying this is a good thing, just stating a fact).
In many cases it is probably more effective than illegalization.

Date: 2006/04/10 09:33:09, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
However, let us not lose sight of the fact that a scientific theory that requires a judge to enforce its teaching cannot be said to be in good INTELLECTUAL health. By proclaiming it illegal to “disparage or denigrate” neo-Darwinism, Judge Jones adopted the principle of the Inquisition, and in so doing rendered both himself and that state-enforced theory ridiculous. Taking a longer view, I think Dover will come eventually to be be seen as a moral victory, in the same way that Galileo’s condemnation is now viewed as a moral victory.


Quote
No scientist should ever be so committed to an ideology, whether that ideology is religious or philosophical in nature, that it blinds him to possible interpretations of scientific data. That happened in Galileo’s time and it is happening today whenever people close their eyes and plug their ears to design inferences in biology.


What I find hilarious about these analogies is that they don't realise that their ideas are the equivalent of saying Galileo was wrong. They might as well compare themselves to Darwin.

Date: 2006/04/11 01:31:39, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
From the IDEA site: intelligent design theory is not merely a negative argument against evolution. Intelligent design begins with positive predictions based upon our observational experience of how intelligent designers operates.
Great, what are these predictions?

Quote
Darwin's argument for natural selection was an argument from ignorance, because he was so utterly ignorant of what he was dealing with.
If we were having this discussion in the 1800s I would not ask for the same evidence as I do now. The same way if Darwin was working today the proof he gave in Origin would not be sufficient to convince most people.

Quote
And Darwin’s theory is in fact an inference from a number of different classes of evidence. And Darwin justified the theory not because he could make observable predictions in the laboratory – after all he was trying to reconstruct the distant past – instead he justified it because it provided a better explanation of the evidenced than the main competitor hypothesis, and that’s precisely how the theory of intelligent design is formed, framed, and justified.
I never said that ID wasn't an inference from evidence, I said it was an argument from ignorance. Do you have a link to an explanation of how it explains the evidence better than evolution that isn't some variation of: we don't know how it evolved, therefore 'it was designed' explains it better.

Quote
Well, what you’re getting at is that our argument is an argument from ignorance, but it’s not an argument from ignorance, it’s based on the evidence that has been discovered of the complexity in the cell, the information-bearing properties in particular, but it’s also based on what we know about it takes to build informational systems.
Apologies as information theory is not my strong point, but do we have examples of infomational systems that are not either organisms or machines built by humans. There may be arguments for ID that I haven't seen, but CSI as it is currently calculated for the falgellum is an argument from ignorace so long as it is based on IC and the assumption that the only possible evolutionary pathway is all of the genes spontaneously appearing.

Quote
We should have infinite patience for the unknown and unsolved if it relates to NDE, but we should have no patience at all for anything that ID theory has failed to answer up front.
I would have patience, except for the fact that ID advocates claim that they have produced the evidence to dismiss evolution and accept design, so I think what I ask for is not too great. If they said what they have is a hypothesis and a work in progress, then I would ask for less evidence based on the claim.

Quote
Intelligent design begins with positive predictions based upon our observational experience of how intelligent designers operates.
Quote
it provided a better explanation of the evidenced than the main competitor hypothesis, and that’s precisely how the theory of intelligent design is formed, framed, and justified.
Combine these two and you could make some interesting predictions, so far I haven't seen many.

Quote
Did he really? Because I was not aware of that, and it isn't what I recall reading.
He also said that each mutation needs a 'fitness coefficient' so we know how natural selection was able to operate on it.

Quote
What is a mutation in regulation?
The developmental cycle is contolled by a network of transcription factors (eg the Hox genes) which control the time ordered tissue specific gene expression which creates all the different cells in the right order. Because transcription factors bind to short promoter stretches of DNA mutations not only cause loss of binding, but also binding of transcription factors to new random sequences. Random rearrangement of DNA binding domains in transcription factor proteins themselves can create novel binding properties. Changes in how this network is wired can cause significant chages in phenotype, for example a change in the expression of certain hormones may cause larger brains in humans comapred to other primates. Also, because of phenotypic plasticity and genetic assimilation, different genotypes can produce different phenotypes in response to environmental stimulation, which can be eventually translated into genotype.

Because of this we would not expect body plan development to be controlled the same way, as this is likely the main cause of change in body plans. We cannot just look at individual genes for homology, we need to look at the structure of the network as a whole.

Quote
I think it is not quite the case that there have been no research proposals or papers, but it isn't a serious drawback for me.
Again if they are saying that this is a work in progress then it is not a problem, and some people are starting to talk that way now. It is a problem if the claim if all the data they have proves ID, and it is already enough to dismiss Darwinism, and there has been no published research. It is also relevent when complaining they are being kept out of the literature, which is what I think the original point was.

Date: 2006/04/11 04:02:00, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Parties like Pianka are unnecessary distractions. Why seek confrontations with them when the real target should be the Designer.
I don't think seeking a confrontation with Designer would be a good idea.

Quote
I sincerely wish you well in the next chapter of your life, Sir William!

As an Englishman I find trivialising the position of Knight Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire quite offensive!

Quote
At the request of my fang club (whom I dearly love and feel very flattered by all the attention they give me) here are referrer stats. For March 2006.

Direct Address/Bookmark 92.2%
Search Engines 2.3%
External Pages 5.1%

Top Six External Pages
———————-
designinference.com 0.91%
antievolution.org 0.42%  :angry:
leiterreports.typepad.com 0.26%
telicthoughts.com 0.17%
newyorktimes.com 0.13%
pandasthumb.org 0.13%

Kind of hard to tell how much the fang club contributes to people bookmarking us which is where the vast majority of referrals come from. But I do appreaciate their efforts nonetheless and I try to keep them as excited as humanly possible. It’s great fun for everyone!

Nice to see we're getting the recognition we deserve.

Date: 2006/04/11 10:48:55, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Homosexuality, given all the current evidence, is a product of free-will and a lifestyle choice.
What evidence?

Quote
There are very DISTINCT differences between lesbianism and homosexuality.
Lesbians are homosexual, they are also gay.

Quote
Again, another "scientist" who thinks that someone who disagrees with teaching young children about the "normalcy" of homosexuality and gayness MUST be religious.
Well are you against teaching that it doesn't automatically make them freaks or bad people?

Date: 2006/04/11 11:13:35, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Intelligent Design theory specifically states that the evolution of the bacterial flagellum without intelligent input is impossible because the probability that every protein would form simeltaneously as a random combination of amino acids, along with the correct expression and arrangement mechanisms in place, is less than the universal probability bound. Have you not read No Free Lunch?

Date: 2006/04/11 13:22:41, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Has anyone ever claimed there is a universal evolution law?

Ok because Im generous ...

2, 3, 4, 6, 10: start with this. For these and 5 then try reading up on phenotypic plasticity and evodevo.

If you think evolution should currently be able to explain all of these then you seem to be slightly out of touch with what evolutionists are claiming it actually is.

Quote
The number of varieties of life forms vastly outnumbers that of environment.
How many varieties of environments are there?

Quote
21.  The phenomenon of specified and irreducible complexity.
I predict that evolution will prove these untrue. I also predict that anyone who claims design is proved by calculating the impossibility of every protein in the bacterial flagellum forming spontaneously from random sequences doesn't quite have a full grasp of the issues.

Im not sure how your philosophical musings count as facts that have anything to do with evolution at all.

Date: 2006/04/11 13:29:43, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
I was referring to their blurry arguments regarding the conservation information, not IC.
I will edit my post to make that clear.
Don't worry I was being sarcastic, but that is how Dembski calculates the probabilty in NFL.

Date: 2006/04/11 13:47:34, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Exactly... "what evidence" is there for a genetic component for homosexuality?  This is what I keep looking for and since we cannot find it I make the crazy assumption that is represents a choice.
Your're right it is crazy, assuming that it is purely psychological that is no reason to think it represents choice. It also could be due to hormone levels during pregnancy, this is neither genetic nor a choice.

Quote
Are you honestly asserting that this takes place in the public school system outside fringe cases?  You seem to know little about the ethos and political leanings of most of the teachers in the US public school system.
Fair enough, but I am asking your opinion on whether it is acceptable to tell children who might be experiencing these feelings that they are not freaks or bad people. I am not sure what does take place in the US school system, but the I don't think that saying homosexuality is 'normal' (although I think this is unnessecary at best) if that is what people are saying, will increase the number of people who decide to be gay. Telling people the potential consequences of entering the 'gay lifestyle' is a good idea, and I know I was certainly taught it when I was in high school (although where I grew up students on average took more drugs and caught more stds than homosexuals).

Quote
can we now explain what exactly is a "gay gene?"
The gay gene codes for the transcription factor Sodomase, which increases estrogen production during development. :D ...maybe.

Date: 2006/04/11 14:00:25, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
What is "embryonic stem cell research," if not a form of eugenics?
Eugenics does not mean killing people, I dont see how stem cell research fits under any description. Screening embryos for genetic defects fits under a very very broad definition, but then the arguments are the same as those for abortion. In short this thread is useless because people are having the exact same arguments on other threads.

Date: 2006/04/11 14:27:34, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
You've already implied the taboo nature of this branch of science
About as taboo as abortion, and basically based on the same arguments. Most people i believe think its ok to select embryos to avoid potential birth defects due to in-vitro fertilization. The arguments for and against this are the same as for and against abortion.

Date: 2006/04/12 00:00:43, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
I try and answer your questions.  Will you be kind enough to answer mine?
How about we skip to the end of this thread. You apparently want me to say something that will invalidate arguments for abortion. Well I have already said I agree with prenatal testing, which extends to genetic counselling. So Im not sure what your point is. Im assuming you don't need arguments against forcably breeding or steralizing people.

Date: 2006/04/12 00:03:48, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
There is NO way to differentiate between a specific zygote AND the person it becomes.
Are you blind? You can totally tell, the person is a lot bigger for a start.

Date: 2006/04/12 04:34:25, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
He/she should chew on facts like the mind-numbing probabilistic challenge in the production of one single protein molecule of 100 amino acids and the incredibly hostile prebiotic conditions that would have prevented life from happening on the early earth, sans intelligence.

Quote
I’ve yet to see someone address Dembski’s argument head on - it’s not complexity per se that is at issue in biological explanations. It’s specified complexity.
The fact that their main arguments seem to be based on the assumption that we think entire proteins formed spontaneously is quite amusing.

Date: 2006/04/12 12:46:36, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Assuming that the stats you cite are true, what on earth would change other than teaching children this in sex education? You say homosexuality is a choice so I ask you again assuming it isnt genetic what evidence do you have that it is a lifestyle choice?

Date: 2006/04/12 13:22:29, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Although I am not an evolutionary biologist evolution does feature heavily in my work, and I collaborate with several evolutionary biologists. Bearing that in mind I feel I have a good idea of what evolutionary theory actually says.

Quote
No one would argue that the best competing theory to the God theory is Darwinism evolution.[quote]Evolution says as much about the existence of a god as plate tectonics.

[QUOTE]Since the God theory is invoked to cover everything that exists, its best competing theory must be able to do the same.  If it cannot, it does not qualify as a viable competing theory.
Again evolution has never claimed to replace god, nor to explain existence.

Quote
Since Darwinism is commonly viewed by both laymen and experts believers as a better theory than the God theory
It is viewed as a theory that better explains the diversity of life on earth given the available evidence.

Quote
If they only use it to explain non-intelligent biological evolution (human excluded), they are admitting inferiority of their theory and cannot claim superiority to the God theory.
All we are claiming is that is fits the evidence better to explain biological evolution.

Quote
So, if materialists must have a complete, coherent, and consistent worldview, they cannot avoid using their best theory, Darwinism, as the universal law that explains everything.
Darwinism is a materialistic theory because it is a scientific theory. Supernatural explanations will become part of science as soon as someone has a scientifi way to identify supernatural phenomenon.

Quote
Until they have a universally applicable theory, they cannot expect to convince humans to give up on the God theory.
Scientists are not trying to.

Quote
Thus it is only fair game for people and our kids to take a close look to see if the theory is actually universal or if it can explain the things that are commonly explained by the God theory.  
Considering that they are taught in schools that evolution does not explain the origin of life I dont see this as a problem.

Quote
While most knowledge can be misused, no true fundamental knowledge is known to have no beneficial value to humans.  If Darwinism is a truthful knowledge uncovered by the human mind, it must have some value to human survival.
Wrong, not all phenotypic manifestations, including consciousness, need to be nessecarily selectable. They are called evolutionary spandrels.

Quote
Common sense and experience tells us that the mind must have a goal in order to accomplish something creative or just help the body to survive or get fed.  A truthful goal for the human race is essential to the long-term survival of the race.  And the search for such a goal has been ongoing ever since the invention of the mind.
We are free to make our own purpose, this is what seperates us from slaves and leads to real progress.

Quote
The fact that Darwinism has not satisfied the mind's search for the ultimate puzzle and has very little value to guide future human evolution or survival is sufficient evidence that the theory is false, by the very own standard of Darwinian principle.
Evolutionary biologists do not claim that evolution can answer philosophical questions.

Quote
Darwinism has only trivial practical value to humans or does not fit to humans
In my department and most others we use evolutionary theory to identify and try and design drugs for malaria, cancer and aids. I would count this as having some practical value.

Quote
It is only a matter of time before it will be replaced by a fitter theory that does provide answer to the most fundamental question the mind is capable of asking.  If evolution is true, that answer will no doubt have great value in facilitating human future survival and will provide an inspiring purpose for life and existence.

You seem to be confusing biology and philosophy, biology can be defined as:
Quote
The science of life and of living organisms, including their structure, function, growth, origin, evolution, and distribution.
See how the word 'purpose' is not included there. See how the origin of life may be included but the origin of the universe isn't. Feel free to propose a theory that you think fits the data better than biological evolution. If you think that a scientific theory needs to explain human 'purpose' then I suggest you read up on the definition of science. If you need to invoke some supernatural purpose to give your life meaning then I pity you, but this has nothing to do with evolution.

Date: 2006/04/12 13:46:53, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
The people who like Howard listened for 40 minutes per day. The people who disliked him listened for 1 hour each day. This strategy made Howard the highest paid entertainer in history.
And DaveScot gets paid how much?

Quote
Darwin’s Black box, Darwin’s nemesis, Of Pandas and People, Irreducible Complexity, Specified Complexity, and the list looks to me to go on and on.

Date: 2006/04/13 06:00:21, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1034#comments

A post on uncommon descent, arguing for common descent, using an article from talkorigins. Irony taken to a whole new level.

Date: 2006/04/13 07:36:17, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Thats true, it never occured to me before that anything other than the vaugest ID hypothesis would have to take a position on common descent and possibly alienate most of their supporters. Sounds like another 'here is our theory but we're not going to test it and it's up to you to test it otherwise you have to assume we're right'.

Date: 2006/04/13 09:31:01, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
DaveScot said...

   "When will "Uncommon Descent" issue a formal apology to Eric Pianka?"

   Right after I piss on his grave.
What a charming and compassionate guy.

Quote
Agnostic? Sounds like he has to keep beating himself over his head to make sure that he is still agnostic.
It's hard to tell whether or not he's just pandering to his fundementalist fans.

Date: 2006/04/14 08:19:20, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Well at the moment all their arguments are based on analogies to human machines. So we have: All information processing systems are either human designed machines or organisms, therefore humans designed organisms. This is why Im sticking to the time-traveller theory.

Date: 2006/04/14 08:30:23, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Actually, after 10 years we still do not have a single, peer reviewed study in any scientific journal that actually has falsified Irreducible Complexity.
That coudn't be anything to do with the fact that they keep changing the definition does it?

Date: 2006/04/14 09:04:11, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Here's a good place to start

Date: 2006/04/14 10:07:28, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
On the current PT thermo thread, Steve just linked up the DaveScot classic where he claimed that him typing a sentence violated the SLoT
Someone does really need to point out to the IDers that intelligence does not equal supernatural. Im not sure intelligence on its own is a requirement to break fundemental laws, otherwise I'd fly to work.

Quote
So, you think the Time Lords of Gallifrey did it?
No, I was only six when the BBC aired the cheetah people episode and that put me off it for ages. My theory is in the future Behe Dembski and Meyer travel back in time and plant the first frontloaded genome to prove their ideas correct so they can sell lots of books.

Date: 2006/04/14 12:21:29, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Haha, but maybe the designer created the organisms using a trail and error method, therefore creating the same pattern!  And remember when common descent and common design are equally plausible, we must assume common design because you are all atheist materialist scum and Jesus is on our side!

Date: 2006/04/14 23:36:17, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
We don't know that the Tiktaalik lived 383 million years ago. We don't know that it used its unusual fins to walk. We don't know that it ever left the water. We don't even know for sure that it is extinct today. And we sure don't know that it represents any link between one species and another.

We simply don't know what we don't know. And I sure wish those who called themselves scientists would just admit that.
Just priceless.

Quote
Where, one reader demanded, did I get the information that 10 percent of scientists accept intelligent design? I got it from a National Post (newspaper) article published two years ago, which said that 90 percent of the members of the National Academy of Science "consider themselves atheists." Since if you're not an atheist, you allow for the possibility of a Mind or Intelligence behind nature, this puts 10 percent in the I.D. camp.
Thats the daftest thing I've read in a long time.

Date: 2006/04/15 06:33:00, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
What they did was work the hTRT gene that affected telomere length, and then “voila”, the cell became immortalized! The junk DNA essentially served as a road map for the researchers. How hard would it have been to uncover this without “junk DNA”!
Junk DNA, nothing to do with ID.

Quote
It was also very satisfying to see one or our IDEA members who is a protein engineer apply the concepts of comparing sequences across species to assist her in elucidating the structure of proteins she was researching. Indeed, were it not for how proteins were architected across various species, the elucidation would have been exponentially more difficult. Thankfully those “conserved” regions led her quickly to where the treasures would be found.
Its called homology modelling, and has absolutely nothing to do with ID, people have been doing this for years.

Quote
These are early developments in the ID conception, and if biotech companies ever seize on this view of reality and make serious money, it won’t matter how the rest of academia handles the peer-review process as ID will be part of a far more profitable enterprise, and the de facto paradigm for biology.
Is it just me or do ID advocates enjoy retrodiction a bit too much.

Date: 2006/04/15 14:14:03, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
"Homosexuals" AREN'T victims, they're in large part bullies looking to mold society in their image and the heck with the consequences.

But what does this have to do with manifesting dangerous behaviors in young school children that could lead to deadly diseases and early death through teaching the "normalcy" of such behavior?
What evidence do you have that gay people a) want more people to be gay and b) are trying to 'recruit' people in schools. If you actually talk to gay people you get a different story, assuming they're not lying to me in case I rumble their scheme.

Date: 2006/04/16 02:37:26, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
As I recall, (I tried to check this but couldn’t recall the original post that generated the comments, go figure) DaveScot had some interesting ideas about how information is contained in DNA, I want to say it had something to do with the shape, but could be wrong.
Its called epigenetics, still nothing to do with ID.

Just noticed the JAD papers have been removed from the sidebar.

Date: 2006/04/16 03:39:12, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Materialists can’t avoid ID by pointing to it’s supernatural implications. In fact, their attempts to do so are what suggest to me that their scientific position is in bad shape, and they know it. The only way they can beat ID is by showing that the teleology that undeniably exists in nature can be plausibly accounted for by way of unintelligent causes. They need to stop throwing out the red herrings of possible supernatural connections to ID and get into the lab or go out into the field and do some research!

Comment by crandaddy — April 16, 2006 @ 7:03 am
So evolutionary biologists should take a tip from ID and start pumping out papers and research then.

Date: 2006/04/17 01:58:54, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
DS:
Quote
Behe defines irreducible complexity as:

   A single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning”.

We can test this with structures like the flagellum through knockout experiments that remove bits of the structure so we can observe whether it continues to function. Thus the IC hypothesis makes predictions that can be tested.

So for a system to be classified as IC it requires that if parts are removed the system will cease to function. Then once we have an IC system the testable prediction is that if you remove parts it will cease to function.

Riiiight.

Date: 2006/04/17 12:53:57, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
No social harm is going to ensue by allowing gay people the same rights as straight people.
I imagine it will make things better, a gay man who can not have an open monogomous relationship is more likely to be promiscuos.

Date: 2006/04/18 04:20:49, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
2)  I know from my engineering experience that sophisticated, non-biological machines that actually work require enormous amounts of intelligence (not to mention effort) to get them designed well enough to where they will work and continue working for a long time.  I have no reason to believe that biological machines would be otherwise--they are made of the same stuff--it all comes from the same periodic table.
This is the same argument Intelligent design supporters use, and is simply an argument from ignorance, why deosn't fly as proof in science. Many of the people who work with these 'machines'  and help to show how they have evolved are engineers by training.

Quote
apparently Francis Crick went for the Space Alien/Panspermia idea
Panspermia has nothing to do with intelligent aliens, it simply states living matter has been deposited on earth one or more times e.g. on meteorites.

Quote
4)  Next, I look at the fossil record with the zillions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth, and I conclude that there must have been a massive, global flood which buried all those fossils.
The fossil record does not look like what we expect if the foold were true, but it does fit in with what we would expect from what we understand from geology and evolution, and if these fossils were deposited over millions of years.

Quote
I have never heard of a random mutation that could be considered beneficial.
Mutations in bacteria and other pathogens confer resistance. Some humans have mutations which give them resistance to AIDS and other diseases, and others that generally make their immune system stronger. Other people have mutations that make their bones stronger.

Quote
I'm not aware of A SINGLE fossil that can be considered transitional
The link you gave doesn't seem to work. Firstly a loose definition of a transitional fossil is one that has some features of one species and some of another, it does not mean the direct desendent of one and the direct ancestor of another. I am not sure about the specific problems you have with the whales, but we have good reason to believe that our current idea of evolution is correct.Each of these fossils get less 'whale like' the further back we go, so the phylogenetic tree fits in with evolution. Constructing the phylogenetic tree when we just had some of the fossils told us where to look for the rest. Also, using the fossil skulls it was possible to reconstruct the acoustics of the ears of these creatures and see that the ears got progressively better at hearing underwater, which is what evolution would predict.

Also with Tiktaalik evolution told us exactly where to look to find the fossil based on where it would fit in the phylogeny. This is why evolution is the best scientific theory because it makes the best predictions. Creation science has made predictions, especially based on flood geology, but these have been shown to be wrong. The fossil record supports a gradual sedimentation, and features such as the grand canyon would look quite different if they were caused by the flood.

Date: 2006/04/18 08:00:23, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
I've read artlicles by him about this before, and it has been pointed out to the IDists several times, but that hasn't stopped them claiming that SETI somehow gives them scientific validity.

Date: 2006/04/18 09:46:44, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
And how do you think societies treatment of homosexuals affects these numbers?

Date: 2006/04/18 09:54:23, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote

Let me highlight the verbs and nouns listed in the excerpt that imply intent, intelligece and information–including some of the ones used to describe what the researchers did, to show how deeply intuitive ID really is, even in the language of those trying to deny it:

   The standard genetic code, by which most organisms translate genetic material into protein metabolism, is non-randomly organized. The Error Minimization hypothesis interprets this non-randomness as an adaptation, proposing that natural selection produced a pattern of codon assignments that buffers genomes against the impact of mutations. Indeed, on the average any given point mutation has a lesser effect on the chemical properties of the utilized amino acid than expected by chance. Might it also, however, be the case that the non-random nature of the code effects the rate of adaptive evolution? To investigate this, here we develop population genetic simulations to test the rate of adaptive gene evolution under different genetic codes. We identify two independent properties of a genetic code that profoundly influence the speed of adaptive evolution. Noting that the standard genetic code exhibits both, we offer a new insight into the effects of the ‘‘error minimizing’’ code: such a code enhances the efficacy of adaptive sequence evolution.

Comment by kathy — April 18, 2006 @ 12:53 pm


I see, and when my highschool geography teacher told me that the magma under the crust was trying to escape...

Is it possible that anthropomorphising during school teaching could have a permanent effect of people?

Date: 2006/04/18 14:18:07, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Homophobia certainly isn't going to keep gay people from having sex any more. There is no going back, you are not going to stop people who want to have sex from having sex, unless you introduce some pretty harsh punishments. I really think at this point legalising gay marriage can at worst have no effect on the problem of promiscuity. We don't really have black communities in England, but there certainly are several groups that have a much higher rate of STDs than normal such as students and chavs, who in fact have a higher rate than gays in most areas. However this is due to lack of money, laziness (students) and lack of education (chavs) that leads to higher rates of unprotected sex. In fact where I went to university and was able to look at the records the majority of AIDS cases were among immigrants, so I dont think the gay marriage laws in the UK will make any difference whatsoever. If you are worried I suggest not having unprotected sex with anyone who hasn't been tested.

If you think American marriage could go down a slippery slope look at what we have to contend with.

ps this happened before the gay marriage law was inacted.

Date: 2006/04/18 15:01:59, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
It's probably worth pointing out since you quoted the libertarian defininition of freedom of association, that libertarians regard any company with limited liability as an extension of the state, so any freedom of association law would not apply according to the libertarians who I have asked about this. Also, under freedom of association is freedom of contract, so gay marriage is covered.

Remember the difference between liberal and left-wing.

Date: 2006/04/19 03:19:13, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Actually, what would be necessary is that large numbers of the bees and flowers possessing the corresponding beneficial mutations would miraculously have to simultaneously appear in the same place, because a single bee visits many flowers, and each flower is visited by many bees.

Oh no, evolution has been disproved.

Date: 2006/04/19 13:04:39, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
So what's the proper term?  Evolutionist?
An evolutionist is another term for someone who studies evolutionary biology, like someone who studies genetics is a geneticist. Darwinism if you really stretch the definition can refer to the modern synthesis as it existed in the early part of the last century. There is not really a word for someone who accepts modern science who is not a scientist, only for someone like yourself who does not.

Date: 2006/04/20 02:02:02, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Voluntary sex, no matter how common, clearly infringes on nobody's rights. Those who are offended by a particular behavior may refuse to engage, and in fact may take reasonable steps to shield themselves from the act and its consequences (if any exist).
I think this is the most important point.

Quote
There is NO equal protections relevancy as ALL Americans are bound by the same law concerning marriage (one man, one woman).  Our society recognizes the unique value of marriage and this is why a radical homosexual minority seeks out the courts to do what can't be done in the ballot box.
Is your problem to do with family and the possibility of children etc. If so I agree this isn't as black and white and research needs to be done. Althought studies show that children raised with two lesbian parents are as well adjusted as children raised in a 'normal' family environment and better of than the children of single parents.

Quote
The end is to extract benefits and mainstream homosexuality through state sanction using equality and tolerance as their battle cries.
So your main concern is the drain on the economy?

Date: 2006/04/20 05:28:22, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
And the lizards that evolved the ability to regrow limbs survived, or something...

Mind you if I was Hovind I wouldn't give money to the government who apparently is sitting on the cure for cancer.

Date: 2006/04/20 10:21:45, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
I dont think anyone is claiming that was why marriage was defined. I still don't understand your objections, do you think gay people are hoping that homosexuality being seen as normal will make more people gay?

Date: 2006/04/20 10:53:59, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Why can't my 5 brothers and I get "married" so we can further our financial and business interests and use the equal protection clause as the basis for our argument?
You could start a homo-hexagamy pride march. Although I think you'd be hard pushed to convince people you were serious.

Date: 2006/04/20 11:41:56, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Because the act that is most associated with male gayness (anal sex) will be normalized.
How will legalizing gay marriage increase the amount of anal sex?

Date: 2006/04/20 13:56:03, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Ghost, I am as frustrated with societies general attitude towards civil iberties as you are, and if legalizing gay marriage was a restriction on your freedoms, the I agree there would need to be some give and take, but I don't see how it is.

Thor,
Quote
Anyone with even a smidgeon of brains recognizes the inherent risk of normalizing the "union" of two testosterone-driven males who's main sexual act is that of anal sex. You seem to be making the claim that the incidence of AIDS will decline with "gay" marriage?
No one is claiming to have any proof for that. What we are saying is that there is no reason to believe legalizing gay marriage will increase the amount of gay sex or promiscuity. Anal sex is already normalized to the point that anyone who wants to do it will do it, it isn't really a societal taboo anymore.

Date: 2006/04/21 03:23:37, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Ghost quoted the libertarian definition. Basically the result is that it allows people to discriminate against whoever they want. So for example a company could refuse to hire gay people, or a shop to refuse to serve black people. Although as I pointed out before, to make most libertarian economic ideas workable, you either need to abolish limited liability all together, or accept that these companies are extensions of the state, and freedom of association does not mean state sponsered discrimination. This also means ending any kind of positive discrimination on the part of the state, except perhaps where it is of practical benefit.

I don't understand the point of bringing this up though, because I don't see how legalizing gay marriage will have as nearly as much of an effect as complete freedom of association. It isn't give and take, allowing gays to marry will not affect Ghost or Thordaddy in the slightest. The only peoples lives to be affected will be the people who get married. I think Ghost would agree with me that no one has the right not to be offended by the sight of gay people any more than a gay person would have the right to be offended in his world where he wasn't allowed into a shop. I am still waiting on this thread for someone to give a reason why legalizing gay marriage would cause an increase in anal sex, promiscuity or HIV infection rate. There seems to be an assumption that more people will be gay if it is 'normalized'. Im sure more people will be openly gay who wouldn't have been before, but I can guarentee that they were still having sex with men, and in my experience gay people who are not openly gay are more likely to be promiscuos because they are not able to have a steady relationship.

Date: 2006/04/23 11:40:32, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Several people have pointed out how family disruption affects the children, and a single parent family fares worse than those with two parents. The point is that children from a two parent gay faimly are no more emotionally worse off than with a heterosexual family, and are no more likely to become gay themselves. The difference between allowing gay people to marry and allowing any arbitrary union is that the vast majority of openly gay people are not attracted to the opposite sex. So for example if we allowed 5 people to marry this would not solve any problem whatsoever and is unessecary, I am of course assuming that there is not a large number of people who are only attracted to 4 other people and no other number. So for the vast majority of the population the union of either man/man or man/woman will suffice. Regarding the 'normailizing gay marriage will encourage more people to experiment with their tendancies' argument: in many cases that might be true but in most cases these people will find a way to experiment regardless, which if they are terrified of anyone finding out is likely to be more promiscuos than otherwise.

Quote
Once again, civil rights can only be enjoyed if the public assumes the responsibilities that come with those rights.
Gay people will have the same responsibilities as married heterosexual people. I really don't understand what you think the impact on society will be. Legalising gay marriage will not increase the number of gay people, so I'm not sure how your immigration analogy holds. Also could you please define the nodes and edges in your network in which marriage is a hub.

Date: 2006/04/23 12:48:50, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
So you consider gay marriage to be analogous to a gene duplication rather than a mutation.
Well depending on what your network is I'm saying it is a small mutation that slightly increases binding sensitivity, has a small phenotypic effect but no effect on fitness.

Date: 2006/04/23 13:43:46, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Quote
Ken Miller may argue against irreducible complexity, but immunologists and biologists study it all the time! Fairly new research of Apoptosis study irreducibly complex systems.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-01/sjcr-loc010506.php

Comment by Apoptosis — April 21, 2006 @ 4:40 pm

Yeah, you could remove the p53 gene too. Or any number of genes and, bam, you have cancer of some sort.

Is THIS the definition of IC?
You bet your a$$ that's the definition:
Quote
A single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning
What the 'parts' have to be is not defined.

Quote
Also you could sit and observe bacteria. If you had some method of coaxing an/the Intelligent Designer to do his thing (prayer? broadcasting to the alien intelligences?), you’d see a non-motile strain getting spontaneously transformed (kazzam!;) into a motile strain. That would definitely be convincing.
Dave's not gonna like that.

Date: 2006/04/24 03:19:53, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
No one has ever shown me a mutation which INCREASES the information in the organism.
First could you please define what you mean by information. If a gene duplication occurs and one of the proteins changes to perform a new function, is this not an increase of information?

Quote
This understanding of breeding is why I believe it is entirely possible that all "dog-type" animals, for example--dogs, coyotes, wolves, etc. came from one, genetically rich "dog-kind" pair.
No domestic dogs evolved from wolves. If you think that changes in morphology leading from wolves to other dogs could not have occurred without huge amounts of extra 'information' I suggest you google "evo-devo".

Quote
The computer program is just selecting EXISTING information, just like what happens in nature.
Could you also describe the difference between genotypic and phenotypic information and how we measure the two.

Quote
A much more plausible explanation to me is that the whole region was laid down by water over a short period of time--after all, it is fossil-bearing, sedimentary rock.  Then as the water subsided, the canyon was carved in what was still soft sediments, then subsequently hardened.
Could you please explain how a flood roduced a steep cayon and not a wide shallow one. Also how does the creationist model account for the meanders, and deep perpendicular tributaries.

Quote
Fossil sorting is also interesting:  what we have in the fossil record is exactly what one would expect to find if there was a global flood due to hydraulic sorting.
You convinienty left out microfossils, which are arranged exactly how we would expect if they were deposited gradually.

Quote
I agree that many pro-evolution people are open-minded.  I think explains why so many excellent scientists are jumping the "Darwin ship" and turning into Creationists.
Anyone I might have heard of who has jumped the ship recently?

Date: 2006/04/24 05:05:36, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Remind me again how legalizing gay marriage will result in loss of free speech and hiring rights.

Date: 2006/04/24 07:22:38, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
You have spoken about affirmitive action and freedom of hiring. I still don't see how legalizing gay marriage will change this.

Saying that the 'hub of marriage' will be altered by allowing homosexuals to marry is not self-evident unless you define what the network is.

Date: 2006/04/24 08:22:21, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
The JAD post is legit based on his profile. The davescot post he is responding to probably isn't.

Date: 2006/04/24 10:10:34, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
I will ask again: How does legalizing gay marriage infringe upon your civil rights?

Date: 2006/04/24 11:58:28, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
What has anything you quoted got to do with marriage? I can sympathise with you on some of the things you have said, I despair at the erosion of freedom of speech, but it's a seperate issue to gay marriage.

Date: 2006/04/24 12:46:32, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
By the end of next year genome sequencing will be 100 times quicker and a helluva lot cheaper so that thing's going to grow pretty fast.

Date: 2006/04/24 14:17:38, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Thats easy:
Quote
Kind: A group of animals with similar characteristics for which it isn't possible to imagine how they could share a common ancestor without reading about evolution. Y'know; dogs, horses and stuff.

Similar to
Quote
Macroevolution: Evolution that seems implausible based on a series of mutations. Unless someone who is knowlegable about evolution is present in which case it is evolution that has not directly been observed.

Date: 2006/04/24 14:34:25, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
You've shown studies regarding a number of things but none of the points you are making are to do with gay marriage. I do not want to see a general increase in unprotected promiscuous sex, anal or otherwise (although if it has to happen I'd prefer the option that reduces unwanted pregnancies). I do not wan't to see my freedom of speech eroded based on someone elses imaginary right not to be insulted by what I say. I don't want to see a reduction of peoples freedom of association. I agree that single parent families are more likely to lead to emotionally unhealthy children. All you need to do is say how gay marriage will lead to any of this. There is no evidence that it will increase promiscuity, that it will reduce freedom of speech any more than it already has been, that it will affect hiring laws, or that childern raised with gay parents are any worse off than with straight parents.

Date: 2006/04/25 04:08:49, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
I also wanted the crowd to have imprinted in their subconscious minds that IDers are charming guys like James Bond and Brad Pitt.

That's some subtle psychological trickery there. Hmm...

Date: 2006/04/25 04:45:02, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Sorry guys ... all this imaginitive artwork just isn't very convincing to me ... especially considering the other lines of evidence pointing to an Intelligent Creator.

Firstly there have been several finds to create these reconstructions, for exapmle for Ambulocetus when you say all we found is what you have shown, you fail to include we also have this fossil:


You quote that these fossils could be ancestors on hippos and pigs, but this is because they share a common ancestor. Indeed molecular studies have shown that whales are more closely related to ungulates than they are to other mammals.

The geographic evidence of the fossils also fits (the land dwelling creatures were more isolated than their aquatic descendants), and dating of the fossils shows that they started becoming aquatic just after the large canivourus aquatic reptiles died out.

Modern whales have many vestigial trates including muscles for controling the outer ear, and whale embryos gain and loose many structures that their land dwelling ancestors would have had, including hind leg buds.

The envirmonments in which these creatures would have lived transistions from fully terrestrial to fully marine, and the fossils contain oxygen isotopes consistant with transitioning from drinking fresh water to drinking salt water.

A transitional fossil does not mean 'direct descendant of one species and driect ancestor of another', it means a fossil that shows transitional features between the two.

This is why we say the evidence points to evolution, becuase all the different evidence says the same thing, so you need more than 'some of the fossils were partially reconstructed' to prove creation.

I would love to see all the evidence pointing to a designer that isn't a negative argument from ignorance, but I have yet to be shown it. Perhaps you would be so kind.

Ps. you can get all this stuff from googling it's not like it's locked away in dusty journals.

Date: 2006/04/25 08:03:28, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Any thoughts on my comments about information?
Well all the definitions you gave we can show mutations can produce. Thats why they have to invent their own definitions of information.

Date: 2006/04/25 10:48:27, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Why are you against things that 'go against evolution'?

Date: 2006/04/25 13:34:24, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
I see the thread has gone completely of gay marriage then. Never mind.

Date: 2006/04/25 14:03:11, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Plus, if a gay man or a lesbiand get married, and they adopt a child to break up the American family. How likely is it that the child will burn down a church?

And don't get me started on the implications for teaching evolution in schools.

Date: 2006/04/25 14:41:40, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
does the kid have ebola, or not?
With that kind of upbringing are you kidding?. Did i mention his parents were both evolutionists.

Date: 2006/04/25 23:29:54, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Has anyone else noticed that (presumably philosophical naturalist) cosmologists are taking the idea of a multiverse — of which there is absolutely no evidence! — a lot more seriously since cosmic fine-tuning was discovered and widely recognized, since they need those probablistic resources to avoid the conclusion of intelligent design?
Has anyone else noticed that if you google "probabilistic resources" you only get pages associated with Dembski?. Kind of the same way that if you google "amino-peptide complex" (ie. protein) you only get pages related to oil of olay.

Date: 2006/04/26 02:07:39, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
there is just no way to prove that one is "more evolved" or "an ancestor or descendant" of the other.  Keep in mind also that fossils that can be considered "transitional" are very few in number.
Quote
While I agree with you that there are some similarities that could be construed from the evidence, the problem (not just for whales, but for human evolution and other supposed progressions) for me has always been that the evidence is just not conclusive enough, and certainly can never be proved enough to teach our kids that it is a fact.
We can't know that it's a fact with 100% certainty, but as I pointed out before when all the different evidence says the same thing its a pretty safe bet that its right.

Quote
It also can be argued just as easily that the similarities were designed because the Designer wanted them to have similar functions.  No one can "prove" either assertion.
But the point is that we understand much about the mechanisms of evolution, and they certainly are able to produce the morphological changes that we see in the whale lineage, same goes for humans. So it will take some positive proof to show that they were in fact created.

Quote
there is just no way to prove that one is "more evolved" or "an ancestor or descendant" of the other.  Keep in mind also that fossils that can be considered "transitional" are very few in number./QUOTE]a transitional fossil isn't supposed to be "an ancestor or descendant" or "more evolved". It is supposed to show characteristics of both.

[QUOTE]One glaring difficulty remains for both points of view -- Evolution and Creationism -- we cannot prove either one of them in the sense of the scientific method, i.e. you cannot put a Sinonyx in a lab and observe it evolving into a Blue Whale.
If you don't think evolution lends itself to the scientific method you either don't understand evolution or the scientific method. It does not require that things be directly observed. It is a matter of competing hypothesis and making predictions amongst other things. See here for more information.

Quote
Evolutionists also exercise faith.  While their "Evolution Hypothesis" may have some support, no matter how much support they think it has, it ultimately comes down to faith also for reasons already mentioned.
Quote
This is how it is for me with God, and I would have to say that the "God Hypothesis" or the "Creation Hypothesis" is actually one of the best supported hypotheses around.
I disagree based on the evidence. I used to know a creationist, in the sense that she didn't believe in evolution and believed in a young earth. But she was a scientist and she knew that the evidence did not support her beliefs, no matter how much she wanted it to. Everyone sees the world through a lense but with the exception of creationists this is not thick enough to stop science from working.

Quote
In another post, I will outline the overwhelming  evidence from many different disciplines for my "Creator God Hypothesis."
Before you do I would check talk.origins to see the evidence that we have already heard.

Date: 2006/04/26 04:28:33, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
When I say 'understand' I don't mean 'have observed'. I don't expect to observe something occur that takes thousands or millions of years, unless someone discovers a way to speed up time. I am not talking about small 'traits' that people generally ascribe to particular alleles.

No one expects gorillas to evolve the ability to speak (insert planet of the apes joke here), but we have some good ideas how it happened, and can think of functional intermediates, for example some tribal languages that have a reduced number of vowel sounds would require a 'less evolved' larynx, and a language with just one less evolved still.

Quote
I don't know of a single case where someone has observed legs dissappearing off a whale's body or wings being formed from scales.
As I pointed out in a previous post whale embryos start to develop legs and then loose them. I assume you mean feathers evolving from scales, in which case evolutionary scenarios have been proposed, which fit in directly with recently found fossil intermediates.

Quote
I don't know of anyone who has observed it, all of which is part of why I don't believe it.
I will explain the difference again, we can concieve of how these things can be done by evolution. It does not require the generation of entirely novel genes (ie not duplications), it is mostly to do with the change in expression of genes during development. So large changes such as uses of limbs etc, we can now understand how evolution could have accomplished them. I am pretty sure that no one has observed God creating these things either.

Date: 2006/04/26 07:09:08, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
I will say again, science can deal with historical processes and can test hypothesis based predictions we can make from those processes.

Quote
"Explaining the origin of life has been attempted by scientists, theologians and philosophers.  The majority of scientists in universities around the world believe life developed from a common ancestor by natural processes over millions of years ... blah, blah, blah.  However, a minority of scientists, a fair number of theologians and philosophers and about half the public believes that life was specially created by a supernatural agent such as the Christian God, the Hindu [whatever--not up on my Hindu deities], the Islamic Allah, etc.  There is much evidence which is routinely marshalled to support both naturalistic and super-naturalistic views, but nothing can ultimately be proven on either side, since the origin of life has never been directly observed.  It is ultimately a matter of personal belief."


Firstly the origin of life is not taught in schools. What the public believes is irrelevant to a science class, although maybe not a philosophy of science class, same with theologians and philosophers. I have not seen any evidence to support the supernatural side, and masses of evidence to support the natural side, and like Ken Ham says, we all use the same evidence. To teach this statement would be dishonest, I would prefer:

"The vast majority of scientists believe that life on earth has evolved from one or more common ancestors over the course of billions of years. Although there are a small minority who doubt this view the masses of evidence collected in the past 150 years since the theory was first proposed support it. Although events that occured in the past cannot be proved with 100% accuracy there is no other theory that fits the data and makes predictions better than, and no evidence yet discovered that contradicts evolution. While there are questions regarding the specific mechanisms involved, there is no controvesy among scientists as to whether evolution occurred."

Date: 2006/04/26 11:24:28, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Oxford university was founded over 800 years ago. I do not blame those people for assuming that the bible was scientifically accurate, there was not enough evidence to the contrary. Do you see the difference in positions here, it always happens in these kinds of arguments, just look at the thread with Shi for an example. Eventually you see that the evidence does not support your views, so you have to claim atheist conspircay and make sweeping claims about the evils of secularism and how only religion can sort it all out. Even Richard Dawkins has never said that evolution is true because there is no god. We teach evolution because it fits the evidence and makes predictions that help us understand life on earth and cure diseases. If you have any evidence that it is entirely based on secularism I suggest you present it.

Date: 2006/04/26 12:47:39, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Righard Dawkins, a man who I admire for his research and dedication to his principles, was once a religionist. He converted over due to outside influences, and from negative impressions of organized religion. He is stuck in the mold of atheism, but I doubt he really believes it.
Y'know after I watched his program about how religion is the source of all the evil in the world, I found myself thinking the same thing. ???

Date: 2006/04/27 16:21:32, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
If you want to know why some atheists mock the religious just watch this film. Please tell me you are joking, this has to be a joke.

Date: 2006/04/27 16:37:02, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Remember ... it's my Hypothesis and it can be anything I want ... the evidence to support it is coming later ...
Dave, we don't have a probelm with there being a god. Please don't try to present evidence for a young earth or a global flood, it's not funny any more. That being said, if you believe the bible is the innerant word of god, and no evidence will change your mind, we will respect you for that.

Date: 2006/04/27 16:47:42, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
What exactly do you mean by balance? Most of the scientists I work with are religious. I have also worked with a biblical literalist but she would at least admit that the scientific evidence does not support her beliefs and that is the point here.

Date: 2006/04/27 16:52:41, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Everyone who has read my posts on this forum knows I have never said anything disparaging about religion or religious people. But for my own piece of mind, a religious person needs to tell me that this movie is nonsense.

Date: 2006/04/28 03:26:57, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
I meant respect him for being honest. Instead of lying and saying that he believes because of the evidence.

Date: 2006/04/28 04:47:29, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
This interesting thread : http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1078#comments

links you to this essay by Casey Luskin: http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1392

It's worth a read, if only because its the worst thing claiming to be a scientific article I have read in a long time.

Date: 2006/04/29 04:44:39, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
(a) A Super Intelligent Being would be expected to design highly sophisticated machines and systems.  So we would expect to find a vast number of wonderful innovations in the universe which at least appear to be designed.
Subjective statements like this are hardly scientific, in my opinion you don't even need a good knowledge of biology to see that nature does not look intelligently designed at all, incompetently designed, or at least designed by Rube Goldberg.

Quote
Our awe of the wonders of nature has increased exponentially. There are three absolute "must reads" on this topic--"Darwin's Black Box" by Michael Behe, "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" and "Nature's Destiny" both by Michael Denton.
I've read the first one. If that is a good example of the quailty of creationiist literature Ill give the others a pass thanks.



Quote
An Incredibly Powerful Being would be expected to build systems of mind-numbing size and power, such as a power generation system to supply power to all His innovative machines, maybe a lighting system so his creatures can see to navigate on the planet, perhaps a water supply and filtration system to provide clean water to His little creations, and so on.
If I was an incredibly powerful being I would create creatures that could see in the dark and survive without water.

Quote
Basically, the argument is that we find this curious "Law of Right and Wrong" or "Law of Human Nature" at work in our every day experience.  If you examine it, you find that it is quite real and applies to all humans regardless of religious upbringing or lack thereof.  Lewis then argues that there necessarily has to be "Something Behind the Law" which caused it to be.  I think he makes his point very well and I agree with him.  Come on, guys, I read Dawkins' stuff, so you can read Lewis' stuff ... let's be fair.
I read Narnia does that count, has Lewis written any science books, people read Dawkins because they want to learn about science, religion is not science. It could also be argued that certain behaivours may have been an evolutionary advantage.

Quote
If there is such a thing as a Being who can "speak" things into existence using advanced scientific principles which humans have not yet discovered
If I was God I would speak things into existence using supernatural principles.

As other people have pointed out you seem to have misunderstood what a prediction is. I imagine you are aware of the prediciton regarding the chromosome fusion in humans as compared to chimps. This was a prediction because we did not know the sequences or the mappings of chimp chromosomes. If we already had the sequences of chimp chromosomes 12 & 13 (Now 2A and 2B) we would already know how they matched up and it wouldn't be a prediction, it would be a retrodiction of a postdiction.

Date: 2006/04/29 12:20:23, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Yes! I bet my friend that this would be on UD within a week of it being published, and I won. Shame he would only bet five pounds. It was a pretty safe bet I guess.

Quote
I’ve yet to meet this picture perfect liberal that Anne describes. I know a couple of godless atheists. One is a republican who loves listening to Rush.
Does that make sense to an American?

Date: 2006/04/30 04:38:31, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
I have pointed out over there, to no avail, that I have read several papers from the early to mid eighties that describe different functions of non-coding DNA, so I really would like to know how this counts as an ID prediciton. Where in the theory of ID does it say that all DNA has to have function. If the frontloading hypothesis is true I would think there would be quite a bit of stuff left over.

Quote
Does what make sense to an American? That quote? I can't tell what's being discussed, or in what context.
Never mind, it's just the liberal/conservative stereotypes are quite fascinating to someone from the UK where there isn't really the same distinction. I was just wondering if all conservatives are supposed to listen to Rush as that was one I hadn't heard before.

Date: 2006/04/30 05:36:29, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Ah that makes more sense I thought he meant the band thanks.

According to all ID advocates the theory is that some features of nature are best explained by an intelligence. I fail to see how this has got anything to do with junk DNA.

Date: 2006/04/30 06:20:22, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
I'm beginning to be convinced that religion is a good thing for these people. It may just be the thing keeping them from lighting kittens on fire or worse, lynchings etc.
That would also explain why they think everyone one who isn't religious will do those things, because they think it's human nature.

Date: 2006/05/01 02:35:05, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
But I am also very sincere that IF a person from the "Evolution Camp" was to offer a very convincing argument for the fine-tuning of the cosmos
Thats more a question for someone form the cosmology campl don't you think. Don't confuse evolution with atheism, it says nothing about the origin of the universe or whether or not some kind of God exists.

Date: 2006/05/01 02:53:45, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
I cannot quite figure out why alot of people here gripe so much about the DI saying they don't want to talk about God -- I even had somebody warn me that if I blogged over there and mentioned God, they would send me away.  Meyer talks plenty about God in this article.  Can someone explain that one?
Simply because if they say it is supporting religion it violoates the establishment cause. The reason people get on at them about it is that they constantly claim that ID has nothing to do with religion, but also write articles like the one you posted.

Quote
Stephen C. Meyer notes that "The natural and historical sciences employ such logic [abductive] routinely.
William A. Dembski notes that you need to discount all possible natural explanations first, and I dont think we have done that. Remember the existance of a God does not disprove evolution.

Quote
What I really am is an ordinary guy with a pretty good brain for learning most anything who is sick and tired of what appears to me to be absolute nonsense being fed to us from the Evolution Dogmatists.
Quote
Oh ... I teach them both sides alright ... guess which one they pick when they are given the whole truth about Evolution! (like ALL kids should be given)
Perhaps it would be useful if you could state your main problems with evolution, as I am not sure what they are (apologies if I missed them somewhere else). Also what is the truth about evolution you refer to, over on UD many of the things that they said evolutionists were hiding I was actually taught in school. Maybe if we understood what your specific problems were then we could help.

Date: 2006/05/01 03:02:26, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
The Darwinian willingness to prevent the geological column from being rejected (or even doubted) goes against the evidence of human interaction with dinosaurs (formerly known as “dragons”).
No comment.

Date: 2006/05/01 03:36:32, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
A few pointers:

To save you some time, we don't need evidence that there was an ice age.

If you could give us something that we haven't heard a hundred times before I'm sure we'd all be very grateful.

If you're going to present this theory as an alternative to current science theories using abductive reasoning you need to show why it explains the data better than current theories. Just because your hypothesis also talks about the origin of the universe it does not mean it is automatically a better theory of the origin of species than evolution.

Date: 2006/05/01 03:46:25, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
I know but I have a day off and im bored.

Date: 2006/05/01 04:12:15, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Is there any way to copy this stuff over to the other topic?

Quote
My Ice Age info will show that it was not a million (did I get that about right from ToE?) year Ice Age
The theory of evolution doesn't say anything about the ice age, saying thins like this makes people not take you seriously. The theory of evolution says nothing about the origin of the universe, the origin of matter, or the origin of life. Some of the requirements include things like an old earth, but an ice age is not one of them.

Date: 2006/05/01 06:41:14, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Because you can't start from the conclusion and then look for the evidence to fit your conclusion, that is not science.

Date: 2006/05/01 07:32:10, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Science should not be claiming that they have disproved the existence of God because they have not.
Sience is NOT claiming it has disproved God, no scientist is saying that.

Quote
What we have here, Aftershave, is a big problem in science today and many scientists are either too proud, or too blind, or too afraid to lose their jobs or their friends, or whatever to do anything about it themselves.
Is this the old 'most scientists don't really believe in evolution but they just can't say it'. As I scientists I can tell you this is not true.

Quote
Science should not be implying to our children that they are glorified animals, because there is no proof.
What is your definition of an animal that does not include humans?

Quote
Science should not be telling the theologians that God is dead or irrelevant, because they have no basis for claiming that and they arrogantly claim that they do.
They don't say that either, what they do say is that there is no empirical evidence that conclusively points to a God, maybe you can prove them wrong.

Quote
So if science is going to behave irresponsibly, then who else but non-scientists are going to have to jump in and "blow the whistle" ??
Please quote me the science textbook passage of paper that says God does not exist. It is statements like this that make people call you a religious nut. If you think that there is an atheist conspiracy of scientists then please present your evidence.

Date: 2006/05/01 09:00:04, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
I didn't think it was that good, but then again I had already read the book that most of the mythology in TDC was lifted from so it ruined a lot of the surprises for me. I will go and see the film but I swear if it has a disclaimer at the start saying any of the stuff is true Im leaving.

Date: 2006/05/01 09:21:16, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Out of curiosity, do you guys know of any oil companies that drill for oil using a YEC model? Or do they all use Old earth models?
I don’t mean any disrespect, but I’m quite baffled at how anyone can be a YEC in this day and age.

Comment by Fross — May 1, 2006 @ 1:14 pm
Someone obviously hasn't read the bible.

I wonder why then apparently it's not ok for molecular biologists to design drugs using the evolution model.

Date: 2006/05/01 10:55:59, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Just post your evidence already.

Date: 2006/05/01 11:00:23, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
DaveTard has a 'lab' at home?
Well Someone has to do ID research.

Date: 2006/05/01 13:06:42, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
I love anything where there are dark and complicated secrets about society/government/religion.
Just after reading newspapers for the past few years I've had my fill.

Date: 2006/05/01 14:47:42, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
No no, he is of course referring to this piece of exquisitley crafted bulls**t theory: How can we see distant stars in a young universe?.

To summarise because the earth is at the literal center of the universe there is a time dilation which causes the rest of the universe to move much faster so 6000 years for stars thousands of light years away seems like billions of years for us.

Date: 2006/05/02 03:43:46, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Really? I was hoping to be able to use my summon bevets card.

Date: 2006/05/02 06:30:51, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
I have already hinted about some of my evidence for Point 1 - There is a God ... namely, the Cosmic 'Fine-Tuning', biological 'machines' we observe and so on.
We would also expect to see these things if there weren't a God.

Remember you have to present why the evidence fits your hypothesis better than the competing hypothesis.

Date: 2006/05/02 08:20:41, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Chris Hyland's Evolution Hypothesis

A1=WE OBSERVE A FINELY TUNED COSMOS.
Stars and that...

B1=A SUPER-INTELLIGENCE DIDN'T SET THE PARAMETERS.
Because evolution is bound by many factors including physical constants ie the properties of water and carbon, and the availability of energy, it will create organisms that depend heavily on these. Therefore because we observe that if any of the physical constants change life would not exist we assume that evolution is true. Under the alternative hypothesis, we could just as easily see organisms survive if the universe was stacked against them.

A2=BIOLOGICAL MACHINES.
"systems of HORRENDOUS, irreducible complexity inhabit the cell"

B2=THE MACHINES EVOLVED.
Based on what we understand of evolution including duplication followed by differential loss of both genes and interactions, we expect these systems to be incredibly complex, and exhibit certain properties, such as being scale-free, modular and heirachical. We increase our knowledge of A, and find that they are, so we increase our confidence in B.

Date: 2006/05/02 08:32:49, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
The scientist in me says B, but the lazy bas**rd in me says A. Tough call.

Date: 2006/05/02 12:38:50, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
I think the greatest weapons they have are those kinds of arguments from analogy. The great thing is when an engineer learns ome biology they can tell you that the holistic properties of these systems are exactly what we would expect if they had evolved by the processes that we are aware of. In the same system, you see parts that appear to be incredibly efficient and other parts that would be down right incompotent if they were designed, and all the different interacting modules are coupled together with what seems like no thought. In a few decades time we will see systems like the flagellum as incredibly ineficient compared to what we can create so, this argument wont make much sense.

Date: 2006/05/02 23:43:20, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
How is what genetic-id do not design detection? Not only do they detect the presence of design, but they identify the designer as well. Thats top quality design detection at low-low prices.

Quote
The code to the old earth?/young earth? puzzle is in Genesis. Everything “big-banged” with THE APPEARANCE OF AGE already on it. The text chronicles God calling forth the universe out of eternity. Well, how old is eternity?
...
to reason then that galaxies, planets, moons and rocks suddenly manifested out of the forever dimension would have upon them an appropriate appearance of antiquity.

The Fovever Dimension eh?

Date: 2006/05/03 03:16:42, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Not fair I was just about to go over there and point out how technically it is the explanatory filter in reverse, something occurs naturally if it has a low probability of being designed.

Quote
Intelligent Design becoming part of pop culture
Intelligent Design by Cesium-137

(thanks to Joe Manzari for alerting me to this development.)
Nice to know what a 'development' in intelligent design is. I bet this sells better.

Date: 2006/05/03 03:26:44, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Or Dembski's pal Ann Coulter:
Quote
Conservatives believe man was created in God's image, while liberals believe they are gods. All of the behavioral tics of the liberals proceed from their godless belief that they can murder the unborn because they, the liberals, are themselves gods. They try to forcibly create 'equality' through affirmative action and wealth redistribution because they are gods. They flat-out lie, with no higher power to constrain them, because they are gods. They adore pornography and the mechanization of sex because man is just an animal, and they are gods. They revere the UN and not the U.S. because they aren't Americans -- they are gods.

Date: 2006/05/03 06:59:36, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Is there a scientist somewhere that has observed this that I have not read about? In my personal experience and in all my reading, I have never observed (or read about) a non-intelligent cause producing a functional machine (there are a few equivocal examples I have heard about).  Have you?  My experience has ALWAYS been that functional machines require intelligent agency.  Therefore, I think my hypothesis of a Super-Engineer (I do not insist upon calling him 'God';) is a better explanation.
The difference is that we know the processes which led to the diversity of life and 'crafted' these systems. They differ from manmade machines in that they have properties we would expect if they had been formed by the processes of evolution. Every engineer who has seriously studied biology has told me this. We cannot assume that just because the only time we have seen machines being created it was by humans, we can infer nature was created by an intelligence. I might just as easily infer it must have been created by some humans.

Quote
Are you proposing that the parameters got set by chance?  If so, what basis do you have from your experience to propose this as valid?  How would you deal with the odds against this, etc.?  I think maybe what you are saying is that you don't believe the 'fine tuning' was necessary for life to evolve?
No Im saying life could ONLY evolve if the constants are perfect. An omnipotent being could create life even if they were not. Therefore If I observe that the constants are right for life I infer that the were not 'fine-tuned'. That being said I have no strong feelings one way or the other as my cosmology is a little lacking, the point is it is not reasonable to infer a creator from fine tuning.

Quote
If they are not, then could you propose an example of what IS evidence?  Let me guess ... mountains and mountains of 'scholarship' from the science establishment to support Naturalistic Explanations Only?
Just give us a way to test the supernatural using science, no one has as far as I am aware.

Quote
'Most scientists believe some form of Darwin's Theory of Evolution to explain the appearance of life.  Many non-scientists and a minority of scientists believe in some form of supernatural cause for the appearance of life.  Creationism and Intelligent Design Theory are two of these views.'
I was told this in high school (well not about ID), but as scientists do not believe it we didn't learn about it.

Date: 2006/05/03 12:23:43, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
The Kirschner lab studies, among many other things, the way a developing frog embryo orchestrates numerous signals to yield the final, complex organism. Just as multiple cues would destroy an actor’s ability to deliver his lines at the right time, it would seem like the existence of multiple signals ought to result in cellular cacophony. But, somehow, the cells in the embryo can sort out the meaning of the different signals that are bombarding them. In particular, the lab is investigating the signals that tell cells when to divide.”

...

Kirschner, who is quite critical of ID in his recent book, is here proposing a metaphor for metazoan development that underscores its elegant coordination and thus points seductively toward design.

And the fact that people have been publishing on the evolution of transcriptional developmental networks for about a decade points seductively to that last comment being either purposefully misleading or ignorant.

Date: 2006/05/03 23:40:18, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
My first suggestion is that you start your own blog and publish all of these models.

As I recall, the  guts to gametes model was that most of the appearence of homology was due to the result of lateral gene transfer when one organism ate another. In this case I would vote for that one.

I also recommend that you publish the geocentrism model on the bad astronomy forum there are a lot more physicists there.

Date: 2006/05/04 00:01:21, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
A single trait is selected for, whereas any living thing is multidimensional. A GA will not work with three or four different objectives, or I dare say even just two.
Yes it will, it then becomes a multiobjective genetic algorithm.

Quote
In fact, the GAs that I have looked at artificially preserve the best of the previous generation and protect it from mutations or recombination in case nothing better is produced in the next iteration.
This guy really needs to look at some more GA's then.

Quote
This is certainly the case with Dawkins’ (in)famous ‘Weasel’ simulation—see Weasel Words and Dawkins’ weasel revisited.
Not a genetic algorithm.

Quote
Perfect selection (selection coefficient, s = 1.0) is often applied so that in each generation only the best survives to ‘reproduce’ to produce the next generation.
A. Certainly not always and B. We don't always wan't to perfectly simlulate evolution we just want a good answer.

Quote
The ‘genome’ is artificially small and only does one thing.
Unless you use a multiobjective algorithm.

I think the point seems to be that genetic algorithms aren't perfect simulations of biological evolution. I don't think they were ever supposed to be. The idea was to use specific ideas from evolution to solve problems. You can say that is doesn't generate much information, and thats fine the point is it solves the problem that we can't in novel ways. Most creationists say that evolution can't generate 'information' either, thats fine too. It still works whether we say it can generate information or not.

Date: 2006/05/04 00:01:21, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
A single trait is selected for, whereas any living thing is multidimensional. A GA will not work with three or four different objectives, or I dare say even just two.
Yes it will, it then becomes a multiobjective genetic algorithm.

Quote
In fact, the GAs that I have looked at artificially preserve the best of the previous generation and protect it from mutations or recombination in case nothing better is produced in the next iteration.
This guy really needs to look at some more GA's then.

Quote
This is certainly the case with Dawkins’ (in)famous ‘Weasel’ simulation—see Weasel Words and Dawkins’ weasel revisited.
Not a genetic algorithm.

Quote
Perfect selection (selection coefficient, s = 1.0) is often applied so that in each generation only the best survives to ‘reproduce’ to produce the next generation.
A. Certainly not always and B. We don't always wan't to perfectly simlulate evolution we just want a good answer.

Quote
The ‘genome’ is artificially small and only does one thing.
Unless you use a multiobjective algorithm.

I think the point seems to be that genetic algorithms aren't perfect simulations of biological evolution. I don't think they were ever supposed to be. The idea was to use specific ideas from evolution to solve problems. You can say that is doesn't generate much information, and thats fine the point is it solves the problem that we can't in novel ways. Most creationists say that evolution can't generate 'information' either, thats fine too. It still works whether we say it can generate information or not.

Date: 2006/05/04 03:49:43, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Just so I understand what you are saying fully. You think that the fusion resulted in half of the genes on the chromosome being backwards and therefore untranscribable?

Date: 2006/05/04 04:04:23, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Could you explain why two pieces of DNA couldn't join together and preserve the correct direction.

Date: 2006/05/04 05:31:23, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Back to this thread, do you have any explanation for these seemingly insurmountable questions?
Have you figured it out yet Dave? If you don't know this I really don't understand how you can critique any other aspect of biology.

Date: 2006/05/04 06:20:26, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
The magazine who made these men “Man of the Year”

1938 - Adolf Hitler
1939 - Joseph Stalin
1942 - Joseph Stalin
1957 - Nikita Krushchev
1979 - Ayatullah Khomeini

now brings you Judge John Jones as a 2006 Honorable (pun intended) Mention.

Considering the time person of the year is "the individual or group of individuals who have had the biggest effect on the year's news" I really don't see what his point is.

Date: 2006/05/04 06:27:19, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Don't tell him, I wanted to see if he could work it out. This is really elementary stuff, biology 101 as they say in the US (on tv at least). You see Dave this is why people have very little patience, if you say that this is an insurmountable obstacle, you obviously don't know a great deal about biology.

Date: 2006/05/04 07:32:39, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
4)  NEITHER can test the process that formed the phenomena today by experimental methods.
What we can do is test the mechanisms that we hypothesize caused macroevolution. We can also make predictions based on what we understand from these processes, of what we expect to find in other organisms.

Quote
5)  BOTH require the use of analogy to things which ARE known to us
How so? If you like we can stop using analogies for the purpose of this debate.

Quote
6)  BOTH require the scientist to DRAW INFERENCES TO THE BEST EXPLANATION
No one has said otherwise. This in no way means of course that both inferences are equally valid.

Quote
I did study the Human-Chimp chromosome fusion prediction and I found what appears to be some serious flaws in reasoning.
No it doesn't. I don't mean to be rude but you don't seem to have much of a concept of how biology works at all. If this was a mistake like you claim someone would have already noticed it.

It would be better for all concerned if you just present your evidence. We will judge it in the same way that we judge the evidence for evolution.

Date: 2006/05/04 09:03:09, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Yes that's the right word. It was AFDaves question not mine. Again, no one here is a 'neo-Darwinist'.

Date: 2006/05/04 10:07:53, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
So this statement from AIG would definitely be incorrect?
Yes it was either written by someone with no knowledge of biology or was intentionally meant to mislead. Or both.

Quote
What about the other statements from Dr. LeJeune?
More out of date with every paper that comes out.

Date: 2006/05/04 10:10:39, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Have you never heard of image mining?  :D

Date: 2006/05/04 10:47:13, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Because chromosomes have two strands, it doesn't matter whether they have a direction or not, they can still join up at either end.

Date: 2006/05/04 11:11:35, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Yes, I just mean that two pieces of double stranded DNA will line up to preserve the 3'-5' direction. I think AiGs argument was that if the chromosomes joined up face to face half of the new chromosome would run in the opposite direction and the codons would be backwards. I was just pointing out this wouldn't happen.

Date: 2006/05/04 11:56:30, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Exactly.   :D

Date: 2006/05/04 23:13:50, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
He was unconsciously implying that there was one definite master strand for a whole chromatid, since all genes were supposed to be read in the same direction, for some odd reason.
Oh ok I thought he meant that it would join up the 5'-3' direction the wrong way. You are right, I'm giving AiG too much credt.

Date: 2006/05/04 23:29:02, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
There is really one really big thing I resent.  And that is the idea that humans are nothing more than highly evolved animals.
If you think this somehow diminishes us that is your problem and nothing to do with science.

Quote
history has shown what this type of belief can do in a society if it is believed by the leadership.
That has nothing to do with whether or not it is true.

Date: 2006/05/04 23:47:40, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Anyone who thinks the fact that the probability of all the proteins of the flagellum spontaneously forming from random amino acid sequences is very low, is good reason to believe it is designed, is a bad scientist. Anyone who thinks that becuase we don't have a step by step mutational path for every protein we have to assume it didn't evolve is a bad scientist. Anyone who thinks that becuase evolutionary biology is partly examining the past means that the evidence can only be ambiguous and that all hypothesis must in the end be given equal weight, is a terrible scientist. Anyone who teaches that these things are acceptable is supressing science, because they will produce students who are unable to effectively practice science.

Date: 2006/05/05 02:28:13, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
But what the AiG article seems to be suggesting is that the chromatids fused so that one strand would run 5'-3' up to the join, and then 3'-5' after the join. So what they are saying is that half the genes on the chromosome would be backwards. My guess is that whoever wrote that didn't realise that there are two pairs of double stranded DNA.

Date: 2006/05/05 02:58:09, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
These are not physical differences.  It's matters of the mind and spirit and morality that we will be exploring.  You may not think these issues are not 'science' but they are whether you recognize it or not.
Interesting, all we need to see is your evidence. I would point out first that many people believe the fact God imbued man with a spirit does not mean we didn't evolve from apes.

Date: 2006/05/05 03:11:35, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
How about for the scale free network thing you just tell us what the nodes and edges of the network represent. You should already know this assuming you didn't just pull the claim out of your a$$ to sound clever.

Date: 2006/05/05 05:33:44, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Some also ask "How do biological machines point to a 'God'?" ...  Well again, I have not yet given enough evidence to say that it is 'God' as described in the Bible, but it certainly does seem to indicate that there at least was a Designer of some sort.
As I said before, you need to provide evidence that biological systems are more likely to be the work of a designer than biological evolution without using and argument from ignorace or analogy. No-one will accept your point if you just assume this to be the case.

Date: 2006/05/05 05:54:18, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Biological systems only trivially appear to be designed. You can't just say 'they look designed' and assume they are. People who actually study these systems don't think they look designed at all.

Date: 2006/05/05 07:35:49, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
I would be happy to adopt "Evo Did It" if I had ever seen an instance of this happening, but so far I have not.
Just so I understand, this is an important point. You will think that design is a better scientific explanation until you actually see some kind of large scale change take place naturally, with your own eyes?

Date: 2006/05/05 07:58:40, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
what's the meaning of 5' and 3'
This is a good illustration of the DNA backbone:

You can see from this that there is clearly a direction thats runs from the 5 prime carbon of one sugar to the 3 prime carbon of the other. The 'prime' is used to number the carbon atoms.

Date: 2006/05/05 11:45:44, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
No

Date: 2006/05/07 04:39:14, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Biological systems only trivially appear to be designed.

Quote
Trivial?  How does this mesh with the fact that Richard Dawkins wrote an ENTIRE BOOK trying to tell people that this stuff IS NOT designed.  Answer: A LOT of people think this stuff at least APPEARS designed.  To me, this is in no way trivial.

Richard Dawkins writes popular science books. To a scientist who stuides these systems they don't look designed at all.

Quote
I do agree.  But have ever studied the differences between marble/round rocks and biological machines?  I don't think you need to study this b/c this is obvious.  This is not a valid refutation of my argument.
Is the fact that they don't look designed to the hundreds of physicists, computer scientists and engineers who study these systems not a refutation of your argument? The biologists tell these people how they expect the systems to have evolved, and the engineers tell us based on their knowledge of designed systems, what different properties these evolved systems should have, and indeed they do. Biological systems only appear to be designed at a glance.

Quote
Not only would I need a step-by-step, mutation by mutation analysis, I would also want to see relevant information such as what is the population size of the organism in which these mutations are occurring, what is the selective value for the mutation, are there any detrimental effects of the mutation, and many other such questions.
If this is what you need to agree that a system is not designed then frankly that's just tough.

Quote
Quote  
This is because animals are very different from machines, even at a cursory glance.

Yes, but the key difference is that they are SO SO SO SO much more sophisticated.  Ask Bill Gates ...

Quote  
DNA is like a computer program, but far, far more advanced than any software we ve ever created (The Road Ahead,1996: 228).
You can use arguments from ignorance all you like it won't get you anywhere.

Quote
Quote  
but if we could not find causes of evolution in the genome/environment, we would have to abandon evolution as an explanation.
Yes. I predict this will happen soon.
Based on what evidence, every year we understand more and more about how evolution works, no evidence has been found that contradicts it. You can hope if you want but it is dishonest to say that there is any evidence evolution id on the verge of being disproved.
Quote
Again, no one has seen feet evolve into flippers, etc.
But you seem to be under the impression we have no idea how it happened. Shaping limb morphology is fairly simple for evolution to do. For a start animals with toes develop a webbed foot, and then cells die off to form the toes. It would be a simple matter of altering certain gene expressions to cause a flipper like foot. Then perhaps an increase in size and fusing the toe bones, also not a problem. Thats a start.

Date: 2006/05/08 01:45:50, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
You seem to be missing the main point. I have no problem with people not understanding this stuff. It's taken me years of reading to understand evolution properly. The point is when you made this mistake you described it as an unsurmountable obstacle. I suspect the AiG article uses similar language. It is very rare for scientists to make those kinds of mistakes without someone pointing them out. It is this arrogance that annoys people, and you will find that most of the problems that you think you have found with evolution are also easily answered if there is someone with the appropriate knowledge listening. You will find scientists will be a lot more receptive if you say 'could someone please answer this question' instead of 'Ha, how will the Darwinists overcome this obstacle!'.

Date: 2006/05/08 01:53:30, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
We believe that the sexual act is meant to be a complete giving of self. Of course its purpose is procreation, but the church also affirms the unitive aspect: it brings a couple together. By using contraception, they are not allowing the fullness of their expression of love. To frustrate the procreative potential ends up harming the relationship."
I think she just doesn't like the feel.

EDIT: Even better theory, a guy persuaded her that this was the case so she wouldn't want to wear one. :D

Date: 2006/05/08 09:40:33, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Carl Wieland is mistaken, but not necessarily a liar.  There is a big difference.
To make athorititive statements like that to an audience you know is going to believe you when you are ignorant of even the basic science is at the very least dishonest.

Date: 2006/05/08 21:38:09, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Apologies if this stuff gas already been covered I haven't had time to read the whole thread.

Firstly, what has whether Hitler based his views on Darwin got to do wih whether or not Darwin was right. If Hitlers book was called: 'Mein Kampf, or why Charles Darwin's theory of evolution says we should kill all the Jews' this would have no effect on whether evolution was true.

Quote
When comparing Apes and Humans (which is the topic of this thread), I am simply saying this ... Humans Have More Abilities than Apes
There is a reason why most churches think God of the gaps is a bad idea, gaps shrink. Humans have more advanced abilitied in apes. It's a lot to do with duplication and subsequent differential expression during development of certain hormones, which gives us larger and more complex brains. We didn't know that until a couple of years ago, so maybe it was reasonable to assume that God miraculously grew out brains. Sure you can argue that we also have a spiritual component, or that some aspcts of our consciousness can't be explained simply by our brain power. and maybe God did put them there, but that does not effect whether or not we evolved from apes.

Quote
their language is every bit as complex as English or Spanish or many other languages
What I find interesting is that many tribal languages are structured so that they could be spoken with more 'ape like' vocal cords. I also once read an interesting study of some other Brazilian tribe that said they posses:
Quote
no numbers of any kind, no terms for quantification (such as all, each, every, most and some), no colour terms and no perfect tense. They appear to have borrowed their pronouns from another language, having previously possessed none. They have no “individual or collective memory of more than two generations past”, no drawing or other art, no fiction and “no creation stories or myths.”
which sounds quite primitive to me, although aparently their verbal morphology was quite complex.

Quote
Do we not have plenty of LIVING HUMANS which could correlate very nicely with some of these fossil finds, but which we now know are completely human?
No, if you think size and gait are the only differences, you really haven't been paying much attention.

Quote
Do apes organize themselves into 'governments' and seek to conquer  other ape groups?
You'll find that most sociological behaivour displayed by us is exhibited by apes in an incredibly primitive form. Chimps even obey the golden rule most of the time. Gorillas get divorced less than in Vegas (and the bible belt for that matter).

Quote
Has anyone thought about the implications of an assertion by a government entity that "Apes are 98.5% human and therefore should be afforded certain 'human rights.
Again this has nothing to do with whether or not it is actualy true. I agree though it's a bit outdated in that we know that the large phenotypc differences are caused by small genetic differences so basing your argument on straight genome comparison is a bit daft in my opinion. Although Im pretty sure the great ape project is based more on the phenopic similarites.

Date: 2006/05/08 21:49:16, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
I was under the impression that marriage us so exhalted in society because it has been demonstrated to be the best support for a family. The reason we ask for gay marriage but still want to see marriage as important is that this would then allow practically everyone in society to start a family, legalizing polygamy, incest or any other kind of marriage would have no positive effects but some negative effects.

Date: 2006/05/08 23:56:17, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Gregor Mendel, a Catholic creationist, believed he had demonstrated that species are resistant to change, because characters are inherited without alteration throughout generations.
This is one of the most stupid creationist arguments, the old 'dog breeders have never managed to breed through the species barrier'. They seem to have forgotten the RM in RM&NS, and the fact that the rate of mutation means that it takes a while, and the fact that selective breeding does not accurately reflect evolution, and the fact that change also occurs due to environmental pressures on development, and ...

Date: 2006/05/09 11:06:31, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
You need to remove the word 'Christianity' from this one and insert 'Catholicism' instead.  The two are vastly different as I will show on a future "Martin Luther" post.
Please please don't.

Quote
Maybe too much ToE indocrination in higher education?
I don't know about today, but when I went they didn't make such a big deal out of it.

Quote
Bill Dembski has come up with a neat list of over 500 scientists who have had the kahoonas to sign their names to a public statement that says ...
I'd sign that statement, to say it is purely random mutation followed by natural selection is a gross oversimplification at best. Sometimes it's the other way round for a start. To say that statement reprsents a dismissal of modern evolutionary theory is just plain wrong.

Quote
STAGE 1: ToE advocates are becoming frustrated because their explanations are sounding more and more like pro-geocentrism and pro-flat-earth arguments as time goes on.
For example?

Quote
Biological Machines are great for starters
Don't pretend you've even begun to give evidence for this.

Quote
I just asked our ToE advocates why there ARE NO EXAMPLES of 'more evolved' or 'less evolved' humans.  There should be some living today if ToE is true.
More evolved is a meaningless term, just like 'genetically superior'.

Quote
There are apparently more and more scientists who have a DIFFERENT guess
Are there more and more? Actual scientists with qualifications in the relevent field?

Quote
Evidence DOES matter.  That's why we are having this discussion.  Because the EVIDENCE favors COMMON DESIGN, not common descent.
If you could list the main evidence for this in bullet points I would be very grateful.

Quote
And politicians give funding to public schools and universities.  And if universities behave irresponsibly and teach junk science -- like Darwinism -- and vilify people who don't, then the electorate can demand that the politicians RE-direct the funds to responsible schools.
If creation is so much better then let the schools an colleges that teach it produce research and make scientific discoveries based on evolution, then the electorate won't need to bother.

Quote
Your analogy works if you assume that "Teaching Darwinism = Teaching that Iraq is Somewhere near the North Pole", which I of course do believe is a good equation.
I prefer the analogy of teaching children about the holocaust. A minoroty of historians don't think it happened, but we still teach children it did.

Quote
Jeannot, Jeannot.  Come now.  Look what you just did.  You compared something with ABUNDANT EVIDENCE THAT WE SEE EVERY DAY (Gravity), with something for which there is NO EVIDENCE OF IT OCCURRING (Apelike ancestor becoming Human).
Gravity isn't the act of things falling, it is our theory of the forces that cause things to fall. Evolution is our theory explaining the distribution of species on the planet.

Quote
What I am uncomfortable with is ASSERTING things AS IF they were proven, when in fact they are not, by YOUR OWN STANDARDS.
I was never taught any theory as true, I was taught it as the best theory to explain the evidence. Yes I know you don't think evolution is the best theory to explain the evidence, and we'd all be grateful if you tell us why.

Quote
We'll do another thread [o]n ML.
I promise if you post it on another forum to where it is more suited we will all come over and argue with you about it.

Quote
I agree.  All the apes need is a good environment and they will become rocket scientists.  When I am in Washington next, I will suggest to Ike Skelton that he introduce legislation for a new, tax-funded, "Primate Education Program."  Maybe we could even have a new cabinet level office ... we already have the Department of Education ... why not have the Department of Ape Education.
You seem to be making the common creationist mistake of forgeting the millions of years part. Can you please tell us now if you won't accept evolution until you see this kind of change take place naturally.

Quote
No problem with teaching Evolution as a Theory espoused by many good scientists.  Let's just be honest and call it a theory though and quit saying it is a proven fact and shutting out the ID view.
Evolution is taught as a theory AFAIK. As far as shutting out the ID view, if we teach kids that something like Darwin's black box is a good piece of scientific analysis we will be producing bad scientists. Desing might be true but if it is it should be able to lead to superior scientific research. Even if there is a consiracy against it, point me to the research in creationist journals.

Quote
... but if we somehow collected all these bones, we could quite possibly bury fragments of them in various places throughout the world and have a 'hominid" fossil situation  quite closely resembling the naturally occurring situation which we do have.  Make sense?
No, the differences are not just the difference between us and pygmies.

This is getting very old, could you just post your evidence on whatever thread you like. We do not need a philosophical discussion of why your evidence is right, just your evidence.

Date: 2006/05/11 00:08:53, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
I am just speaking from a practical point of view regarding the emotional wellbeing of the children. On average a child being raised by a gay couple will be no worse off than a heterosexual couple, and better off than a child raised by a single parent with no contact from the other, on average.

Quote
Wouldnt it be entirely more productive for a gay male couple and lesbian couple to raise children together?
The children would be "their own" and the parenting responsibilities could easily be distributed amongst the 4 parents
I suspect this does happen although I haven't seen any research on the effects on the child.

Origionally I was concerned about gay marriage because I wasn't sure what effect a gay couple, even with the best intentions, would have on the child. However several sociologists and psychologists have assured me it doesn't make any difference, and that a child brought up by a gay familiy is no more likely to be gay than one brought up by a straight family.

Quote
The idea that two people who love each other should be able to lock each other into a legally binding agreement requiring that they continue to be together seems barbaric.
I guess It was originally an attempt to provide incentive for the father to stay with the family, which benefits the children. And of course it doesn't mean that they have to continue to be together. Legally it doesn't even mean that they can't go off and sleep with other people.

Quote
It makes sense in the context of a family, to provide some extra incentive for raising the children together....but it doesnt make any sense when only one partner at most is technically the parent of the children.
I would hope in most cases who the biological parents of the child are is irrellavent to whether or not they are in a stable family. If people who had children were legally forced to marry I would probably share your concern for it, although these days it seems to be basically an excuse for a big party and a holiday, and a way to achive certain legal benefits, for homosexuals and heterosexuals. Oh and the love.

Date: 2006/05/11 00:36:20, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
The British were commanded by Frederick Augustus Thesiger, 2nd Baron Chelmsford.
Was that the guy that looks an awful lot like Michael Caine?

Quote
And, just like other DNA that's not under strong selection, you generate a nested hierarchy of mutations that pretty much overlaps the nested hierarchy of mutations in any other representative sample of the genome. Now, how does the "common designer hypothesis" explain that?
The best answer I can think of is that the designer knew that primates were getting ample amounts of vitamin C from their diets, and so he inactivated the gene. The advantage of this would be that the animals would waste less energy producing an unessecary protein. This still suggests common descent though, but I'm confident it's better than the official creationist story.

Date: 2006/05/11 03:43:43, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Read his creator God hypothesis, apparently biological 'machines' and the fine tuned universe proves that the designer is God because that's the way God would do it.

Date: 2006/05/11 04:57:37, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
I haven't read any of those vitamin c articles you mentioned, but I think  your missing the point. The pseudogene may have function but is no longer a gene which produces a protein involved vitamin C synthesis. It is good evidence for common descent whether or not the pseudogene has function. Am I missing something there?

Date: 2006/05/11 06:11:02, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Are we sure all those posts from 'Davison the liar' etc. are really our beloved DT? Some of them have to be people pretending to be DT and just messing with Davison's mind...
You're probably right, he does seem to assume that all anonymous comments that insult him are from DS.

Date: 2006/05/11 06:18:07, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Just a quick question. If you claim that you have these models why do you need so long to work on them? Im assuming of course that you didn't just say you have the models and now just need time to actually think them up.

Date: 2006/05/11 07:39:39, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Although I have not read much about cosmic fine tuning, my concern is this: If there is no divine creator, life can only exist in a universe that has the correct constants. If there is a divine creator, life could be created in a very unhospitable universe. Does this disprove God? No, but the point is there is no proof that these constants were set by a creator. For the purposes of the argument on evolution I am prepared to accept that they are however.

BIOLOGICAL "MACHINES" DO NOT LOOK DESIGNED

I can only say this so many times, if you study biological systems they look like they have evolved. We call them "machines" because they have some trivial similarities to man made machines, that does not mean they are designed. They are complex, this does not mean they are designed. They perform functions, this does not mean they are designed. Dawkins writes popular science books, I will agree that they look designed to a layman who does not have a good grasp of the relevant topics in evolution and biochemistry. I have never used the word machine, and in all my conversations with scientists who study these systems I have never heard the word machine used to describe them. These words are used becuase anthropomorphisms make it easier to teach complex subjects. You can understand what a flagellum is if you think of it as an outboard motor, or a ribosome as a factory that makes proteins, but biologists who study them do not use these words except to teach. Saying that because biologists say the word machine means that they are designed systems is perhaps the worst and least scientific creationist argument I have ever heard.

Date: 2006/05/11 07:49:24, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
The burden of proof for Common Descent seems to me to be much more difficult that the burden of proof on Common Design
It's hard to judge as you haven't presented any evidence for common design.

Date: 2006/05/11 08:39:53, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
To me, biological systems are the most profound antithesis of "triviality" that one can possibly imagine!
I didnt say the systems themselves were trivial, I said the resemblance to manmade machines is trivial.

Date: 2006/05/11 08:47:29, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Er, Im all for freedom of speech, but Im pretty sure this falls under libel laws.

Date: 2006/05/11 09:11:40, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
This is what the ID movement is all about.  Stay tuned!  
Most of the spokespeople of the ID movement seem to accept common descent.

Date: 2006/05/11 09:18:10, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
For anyone who didn't see the picture:

Date: 2006/05/11 12:34:46, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
If a child is raised in Catholic family, would you say he/she has no more chance of being Catholic than one raised in a Muslim family?


Thordaddy, this is not opinion, this is the statistics. Children raised by homosexual couples are no more likely to become homosexual than those raised by straight parents. Yes a religious family will bring up the child religious, but this is completely different. Do you believe that homosexual parents will try and raise their children gay? I would love to know what evidence you have for this. Forgive me if I trust my friends with PhD dissertations in this area over your assumptions. I do not want to say that your ideas are based on predjudice but I really can't think where you are getting your arguments from becuase they definately are not based on evidence, experience or common sense, unless you have had some really bad experiences with homosexuals.

Date: 2006/05/11 14:21:52, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
I think the question should be whether that young boy being raised by 2 lesbians will grow up to be more "normal" that the boy raised by a mother and father?
What do you think the difference will be?

Quote
Secondly, it could certainly be assumed that gay parents will teach their children to identify with homosexuality whether it is intentional OR NOT
But children raised by gay parents are no more likely to become gay. This isn't just a guess, this is what has actually happened.

Quote
If these PhDs see nothing abnormal about homosexuality or take the position that male and female are interchangeable sexes, then no amount of evidence will suffice in order to convince them that male and female aren't interchangeable sexes and homosexuality is an abnormal orientation.
Children who are raised by two men or two women are on average just as emotionally healthy as those who are raised by a man and a woman. This is not a guess, this is what has occured. I am making no statements in this case anout the normality of homosexuality. As I said I was at first concerned that a child raised by a gay couple may be emotionally affected, but I was wrong, because they aren't. Gay people have been raising children in many countries for a long time, people have actually looked into this. The people I speak about who have the PhDs have actually done research on children who have been raised by gay parents. There are enough cases to get statistics, thousands of children in the US are currently being raised in a gay household, and there are many more who have already been. I am not making predictions, I do not know the reasons for these phenomena, I am telling you what the situation currently is.

Quote
This same boy will also be effected in NO MANNER due to the absence of a mother figure?
It is ussually the absense of a father figure, men raised by single women are  statistically more likely to be gay.

Date: 2006/05/11 21:14:18, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
But how does this square with this


Apologies, I didn't make myself clear. A child raised by two women is no less likely to be gay than a child raised by a man and a woman. Again this is based on studies of people who have been raised by two women. A man raised by single woman is slightly more likely to be gay, the absence of a father figure was my best guess as to why this occured.

Quote
This is hocus pocus science.
It is not science, it is statistics, it is what has actually occured. I am not sure how many times I can repeat myself. When I say children who are raised by gay parents are no more likely to be gay, it is based on studies of people who have been raised in a gay household. It is not a scientific prediction or a best guess, it is what actually happens in real life.

Date: 2006/05/11 22:00:25, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Again I am not sure of the reasons for these occurences. Perhaps a lesbain can fill the 'father figure' role, I don't know. But that isn't my point.

It doesn't matter what you or I think, children who have been raised by homosexual parents are not more likely to be gay than those that weren't.This is based on people who have already been raised in a gay household, of which there are many all over the world.

Date: 2006/05/11 22:53:24, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
But wait, boys raised by single mothers are statistically more likely to be gay
I don't how significant it is. I think there is a possibility it has something to do with divorce as well, but don't quote me on it.

People are trying to explain the results, it's not my field so I don't know what the explanations are. I dont know if there is any evidence in the statistics for a genetic cause ie are children with gay parents more likely to be gay even if they are not brought up in a gay household. I don't think that anyone can argue that there is no environmental cause whatsoever, but what that is is a mystery. It might be something like high levels of a certain hormone suring pregnancy, or it might be linked to an event during childhood, such as a father leaving. I suspect it is different for different people. I am not arguing for or against a genetic cause, I am saying that it I have no problem with gay people to start a family becuase there will no emotional effects on the children, which was against my initial assumptions.

Date: 2006/05/12 00:19:12, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Doesn't your new assumption of "no emotional effects" really put into question the science that leads you to these conclusions?


Again, it is not scince describing the cause that has lead me to the conclusions of no emotional effects, it is the actual observations. There are ways we can measure emotional health, and children who have been raised by gay parents are just as emotionally healty as those who have been raised by straight parents. My statement that children will be just as healthy is not based on any idea about what causes homosexuality, it is based on observations of people who were raised in homosexual households.

Date: 2006/05/12 02:17:30, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Im sure there are pretty interesting statistics about where in America gay people raise emotionally healthy children.

Date: 2006/05/12 03:14:16, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
I think people from some places probably do (ie liverpool), but most people pronouce it correctly.

Date: 2006/05/12 07:40:30, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
I would say it is someone who is primarily attracted to people of the same gender.

Date: 2006/05/12 08:27:24, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
The bottom line, of course, is ...

IF Common Descent is true, then there is no need for a Creator.  Humans are free ...
And this has what to do with whether or not common descent is true?

Quote
After all, we are seeing a dramatic reversal in the area of pseudogenes.  Scientists are all of a sudden finding all kinds of purpose for them.
How does the fact that some pseudogenes have function change that they were one a gene that produced a protein for something else?

Please explain why you think common design explains the evidence better than common descent?

Date: 2006/05/12 08:47:48, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Or watch this.

Date: 2006/05/12 14:21:17, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Find out firsthand why Darwinists are apparently losing the PR game in the USA.
I imagine it could have something to do with religion. And the fact that scientists don't tend to hire PR firms.

Quote
ToE advocates are becoming frustrated
Nope. Well none of the ones I know.

Quote
The Ship of Darwin has hit an iceberg
Nope, every paper I read answers another question.

Quote
My contention is that we (genetic researchers) know SO LITTLE about any genomes, that we cannot assert that this gene or that gene is broken.
We can assert that it does not produce the protein to make vitamin C.

Quote
Please tell me that you guys ARE aware of all the new information coming in about "junk DNA"
Ive read papers from the early eighties that talk about functional non-coding DNA and RNA. The term was origionally meant to mean long repetetive stretches of DNA. It has been a long time if at all since people thought only protein coding regions had function.

Quote
You guys are the biology experts ... you should know this.
Quote
Maybe you can think about some of this tonight and redeem your arguments tomorrow.
Quote
Remember, you guys did good just last week on the chromo thing ... I know you guys can give me some substance on this thread as well.
Many people on theis forum have been very patient with you, but you have shown your self to be willfully ignorant of the subjects you are trying to argue about. If you really want to have a decent conversation with scientists being undeservedly smug and patronising isn't the correct way to go about it.

The reason we are certain that a chromosome fusion occured is becuase we see the evidence that the sequences appear to match, and we know that such chromosome rearrangements commonly occur. Think about what you have learned about the vitamin C gene and you will see that we have applied the same reasoning. On the other hand, if you claim common design is a better hypothesis, you need only explain why.

ps Once again could you confirm or deny that you don't think we can infer any of this stuff as we didn't see it happen.

Date: 2006/05/13 01:21:26, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Its about time physicists got more involved in these areas of biology. They will shine a light where Darwinists have only been ducking and diving and it can only reinforce the points ID has been making for a long time now,IMO.

A. They are called biophysicists and B. No they don't

Does anyone else get the impression that they think that there are currently no physicists, engineers, computer scientists or mathematicians working on topics related to evolution and that these people haven't proveide some of the best confirmations of the theory over the last decade. Perhaps they should read some journals in those fields.

Date: 2006/05/13 05:49:18, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Dave, could you give me a reference that says the guinea pig pseudogene appears to be more closely related to the human pseudogene than the other simians, thanks.

Date: 2006/05/13 06:27:50, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
I guess Darwinite wisdom is the wisdom of the people who come from Darwin.

Read Kevin Padian Hating Fundamentalists in SciAm Letters, and tell me where in the article Kevin Padian says he hates fundementalists, because I can't find it.

Date: 2006/05/13 07:24:39, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Does dave, in fact, have the whole article?
I think he read an AiG article and it looks like they have read the full article. The AiG article however does not discuss the similarity between the human gene and the primate genes.

Date: 2006/05/13 07:56:39, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Creationists also predicted the limited variation that we see in natural and artificial selection
Again the old 'dog breeders can only make dogs', you forgot that natural selection also needs variation to act on. This comes with large populations and a lot of time.

Date: 2006/05/13 10:08:26, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
With the spread and cheapening of technology what is to prevent a ID-hating fanatic from eventually planting an instance of CSI in an organism and then falsely claiming to have documented that this CSI came about by RM+NS, thus falsifying ID by means of identifying a false positive? After all, if ID is such a danger to science as some claim then the ends would justify the means…not to mention in some circles being known as the “person who killed ID” would be quite a career booster.


I vote this as quote of the week.

Date: 2006/05/13 10:33:34, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
I think someone can join in the debate without learning a lot of science, the problem comes when you think you know more than the experts. A little knowledge of course comes in handy if you want to understand the reasons why you are wrong.

Date: 2006/05/13 11:00:23, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Looks like JAD and DS moved there argument over to brainstorms. Check it out, funny funny stuff. They've derailed about 3 threads.

Date: 2006/05/13 12:53:02, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
The important thing, however, is that they have to be prepared to accept the fact that they might be wrong
Agreed. For someone to be a professional evolution debater you need knowledge in a lot of fields. Im a biologist, and I have absolutely no clue about the geology of my area. But if I am having a discussion about geology, Im not going to just paste sections form talk origins, I will actually ask one of my friends who is a geologist to explain the concepts to me, same with physics etc. That being said the way AFDave's going with this he will need a pretty good background in biology chemistry geology and physics.

Date: 2006/05/13 13:50:26, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
The friends I am talking about are old schoolfriends, but I get your point, not everyone can ask a scientist. My point was that if somebody told me something about a subject I would not just read the first article that comes up on google, and then decide Im an expert, which is what a lot of creationists seem to do. Reading popular science books is I think the way to go, unless of course you are talking about The Genesis Flood, and Darwins Black Box.  :D

Date: 2006/05/13 14:01:02, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
BarryA's back. Apparently evolutionists don't like quote mining becuase they all know evolution's in trouble.

Date: 2006/05/14 00:39:47, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
The objective criterion for recognizing intelligent design is to look for things that look like what people build
Cells don't look like what people build, we call them factories, motors etc because it helps us understand and teach about their function. I don't know how many times I can repeat this.

Date: 2006/05/14 04:13:36, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
You cannot dodge this one


What do you want us to admit? That biological machines are a good argument for design, no chance at the moment I'm afraid. Look how I can write stuff in bold too:

Biological systems ony have a superficial resemblance to man-made machines. Biological systems do not look designed. SETI has absolutely nothing to do with it, it isnt a comparable situation

Plus of course SETI says ID is a load of crap and has nothing to do with what they do.

Date: 2006/05/14 06:10:32, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
There are oodles of things that resemble things that people build all through nature:  bat "radar", bird wings, eyes like cameras
This is similar to the 'if people copy nature nature must be designed' thread they had at UD a couple of weeks ago. Can you come up with a good reason why this makes any sense? Because I certainly can't think of one.

Date: 2006/05/14 11:02:01, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
WHY WHY WHY does Dave have no problem with astronomical evolution, but huge problems with biological evolution?
I think for creationists there is a point where the level of what God did and did not do is fixed in their mind. This is why you get all sorts of different levels of creationists. The only other reason I can come up with is that stars are big and cells are small.

Date: 2006/05/14 11:47:31, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Definately worth a read.

Date: 2006/05/14 12:27:44, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
As a proud member of everyone else I heartily endorse the fourth statement.

Date: 2006/05/15 03:19:26, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
I would submit to you that it is only different in degree of high-techy-ness.
This is simply wrong, and I have pointed this out many times. You might look at a birds wing or whatever and see that it looks at first glance to be an efficient airfoil. However when you look at how the molecular networks are put together, and how the thing develops you see it doesn't look designed at all. These systems have the properties that we would expect if they had evolved by natural selection, not created by someone who planned ahead. There are many things in nature that seem very efficient to us, but there are also a great number of things that are horribly inneficient and badly 'designed', which is what we would expect if evolution were true. I think Francis Jacob put it best when he said evolution is a tinkerer and not an engineer, and that is exactly what we see.

Quote
Yes.  It makes total sense and is very intuitively obvious to me.
Unfortunately it seems that 'if we copy nature nature must be designed', is only intuitively obvious to people who already think nature is designed.

Date: 2006/05/15 04:15:03, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
But it is also exactly what we would expect if the Bible were true, because it speaks of a "Curse" as well as an originally perfect "Design."
I don't mean things that are 'wrong' nesseceraly, I just mean the odd enzyme that isn't as efficient as it could be, or a pathway that has more components than it could have because it evolved that way (and no I am not talking about redundancy).
Quote
It makes perfect sense to me that a Creator designed everything perfectly, but then "cursed it" as a result of man's choice to not obey God.


Ok so if we say God make very small molecular changes in man fair enough, even though it doesn't appear that way. Why would he then make the same changes in all other organisms, which don't have any phenotypic effect on man at all in his interaction with them You can shrug off 'bad design' but you can't escape the fact that these sytems look like they have evolved as opposed to been engineered.

Date: 2006/05/15 07:43:44, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
I would expect it to be around the same as the general genetic similarity -- 95-97%.  This would be consistent with Design Theory.
Please explain how design theory predicts this and common descent does not. Why does evolution predict that the sequences would be 100% identical?

Quote
I am just saying that it is perfectly plausible and exactly what we should expect from a Designer.
You have to show us why common design is more likely.

Quote
I just thought I'd better spread the word about that fun quote from TO before someone at TO changes it to sound ... er ... less supportive of Creos.
You seem to be confusing TalkOrigins with Uncommon Descent.

Quote
You have shown me that Dr. Wieland was uninformed about transcription direction being unimportant.  And I agreed with you. But you have not shown me that they lie.
He made a bold statement claiming to have discovered something every other geneticist in the world had missed when he must have known he was ignorant of even the most basic facts, and that his audience would believe him over everyone else. This is at best dishonest.

Quote
Just as several different codons can code for a particular protein (I think that's correct, right?--help me all you genetics experts).
Codons code for amino acids. This isn't something only genetics experts know, it is something anyone who claims to refute genetics should know.

Date: 2006/05/15 10:52:00, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
This is why.  :D

Date: 2006/05/16 02:24:27, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
some guy seriously wonders why, according to ToE, the Passenger Pigeon didn't evolve, in the couple centuries it was hunted, to dodge bullets
No ones wondering that, they're wondering why the feathers didn't evolve in to super-hard-bullet-proof scales.

Date: 2006/05/16 03:17:13, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
In animals quite often we see a diversification of species following genome duplication events, for example a whole genome duplication coincides with the origin of vertebrates. It appears that it also reduces the change of a species becoming extinct, and duplication events are often preceeded by multiple extinct lineages. This is probably because a duplication of the genome equals quadruple the number of genetic interactions, so a lot of oppurtunity to generate biological novelty, which is useful if you're facing extinction.

Date: 2006/05/16 06:00:41, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
If Scenario 1 above is confirmed, then it is perfectly logical to assume that the Creator designed apes and humans separately, then mutations later caused the GULO gene to break independently in both.  What is so unbelievable about this?
Because the deletions in the genes are the same, ie it 'broke the same'.

Quote
But to me it is an even larger mental challenge to envision how it all comes about by random mutation and natural selection.
I sympathise, but that doesn't have any bearing on whether or not it is true.

Quote
The probabilities against evolution of gross morphological changes are staggering.
Define gross, if your talking about things like flipper to foot it really isn't as much of a feat as creationists like to make out.



Quote
explain this simply, what you are really saying when you say that a "God Hypothesis" is unscientific, is that you rule out the "ET Hypothesis" that maybe an advanced civilization "planted" life here, and you rule out any possibility of any kind of Intelligence that could have been responsible for life here on earth.
Not in the slightest, science does not rule out ETs. Science at the moment cannot investigate the actions of a supernatural entity but who knows what the future holds. Sciene however can investigate an effect that has occured with out knowing the immediate cause.

Quote
Maybe we are one big "science experiment" to them.
That fits the evidence way better than an omnipotent creator.

Quote
Falsifiability and some of the other demarcation criteria proposed last century must be dispensed with.
Falsifiability is useful, but what science really consists of is competing hypothesis making predictions.

Quote
Allow astrology into the arena.  It will die a quick death on its own.  Allow homeopathy and acupuncture and ...
They are welcome in the arena, they just have to prove their stuff works. It will be called quackery as long as they insist it works and sell it without any proof and plenty of evidence to the contrary.

Quote
It is basically being force fed by the "ruling elite" of the scientific community, which I think is quite heavily funded by the government.
I've noticed that creationists have some weird ideas about how much money scientists have. In any case it has nothing to do with a ruling elite, it has to do with the scientific consensus. I think most scientists would find it quite funny if you called them a ruling elite.

Quote
Scientists like it because it requires no Creator and that has a lot of good implications from their perspective.  Younger scientists are taught this theory and want approval from superiors and peers alike.  So naturally they overlook some of the glaring difficulties and explain them away.
Most scientists I know couldn't care less whether there is a creator or not. Even up to degree level evolution wasn't particularly forced on us at all. Most of the stuff I know about it now I have had to find out for myself.

Quote
It appears to me that no one here has a convincing argument that favors Common Descent over Common Design to explain the "broken" gene in both apes and humans.  Either one can explain it just as well.
Again there are many deletions and similar mutations in common between the two. There is an incredibly small probability that they broke independently.

Date: 2006/05/16 08:42:52, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
They do not at all look evolved to me.
They certainly don't upon cursory examination, as Dawkins has said. But taking all the evidence into account they really do.

Quote
Of course we do not have any idea how the Designer might have come up with a mitochondrion design.  That is precisely why humans study nature to get inspiration for their own designs.  But if we can figure out how He did it, maybe we can duplicate it ... this is what happens all the time and it is really cool!
Im not sure this applies to nature. What does happen all the time is people use the principles of evolution.

Date: 2006/05/16 20:53:57, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
the new season wasn't too hot though.  I doubt it has much time left.
Agreed te new stuff has been a bit hit and miss for me, but the first three seasons didn't put a foot wrong IMHO.

Quote
I think South Park pretty much savaged Family Guy in the Cartoon Wars episodes.
I love South Park as well, but their probably quite bitter considering family guy reruns are getting higher ratings on comedy central than they are. Although I would say their criticisms are valid to some of the newer episodes.

Date: 2006/05/16 21:04:18, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
For example, we’ve all heard of the experiments where human subjects wear goggles that flip their visual experience upside down. After some period of time the brain/mind/soul flips things upright. Since never in evolutionary history could anything of that sort ever occurred on a sufficiently regular or long-term basis to give rise to that ability, that ability alone shows that Darwinian evolution is a false (incomplete) theory.
Kind of like when people teach themselves to play the piano.

Quote
Speaking of which: I think the list has underappreciated (if I may sound a bit peevish a point I’ve made several times, namely, that any ability that an organism has to adapt to a highly, highly artificial constraint is a de facto disproof of the (complete adequacy of) neo-Darwinism. If an organism can adapt readily to an artificially induced change that has no analog in nature, than that adaptability cannot be explained (or explained away, or hand-waved-over) by random variation and natural selection. By hypothesis there is no place in natural history where such a capability could have arisen “naturally” (in the Darwinian sense).
So apparently any new situation an organism can adapt to, must have already been preprogrammed in. This is a good example of why people who don't know any biology shouldn't try to disprove evolution.

Date: 2006/05/17 02:13:38, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Dawkins on Wise, an honest creationist:  
Quote
Wise stands out among young earth creationists not only for his impeccable education, but because he displays a modicum of scientific honesty and integrity. I have seen a published letter in which he comments on alleged “human bones” in Carboniferous coal deposits. If authenticated as human, these “bones” would blow the theory of evolution out of the water (incidentally giving lie to the canard that evolution is unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific: J. B. S. Haldane, asked by an overzealous Popperian what empirical finding might falsify evolution, famously growled, “Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian!”). Most creationists would not go out of their way to debunk a promising story of human remains in the Pennsylvanian Coal Measures. Yet Wise patiently and seriously examined the specimens as a trained paleontologist, and concluded unequivocally that they were “inorganically precipitated iron siderite nodules and not fossil material at all.” Unusually among the motley denizens of the “big tent” of creationism and intelligent design, he seems to accept that God needs no help from false witness.

All the more interesting, then, to read his personal testimony in In Six Days. It is actually quite moving, in a pathetic kind of way. He begins with his childhood ambition. Where other boys wanted to be astronauts or firemen, the young Kurt touchingly dreamed of getting a Ph.D. from Harvard and teaching science at a major university. He achieved the first part of his goal, but became increasingly uneasy as his scientific learning conflicted with his religious faith. When he could bear the strain no longer, he clinched the matter with a Bible and a pair of scissors. He went right through from Genesis 1 to Revelations 22, literally cutting out every verse that would have to go if the scientific worldview were true. At the end of this exercise, there was so little left of his Bible that

. . . try as I might, and even with the benefit of intact margins throughout the pages of Scripture, I found it impossible to pick up the Bible without it being rent in two. I had to make a decision between evolution and Scripture. Either the Scripture was true and evolution was wrong or evolution was true and I must toss out the Bible. . . . It was there that night that I accepted the Word of God and rejected all that would ever counter it, including evolution. With that, in great sorrow, I tossed into the fire all my dreams and hopes in science.

See what I mean about pathetic? Most revealing of all is Wise’s concluding paragraph:

Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate. Here I must stand.

Full article.

Date: 2006/05/17 03:00:20, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Exactly I used to know someone like that who was doing a PhD in phylogenetics of all things, and they didn't believe in evolution at all but they would at least admit that the science didn't back up their beliefs.

Date: 2006/05/17 04:31:43, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
4)  You assume that this "C deletion" occurring independently in apes and humans is a highly unlikely event.  Why is it so unlikely?  After all, there are many identical substitutions in an unrelated ... er ... *cough* ... distantly related (yes, yes, I forgot my head yesterday for a moment ... it is still a challenge for me to remember that you all think ALL organisms are related through common ancestry), i.e. our furry friend, the guinea pig.
You still don't seem to understand. If a gene is inactivated it is not subject to selection, therefore it will accumulate many mutations, so if the gene broke in the common ancestor of all primates there will be a time when other mutations occur and these should be passed to chimps and humans and indeed they are. Remeber were not just talking about point mutations here.

Quote
Also, as a side note, does Creationism make any predictions as to the number of "kinds" there are out there?
I've heard Kent Hovind say 10,000.

Quote
millions of years doesn't have anything to do with the questions I have raised on this thread.
If were talking about shared ancestry between humans and apes it kind of does.

Quote
YECs have no problem with the idea of Apes and Monkeys having a common ancestor.  We actually agree that they did.
You guys should really think that through. I guess then you think there is a smaller difference between monkeys and apes, and your concern is that humans have developed these things such as morality etc. What then if all these things are proved to be a product of us having larger and more complex brains? Also, I assume you don't believe that humans once had a tail although you think that the monkape kind either evolved one or lost one.

Date: 2006/05/17 04:42:12, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
I would say that the systems aren’t “preadapted”, but that a more organic way of viewing it is that life has an inherent quality of active adaptability. This inherent quality, in my view, stems from a substance or essence of living things which is non-material. In homeopathic medicine, for example, this governing intelligence is called “vital force”.
I'm actually surprised I've never seen anyone bring up homeopathy before. I wonder if a healing crystal has specifed complexity. Wait doesn't the bible say this sort of stuff is witchcraft?

Date: 2006/05/17 05:39:13, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Here's a suggestion from a progressive minded YEC:  instead of trying to 'stay one step ahead' of the bacteria, how about we all recognize they were designed and then chase after a smarter way to defeat them more permanently than just developing a new anti-biotic every year.  That's just one suggestion.  There are many more.
People are trying to find ways to defeat bacteria once and for all, can you please explain to me how the assumption that it is a designed entity will help?

Quote
The General ToE is in reality a "black eye" on the otherwise beautiful face of science.
What do you mean by a black eye? If you mean it is something that you find disagreable then that's just tough. If you mean because it is wrong it's holding back science then thats just wrong. Please tell me how you would do things differently? Or how the creationist scientists say they would do it differently.

Quote
you never read the actual writings of the founders of modern science?  Do you really have no idea that most of them were theists?
Again evolution has nothing to do with God. And no you can't quote Richard Dawkins at me.

Quote
Morality.  Why do we all have a sense of it?  Why do none of us live up to it perfectly?  Where did it come from?  How does this phenomenon give support to the Creator God Hypothesis?
Just so you know in advance, the bible predicting that people should have morals is not a valid argument. You wouldn't want to sound like Kent Hovind would you?

Date: 2006/05/17 07:14:07, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
People have known about epigenetic modes of inheritance, that I guess you can call Lamarckian, for a while. If that goes against what DS thinks is Darwinism then what he thinks is Darwinism is irrelevent.

Date: 2006/05/21 01:34:11, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
You are correct that there are mountains of evidence that there was just one original "Ape kind" and one original "Dog kind" and one original "Cat kind" and one original "Human kind" and so on.
Blatantly putting words into other peoples mouths an misrepresenting their arguments does not do you any favours.

Date: 2006/05/21 21:40:22, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
This is because the information content required to make something as complex as a flagellum is so large (greater than 500 bits), that chance is ruled out.
Dave could you please explain to me how you calculate the information content required to make the flagellum. Thanks.

Quote
Was there also one original "Rabbit kind"? Or is Rabbit kind just part of rodent kind?

Is there just one Kangaroo kind or are the Kangaroos part of  marsupial kind?

Is there a Penguin Kind?

Is there a dog kind, do wolves belong to it? Do bears belong to it?
My friend you have just discovered the exciting field of Baraminology!

Date: 2006/05/21 23:32:35, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
17. You consistently refer to evolution as though mutation and natural selection were the only mechanisms available for the development of natural diversity.


I think this one needs to be expanded:

17a. You think that every single trait of an organism must be accompanied by a concise story of how it is a benefit and so can be shaped by natural selection, otherwise evolution is wrong.

17b. When such explantions are presented for certain traits you dismiss them as convinient stories with no evidence.

17c. You think that evolutionary biologists claim that the exact same mechanisms of change that cause the colour change in moths are what evolved bacteria in to people.

17d. You think that mutations that affect gene expression and allow the evolution of morphology prove intelligent design somehow.

17e. You think that developmental plasticity and genetic assimilation prove intelligent design somehow.

17f. You think that epigenetic evolution proves intelligent design somehow.

17g. You think that evolution by loss of information proves intelligent design somehow.

17h. You hail any mechanism of evolution that doesn't fit neatly into "random mutations in the DNA that create a new trait followed by natural selection of the trait" as a triumph for ID and the failure of evolution.

17i. You persist even when it's pointed out that this has been common knowledge for years, and in facts stregnthens the theory of evolution.

17j. This is mostly becuase you weren't taught about in in high school and you are angry because biologists know more about evolution than you, which is unfair when you are trying to refute it.

17k. You think that it can't be considered part of the modern theory of evolution unless it is in every high school biology textbook.

17l. You think that becuase the textbooks are out of date this proves the vast conspiracy that scientists are trying to hide the failure of evolution.

17m. You think that the theory of evolution hasn't changed since the modern syhthesis.

17n. You think that the theory of evolution hasn't changed since The Origin of Species.

17o. You think both interchangeably depending on how much of a profound statement you are trying to make.

Date: 2006/05/22 02:28:37, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
There are good reasons why people who are related shouldn't marry. If you are aware of people who are only attracted to multiple people at the same time please let me know.

Date: 2006/05/22 02:31:52, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
In reading neo-Dawrinists such as Richard Dawkins I am sometimes appalled by my thinking at the end of some of his expositions as to how a RM+NS coupled process can achieve feats of engineering excellence. How, I ask myself, have I let my thinking be lulled into such a non-critictical slumber evidenced by giving some credence to his hand-waving explanations? If Richard Dawkins were presenting a design review he would never get past the first milestone with his engineering drivel.
I think I've cracked it. They are too jealous to admit that systems more complicated than those they design evolved without intelligence. It seems so simple now!

Date: 2006/05/22 03:16:53, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
I have dismantled Dr. Max's argument, and I will continue to dismantle many more.
You still seem to be missing the point, there are many mutations in the chimp and human sequences that are identical, and not just point mutations. If you are arguing that the genes could have broken independently in both you don't seem to have much of an understanding of biology. I haven't read Dr Max's argument but if you think you have refuted the claim that the GULO gene does not support common descent you are sadly mistaken.

Date: 2006/05/22 04:01:32, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
While neo-Darwinism has been excellent in explaining the variation we see within specified boundaries, it is bankrupt in explaining where the information came from in the first place
If you are referring to the origin of life this is a seperate issue form evolution. Also do you know what you mean by Darwinism?

Quote
and how the information was added to organisms  to add new gross morphological features.
Which particular gross morphological features require all this new information as opposed to rearragement or duplication and divergence of old information?

Quote
IF He says "Go destroy all the Amalekites" and He was the one that created the Amalekites, then how can we say, "No, that's wrong?"
Well it depends on what the Amalekites did.

Quote
There is more evidence for the Global Flood of Noah than there is that George Washington lived.
Which is?

Date: 2006/05/22 04:44:26, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
I'm going back to more productive arguments.
Good good. Perhaps it would be productive if you could list your main problems with the theory of evolution and then we could help. This seems to be what your other post is leading to anyway, but we might as well get it over and done with.

Date: 2006/05/22 05:33:30, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
You haven't even read the article and yet you disagree with me when I say I have refuted it?

Whoa!   ... well, I was warned about this kind of stuff ...
Please stop putting words in my mouth. I said you haven't refuted the claim that the gene supports common descent. For you to be correct I would have had to have said "I haven't read Dr Max's argument but if you think you have refuted his argument/article you are sadly mistaken." whereas I actually said "I haven't read Dr Max's argument but if you think you have refuted the claim that the GULO gene does not support common descent you are sadly mistaken." Do you see the subtle but important difference.

Whoa!   ... well, I was warned about this kind of stuff ...

 
Quote
You guys cannot get your story straight.  You say it's the similarities in the broken part, Jeannot says "you can't consider the loss of function alone as a valid evidence for common descent, because hundreds of mutations can break a gene."
The point is that the genes have broken in exactly the same way and share the same mutations. You can't just consider the loss of function as evidence, you have to consider both the loss of function and the resulting mutations.

Quote
This is because the information content required to make something as complex as a flagellum is so large (greater than 500 bits), that chance is ruled out.
Could you please tell me how this is calculated thanks.

Date: 2006/05/22 05:59:21, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Despite the mistaken double negative ("refute" + "does not support")
Oops, well you wouldn't think I'd be able to speak English what with me coming from England would you?

Date: 2006/05/22 07:53:32, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
From the looks of it, they're trying to push it down the page by posting, so far, 4 new articles today.
By the looks of this I think you're right.

Date: 2006/05/22 11:50:18, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
I think we can both agree about the abominable consequences that the self-deifying leaders of the evolutionist movement have wrought upon humanity
And they are the leaders of the evolutionist movement how?

Date: 2006/05/23 02:30:53, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Amazing how we can “reverse-engineer” systems that were never “engineered” in the first place
Im sticking with my jealousy theory, 'if they're more complicated than what we can create they must have been designed by a higher power otherwise we're useless'.

Quote
We are clearly in the fighting stage. No doubt about it. The time for ignoring ID belongs to the past.
Judging from this thread I'd say we're still in the laughing phase.

Date: 2006/05/23 04:03:29, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
But the silly thing is that I already knew this before we started this exercise.  We did not need to go slogging through all the intricacies of the GULO gene to prove to me that Humans are genetically similar to Apes.
No, it is the fact that the mutations are the same, which is evidence that we share a common ancestor. It isnt just based on sequence identity. It is the mutations that have occured that are the important part, but you seem to be ignoring this point.

Quote
because you have all read Denton, right?
No, but everyone who has claimed to base their arguments on Denton has ended up spouting nonsense. Read the old Shi thread for an example.

Quote
Not only should there be multiple hominid 'societies' in existence today
Im very curious as to why you think this.

Date: 2006/05/23 05:12:07, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
By the way, I now own the domain names pro-science.com and evidencefreescience.com
Oh no, it looks like ID is bound to win now. :p

Date: 2006/05/23 09:21:52, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
You seem to be using arguments about the probabilities of universal constants taking certain values, how do you calculate these? Thanks.

Date: 2006/05/23 21:25:53, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
For instance, is random mutation sufficient as the driving mechanism behind the development of diversity?
Most people who question evolution have a very narrow idea of what this means so perhaps you'd like to tell us and maybe we can help.

Date: 2006/05/24 01:12:40, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Firstly, what did you think people meant when they talked about mutations conferring antibiotic resistance?

Quote
A true biological cost does occur, however, in the loss of pre-existing cellular systems or functions.  Such loss of cellular activity cannot legitimately be offered as a genetic means of demonstrating evolution.
How does this not fall under the definition of evolution?

Quote
Therefore, these genetic changes offer no example of a genetic mechanism for the “evolutionary” acquisition of flight by non-flying organisms
Changes in form are generally caused by the rearrangement of regulatory mechanisms already present.

Quote
Here is a particularly telling table showing LOSS of function, not gain.
Lets take for example Streptomycin, resistance to which is caused by a mutation in the 16s rRNA that removes the antibiotics ability to inhibit protein synthesis. Whether or not this mutation affects the function of the ribosome is irrelevant if it causes resistance, as long as it does not inhibit function all together. It is evolution by any definition.

Quote
As such, these mutations do not provide a mechanism accounting for the origin of that binding affinity, only its loss.
Has anyone ever claimed that reistance to rifampin did provide a mechanism for explaining the origin of binding affinity?

Quote
Horizontal transfer does not provide a mechanism for the origin of those genes.
No one has ever claimed horizontal transfer does provide a mechanism for the origin of novel genes.

Quote
The real biological cost, though, is loss of pre-existing systems and activities.  Such losses are never compensated, unless resistance is lost, and cannot validly be offered as examples of true evolutionary change.
Like most creationists the author of the article attacks his own definition of what evolution is. Much of evolution has resulted from loss, ussually loss of interaction between components. This of course follows duplication and allows the creation of biological novelty. In any case what definition of evolution do you use where mutations causing antibiotic resistance do not count?

Date: 2006/05/24 05:07:23, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
The reason the GULO gene is so similar is because ... drum roll ... Apes and Humans are so similar!!

Quote
Your statement and Jeannot's seem to contradict.
No, the fact that the genes are broken is not evidence for common descent, but the fact that all the breaks are the same is. It is not just the sequence similarity, it is the fact that all the mutations that occured after the break are the same. This is about the fifth time I have said this.

Quote
Why not try refuting what Denton specifically says?
I am not taking my past experiences as proof of having refuted Denton. Perhaps you could summarise for me?

Quote
Creationists are much more open minded in the sense that they are forward thinking and willing to investigate ALL possibilities, not just 'naturalistic' ones
Could you please explain to us how to investigate non-natural possibilities?

Quote
The same logic applies to Biological Machines.  The best explanation we know of today is that "Someone designed them."
You still haven't explained this in any depth.

Quote
and we observe intelligence every day making cool machines, i.e. human intelligence.
Isn't this rather similar to saying that mountains exist because of giant moles?

Quote
This is because evolution does not provide the necessary mechanisms to create the machines
Only if you have a very narrow idea of what evolution is.

Quote
Why would we not even propose the idea and test it.
How would we test it?

Quote
I didn't calculate them which is why I just used the general 1 to 50 gazillion googolplex to illustrate the enormity of the odds against a finely tuned universe.
How do you know that?

Date: 2006/05/24 07:02:13, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
A study has found that the RNA molecules carried in the sperm and egg are transfered to the next generation and can act as a form of epigenetic inheritance. I just thought I'd point this out because I imagine that UD will probably treat this as another one of those Lamarckian mechanisms that disproves evolution even though it actually provides more oppurtunity for variation.

Date: 2006/05/24 08:11:50, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
I think what may be going on here is that you guys are saying that (1) both are broken and (2) they are 95% similar.  From this you conclude that the gene was broken in a supposed common ancestor, then transmitted along two separate lines of evolution.
No we conclude that they were broken in a common ancestor becuase they share the same mutations.

Quote
I think I did already.  Please refute Denton point by point if you can.
I recall you mentioning Denton but I dont think you spelled out what his argument is.

Quote
Remember, the definition of non-natural is simply natural laws which WE DON'T KNOW ABOUT.  Are we so proud to think we know all the natural laws which COULD ever exist?  I'm not.
No and scientists don't presume that. If we make observations that don't fit in with natural laws then we must search for new ones eg. Newtonian -> Einsteinian physics.

Quote
But my intuition explains the data better than your obvious Fairy Tale
What specifi fairy tale is that. We can make predicitons regarding biological machines based on the processes of evolution we are aware of. Can you do that? (And, they will be complex doesn't count).

Quote
No one has EVER told me that Humans and Chimps share more genetic similarity than say Chimps and Gorillas.  Is this true?
Yes.

Quote
50 gazillion googolplex is not a number last time I checked.  Is it a number to you?
I am just curious how you are able to assign any kind of probability to universal constants.

Quote
And I would start by saying look at all the time that is wasted by people who try to come up with "how the immune system might have evolved" and so on.  So much time is wasted speculating and writing "Alice in Wonderland" stories, that at the very least, we could put those good minds to work doing something more productive than that!
Understanding the evolution of biological systems gives us valuable insights into their function.

Date: 2006/05/24 23:08:48, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
random mutation, it taken at its smallest component, the substitution of a single AA
If you think that all random mutation means is amino acid substitutions then you've been talking to too many creationists. And if you think that creative evolution consists of entirely changes in protein structure and allele frequencies then I'm afraid you're a bit behind. The modern synthesis happened a long time ago, get over it. :D

Quote
I think biologists have just operated under the assumption that evolution is true and they're results reflect that.
No biologists say, 'what would we expect to see if evolution were true'. Granted many biologists these days who are not working with evolution might take the theory of evolution as a given but it would be pretty hard to do science if you couldn't use any previous knowledge. If something was found that contradicted the theory it would stick out like a sore thumb.

Date: 2006/05/25 04:11:07, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Other examples of rapid, observable evolutionary change have occurred among certain insects and disease-eating bacteria ... Some disease-causing bacteria have become resistant to antibiotics in a similar way.
How is this not true? It happens quickly and has an observable phenotype.

 
Quote
Yes, skeptic, that it is, but good luck trying to get these guys concerned about it.
Sketpic seems to think that all evolutionary change involves cahnges in amino acids in proteins. I am giving him the benefit of the doubt and assuming that this in an honest error.

Date: 2006/05/25 08:29:01, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
I submit to you that if you don't think evolutionists think that antibiotic resistant bacteria lend support to macroevolutionary theory (which some people pretend they don't know what we're talking about with this term), then you are simply lying.  It's plain as day in the popular literature which in turn is based on information from scientists like you.
You seem to be under some kind of weird impression that each piece of evidence to support evolution must singularly conclusively prove that humans evolved from bacteria. Im afraid it doesn't work like that, is isn't as simple as you think it should be. Drug resistant bacteria are one of the many pieces of evidence for evolution as they demonstrate mutation, selection and adaptation. Every time you talk about a piece of evidence you act like this is the only evidence we have. Your conclusions seem to be based on twisting some things we say and ignoring others, and so I pity the children you are telling these things to.

Date: 2006/05/25 22:49:12, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Chris Hyland has survived by not giving them anything to use against him.  I suspect he's a diplomat in real life.
No just a biologist trying to share a little knowledge. I just post occasionally when someone completely mischaracterizes the theory of evolution, which seems to be happening quite a lot in these epigenetics posts.

Quote
The key is in the regulatory regions which control the when, where, why, and how of protein production
This is a good example. Every evolutionary biologist I have ever met recognises that this is the main mechanism of morphological evolution, and has known for some years. The fact that this isn't in every high school biology text book in the world apparently disqualifies it from being part of the modern theory of evolution.

Date: 2006/05/25 23:40:19, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Good old Wikipedia to the rescue!

Although I am not an expert on neutral theory, my concern when reading the article is that a synonymous mutation in a coding sequence ie one that does not change the amino acid, can have an effect on fitness. I'm not sure how this affects the theory though.

Date: 2006/05/25 23:57:20, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Because organisms tend to have a particular codon bias, this results in concentrations of tRNAs that reflect this. If certain proteins contain mutations from frequent codons to infrequent codons, then this effects the rate at which this protein can be translated. I don't know how widespread this is, but it seems to be something that's only recently been apprecited. I spoke to a guy a couple of weeks ago at a conference who had lots of data on it, basically showing genes that coded for long proteins with high expression levels had a much higher level of the more frequent codons, and that mutations to less frequent codons could affect their expression.

Date: 2006/05/26 02:22:49, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
So tRNA concentration low for the synonymous codon (because said organism genome has low content in that codon?) means lower output of the same protein, lack of which may result in lower fitness?
Yes but it only applies to some proteins.

Quote
What is the issue with this, and why do some people claim it is an alternative to Darwin's theory? As pointed out, the molecular clock technique is possible because of neutral mutations.
I don't know, it seems to me sometimes that anything that doesn't fit under the banner of 'mutations in proteins create different alleles which will spread through the population if they are beneficial' is ussually called an alternative to Darwin's theory.

Date: 2006/05/26 03:53:12, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Someone, I can't remember who it was used 'millihovinds' to measure the amount of absurdity coming from a creationist.

Date: 2006/05/27 22:59:49, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Hmmm ... huge, abrupt changes you say?  Whole genome duplication!  Wow!  Can you give some examples of this happening today?  In fact, can you give examples of ANY of these abrupt changes?
Dave, are you kidding? Iv'e even mentioned this a couple of times on these threads. It is a major source of new information, and is observable today. Interstingly, we can often see genome duplication events coinciding with extictions (in the organisms that survived), because it creates a great potential for phenotypic novelty, which presumably is useful in these cases.

Date: 2006/05/28 23:26:49, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Many here on this thread said in effect "no evolutionist would cite bacterial resistance as an evidence for macroevolution"
Again you think that if one piece of evidence does not conclusively prove macroevolution on it's own then it is useless. I'm afraid it doesn't work like that as several people have patiently tried to explain to you. Please can you tell us why loss cannot count as a mechanism of evolution.

Date: 2006/05/30 02:04:51, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
A1 was a pretty easy win.
Dave, you have yet to say why Fine tuning is an argument for God. Saying well it's so improbable isn't a good argument unless you have some evidence that it is improbable. You have yet to present any.

Quote
I had a lot of fun with A2
Again you have yet to present any science. We are waiting.

Quote
But your answers to the "Big Three" problems were lame, then you guys took me on a very long rabbit trail about broken GULO only to be shown that what we have is that "the morphologies and genetic sequences of apes and humans are very similar."  OK.  I knew that already.  But this does not prove they had a common ancestor.
You are now ignoring things we say.

Quote
I showed you that resistant bacteria is a foundational evidence for macroevolutionary theory and that it is inadequate because it involves loss of function, not gain.  Many of you didn't even know that your own Talk Origins site uses this as an evidence for macroevolution.
Nothing is evidence on its own, this is one piece of evidence. You have yet to explain why evolution cannot occur due to loss.

Dave by just ignoring the people who are actually adressing your points you're showing yourself to be either very ignorant or very childish.

Date: 2006/05/30 03:12:37, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
I'm pretty sure that what Chris means is that no one piece of evidence is absolute proof on its own.
Exactly, but Dave seems to think that each piece of evidence we present must prove that man evolved from single celled organisms on its own.

Date: 2006/05/30 08:20:01, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 30 2006,17:41)
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1168#comments

(comment #3) :)

Hehe, methinks Mr mike1962 is kidding himself.

Date: 2006/05/30 12:12:49, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Predictive power of ID: Given that I don't even remember what IDists say that ID predicts, I don't know where to start looking for references.


From the IDEA centre:
Quote
Intelligent design theory predicts:
1) that we will find specified complexity in biology. One special easily detectable form of specified complexity is irreducible complexity. We can test design by trying to reverse engineer biological structures to determine if there is an "irreducible core." Intelligent design also makes other predictions, such as
2) rapid appearance of complexity in the fossil record,
3) re-usage of similar parts in different organisms, and
4) function for biological structures. Each of these predictions may be tested--and have been confirmed through testing!


Of course none of these things are actually predictions but they're the best they've got. Perhaps you could say:
Quote
Critics argue that since all of these things were known before the appearence of the modern ID movement, they don't count as predictions.


Also, when I mentoined that ID advocates are claiming that 'if you put some bacteria in a flask they'll never evolved a flagellum' is a legitamte sceintific prediciton to a professor of evolutionary biology they laughed so hard they sprayed beer out of their nose. But I don't know if that is suitable for a wikipedia article.  :D

Sometimes it is claimed that ID can be tested by removing components of a structure to test irreducible complexity. Although since the definition of IC is that all the components must be vital this is a tautology. The only reference I can find for this though is DaveScot.

Date: 2006/05/31 03:44:02, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
There was a show in the UK called celebrity love island. Basically it consisted of several D-List celebrities put on an island to do not much in the hopes that they will get it on and they can show it on television. I once was surfing through the channels and I happened to flick onto this program showing a guy who I think used to be on some soap opera talking about one of the other 'celebrities' that he fancied. The part that made me laugh the most was when he said 'we've got a lot in common: she doesn't like reading books, and I don't like reading books either'. The point is now whenever I hear someone call atheism a religion that is what immediately comes to mind, and it makes about as much sense.

Date: 2006/05/31 12:34:52, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
But Paul Nelson is not as dumb as they are. I'd like to know how he justifies being a YEC despite all the evidence.
It's called being very religious. His grandfather was also a famous YEC so that can't have helped.

Quote
Can anyone point me to where he explains how he can be a YEC?
He doesn't talk about it much, he mostly concentrates on attacking naturalism.

Date: 2006/05/31 12:48:35, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
First, let me remind you that I haven't completely finished the model, so you're only getting a piece for now.
Surely if you're telling us you have a model that shows a geocentric universe you should already have the model. Otherwise you don't know you have the model, unless you have already reached the conclusion, and are now going to try and use maths to prove it.

Date: 2006/05/31 13:00:26, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
He wrote an essay for this book. I don't think he's written anything on the net about it.

Date: 2006/06/01 04:29:26, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Wow, UD is getting another contributor.  What marvelous feats of stupidity will this new contributor bring to the table?  I'm all excited now.
Well he's definately a young earth creationist, although I don't think he has mentioned it on UD yet.

Quote
The age of the Earth and common descent are parlor games. Entertaining and interesting but nothing to take so seriously that one should upon it base a system of values or replace another system of values.

Comment by tribune7 — June 1, 2006 @ 7:06 am

I don't think some of the people over there are up on this whole "science" thing.

Date: 2006/06/01 09:55:52, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
EDIT: oops double posted.

Date: 2006/06/01 10:02:19, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
I submit to you that it defies all sound logic and rational thinking to rule out the possibility of Intelligent Design.
I'm not, Im just saying there isn't enough evidence to conclude ID.

 
Quote
Actually, I have.  Cosmic Fine Tuning is excellent evidence for an Intelligent Designer because it is complex and specified.  What we have essentially are 70 or so parameters which must be exactly what they are, or life would not exist.  Now this can be compared to 70 dice ...
Firstly you don't know that some form of life couldn't exist if they were different. Secondly how do you know that you can assume that all values have equal probability. Just to clarify, I am not saying I can disprove that fine tuning is the result of a designer, I am saying we don't have enough information to make in informed conclusion.

 
Quote
I cannot explain this one any more clearly than I have already explained it.  I guess this is one of those things that some people get and some people don't.  I'm at a loss to understand how scientists cannot see this one.
You must understand though as a scientist arguments along the lines of 'listen it's just obvious ok' do not really hold much sway with me.

 
Quote
Turns out all you had was 'one lousy half of one percent' of sequence similarity.
If our genome was a hundred bases long I would agree with you. You are aware that half a percent is 16 million bases right?

 
Quote
If so, my question is ... how do you reconcile a harmful event (2A + 2B = 2) with the success of human evolution (i.e. they turned out smarter, better looking, etc. than chimps)
Not all chromosome rearragements are harmful. No one is saying that it is this fusion that has caused the phenotypic differences between humans and chimps on its own.

 
Quote
I understand that you have many things that support your theory.  I understand quite clearly that I must dismantle each of them one by one.  That is exactly what I am doing at this forum.  We're making good progress toward that goal.

Date: 2006/06/01 23:32:03, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Darwinian physics??!??
Yes remember the theory of Darwinism states that man evolved from hydrogen in the big bang. Any physics that is inloved with a God-free development of the universe is apparently Darwinian. I would not be surprised if someone had used that term before.

Date: 2006/06/02 02:37:59, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
And your proof of this is?



ps. the flag would move on the moon.

Date: 2006/06/03 07:36:47, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
“If you want to learn how cerebral blood flow works, study engineering. Study design.”
Dembski often makes these posts. I work with several engineers and physicists who study biological systems, and use engineering principles to study them, and they all think creationism and ID are a load of nonsense.

Date: 2006/06/05 03:24:45, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
I think the main problems are:

Religion. I don't know if YECs tend to become engineers, but it looks that way. No matter what some people like to believe the testimonial always goes 'I found God, then I realised evolution was untrue', not the other way round.

Lack of knowledge in biology. I imagine if an engineer looks at a diagram of a protein interaction network, he might think it looks designed if he doesn't know any better.

Maybe to a computer scientists or an electrical engineer that might look something like what they design, but more complex. Ironically it was computer scientists, engineers and physicists who showed biologists that they look exactly like what we would expect if they evolved via duplication.

Jealousy. Ok this probably isn't true, but there are a lot of comments on uncommon descent that go along the lines of 'if it's more complex that what we can design, it must be designed'. Also the assumption that they know more about everything than biologists doesn't help. I'm not painting engineers as arrogant, just the creationist ones.

In conclusion: Engineer + God + Arrogance - Science = YEC.

Date: 2006/06/06 04:02:59, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Even if global warming is caused by humans, I don’t give a ####, quite frankly. Either there is a god/gods/extraterrestrials overseeing this planet who will step in at some time (due to their OWN priorities and goals with regards to this planet) to prevent humans from screwing it up completely, or else there isn’t any such higher power, and life (and this planet, warm or cold) is but a collosal accidental joke anyway. Either way I am not worried about it.


Can one of my American friends tell me if this might be a general consensus among the very religious over there. If so I am very worried.

Date: 2006/06/06 13:45:19, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Which one got my vote in each case - the first one on the list?
The button for view results also says 'null vote' on it.

Just to report, since marriage has been legal in England for 137 days (if I counted correctly), that I have seen no signs of the collapse of society. I have also spoken to several of my married friends and they say that their union has not been made meaningless. So, fingers crossed for the next few months.

Date: 2006/06/06 14:04:46, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
I'm an Apatheist , which means i find the question completely irrelevant. For all practical purposes I am an atheist, except that I believe thinking about the problem enough to come to the conclusion that there is no God is a complete waste of time. In fact I am only posting on this thread because I consider myself an evangelical Apatheist, whos duty it is to dispassionately spread the principles of Apatheistc thought to those nonchalant enough to recieve them.

Date: 2006/06/06 14:37:29, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
He'd probably get annoyed, but there are many evangelical christians who reject YEC/ID on theological grounds so he can get annoyed anyway.

Date: 2006/06/07 04:12:04, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
My tentative position on chromosome fusion is that they are harmful.  I prefer that you explain in your own words why they are not, rather than sending me off to links.
Chromosome rearrangements are mostly harmful I think in humans, although you really have to look at it on a case by case basis.

Quote
Your link implied that the ape and human GULO had the same deletion and that this was the end of the story.  Jeannot later explained that this was not the case.
They have many of the same deletions including the same missing exons as far as I am aware.

Date: 2006/06/07 10:34:34, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
The problem is that all those dang PT people have so much free time on their hands to do this all day long. And because they dont have anything else to do, it makes them grouchy when they spend their time on PT all day.
I forgot the ID people have their hands full doing research.

Date: 2006/06/07 12:48:20, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
I would but then I'd get nonnonbanned

Date: 2006/06/12 06:47:42, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Evolutionsim? You seem to be trying very hard to convince people on this forum that you're just a troll.

Also assuming that the teaching of evolution is responsible for all the worlds ills, what on earth has that got to do with whether or not it is true?

Date: 2006/06/12 07:08:35, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote

It is less than 1/2%.
Get over it.

If you don't think that is significant you don't know much about genetics.

Quote
Because they want to believe in long ages to support the Theory of Evolution and they make assumptions which allow them to believe they are being scientific.

So no one thought the earth was old before the theory of evolution did they?

Quote
They were evolutionists and/or skeptics for a large part of their lives, then converted to the YEC position because of the overwhelming evidence which Evos like to say does not exist.  This includes the Father of the Modern Creationist movement, Dr. Henry Morris himself, who did not become a YEC until later in life.
It's worth noting that a lot of Morris' ideas was based on George Macready Price, who based his ideas on the assumption that geologists had misinterpreted their data because otherwise it contradicted his religious views.

Dave I have a question for you. If like you and other creationists say, there was an original monkey/ape kind etc. Presumably then the small number of animals that came of the ark evolved (or whatever word you want to use) into all the species that are alive today. Is that what creationists believe?

Date: 2006/06/12 07:30:44, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Yes.  And Yes.
Just so we get this straight, are you proposing that some kind of meeting took place where it was decided that scioence would say the earth was a particular age just to prove evolution. Presumably you think that science is holding up evolution to disprove God?

Date: 2006/06/13 08:26:58, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Complexity in Dembski's CSI does NOT refer to "parts of a system". "Complexity" in CSI is just the same as improbability of occurring due to chance or regularity. Nothing about parts there.

This seems to be the most overlooked point. It is absolutely impossible to calculate the probability of the evolution of the flagellum. In No Free Lunch Dembski calculates the probabilty that all of the proteins in the flagellum formed at the same time from random combinations of amino acids. Any other criticism is unessecary, if fun.

Date: 2006/06/13 13:27:02, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
I have a few quick questions regarding Paley's universe.

Is anyone on earth apart from you (and us) aware of the nature of the universe?

If not why not, wouldnt people who sent satellites etc up there have noticed.

Why have our governments lied about sending probes into space. Why has no one involved in the conspiracy leaked anything.

If people are aware of the true nature of the universe, couldn't they just adjust the trajectory of probes etc to account for this.

Date: 2006/06/14 00:02:51, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
English
Gibberish

Date: 2006/06/14 06:28:05, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
and you have to invoke it to explain abiogenesis
Scientists actually say 'we don't know' about abiogenesis, no poof required.

Quote
In short, it's because of non-biological differences.
If they are not caused by biology they have nothing to do with evolution. If you are going to argue that aspects of human intelligence are not a result of our more complex brains, but of some supernatural intervention, I dont see why this is an argument against common descent.

Date: 2006/06/14 06:40:47, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Oh jesus god what a crap animation. I couldn't even finish it, it was so boring and nonsensical.

Please tell me the book isn't going to argue for ID using some kind of 'The Matrix' metaphor.

Date: 2006/06/14 08:59:13, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
It's quite hard to tell what to call him. He seems to think that evolution and abiogenesis are inadequate, and says life must have come from elsewhere. On his panspermia page he talks about new genes being carried in viruses to cause evolution, although he doesn't say whether this was intelligently directed.. Like ID he also refuses to say how life originally was created, but suggests that abiogenesis is impossible. Although there is a link to a chat with him on Dembskis ISCID website where he seems to say that life was not created and has always existed. In any case he just seems to be using his prize to get people to prove him right and Im sure he gets to arbitrarily decide whether runaway complexity growth has been achieved so the prize is unwinnable ala Kent Hovind.

Date: 2006/06/14 09:57:03, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
See that, Hawking is advocating the mass extincion of humans using a genetically engineered virus.

Im curious how much he thinks this colonising or Mars is going to cost.

Date: 2006/06/15 05:37:59, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
So, I'd be interested in hearing recommendations on books that you guys currently deem to be your best summary of evidence for evolution.  Preferably up to date
Unfortuantely books tend not to be that up to date on the current evidence as the field moves quite fast. Im told What Evolution Is by Ernst Mayr is pretty good.

Regarding comparing evolution to gravity I think in many ways the comparison is pretty solid. The theory of gravity is not a theory that things will fall, it is the theory that trys to explain the forces that cause them to fall. Similarly the theory of evolution trys to explain the diversity of life. We cant really 'see' gravity so we make predicitons to test our theory, just like evolution.

Date: 2006/06/15 07:52:50, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Have you never read "Evolution:  A Theory in Crisis" ??  
And have you ever read anything Michael Denton has written since then, he was wrong on several points and he admits it. He now seems to accept that molecular biology supports common ancestry.

Quote
Carl Wieland made a mistake.


Carl Wieland claimed to speak with authority on a subject he was so thouroughly ignorant in to make basic errors. This is dishonest. The fact that they have not corrected the error also says something.

Date: 2006/06/15 10:33:03, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Darwinism has definitely become quite the religious faith.
What is your definition of Darwinism?

Quote
Yeah, but there are people in the field who don't agree.


A vanishingly small number, usually for religious reasons.

People shouldn't have to be qualified scientists to understand evolution. The problem is creationists demand a level of detailed explanation that requires advanced knowledge, becuase they assume that scientists are either incompetent or engaged in a conspiracy. To a creationist there is no book that proves evolution, and so at some point in the discussion the scientist will start on more advace topics and refer to specialist papers. It as usually at this point that they get called an arrogant elitist.

Quote
It's behavior like that that makes me wonder why the evolutionary side is so insecure?
Because they were specifically singling out evolution to give the impression that it is less supported than other scientific theories which it is not. I personally would welcome students being taught that all scientific theories are inferences from the evidence, should be critically considered etc etc. Singling out evolution in childrens minds is simply bad science, and scientists hate bad science.

Quote
So, there's no room for doubt, no room for questioning, no room for personal decision making after weighing evidence.  There's just...dogma.


I don't see how lying to students and saying evolution is less supported than it is helps either. It's a real shame that evolution is not covered as much in high school and that the textbooks tend to be behind current science. But again creationist parents will always say that their children are being indoctrinated not matter how much evidence is presented.

Date: 2006/06/16 02:53:19, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
YECism would be far too big a leap for him--so he basically buys into common descent by default
It seems to me he buys in to common descent because of the evidence. He could easily be an old earth creationist if he accepts a long earth.

I can't remeber if I have asked you this before, but do you think it's feasable that one single species of ape/monkeys evolved into all the species in the world in a few thousand years?

Date: 2006/06/19 04:01:38, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Just another report from the UK. I have yet to witness the collapse of our civilisation due to the legalisation of gay marriage. But just in case I am stocking up on tinned goods. When our society does collapse, you'll hear about it here first.

ps. In related news, the metamorphosis of the British public into alcoholic criminals due to the intorduction of much longer drinking hours in bars has also yet to occur. In fact alcohol related violence appears to have decreased. OT I know but the moral of the story is that freedom can actually be a good thing.

Date: 2006/06/19 04:32:02, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Eric, my friend ... listen ... you cannot even point to ONE example of a mutation which increases information.  The truth is that mutations decrease information content.


Could you explain how duplication and divergence (of genes, genetic modules and whole genomes), acting with selection could not generate information becuase Im pretty sure they can. If you want a good example how evolution can increase informtion in an information theory sense, try here.

Unfortunately creationists like to invent their own definitions of information, but Shannon information is the most universally recognised.

Date: 2006/06/19 04:51:58, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
My favourite so far has been:

Dave: You can't just say the human and chimp GULO gene share a lot of sequence identity and say that's proof of common descent.

Us: What we are saying is that there are so many shared errors including entire missing exons, that indicate that the genes did indeed share a common ancestor.

Dave: No you're wrong, you can't just say the human and chimp GULO gene share a lot of sequence identity and say that's proof of common descent.

Date: 2006/06/19 05:22:07, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
My experience has been that it is the evolutionists who are the ones who invent new definitions to suit their purposes.
I gave you a link to a paper where an 'evolutionist' showed that mutations can cause an increase in information using the universally accepted definition.

Quote
There is much information about this topic at ... you guessed it ... AIG, ICR and DI.
You'll have to excuse me for reading biology and computer science journals instead.

Date: 2006/06/19 09:22:25, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Is she good for the antievolution movement? For the people that still think this is still a scientific debate then definately no. But on the other hand if by antievolution movement you mean the movement to discredit evolution as a barrier to increasing the influence of Christian fundementalism in America then probably yes. I have not read her book, but I imagine that she trots out the standard stuff about evolution being responsible for gays. abortions etc, and so probably exposes these arguments to people that agree with her, but haven't really thought about evolution before.

Hopefully one day people will realise that a lot of the stuff people like Ann Coulter say about Democrat politicians is true AND a lot of the stuff people like Michael Moore say about Rebublican politicians is true. Then we can all be united in the understanding that politicians are practially all incompetent and corrupt by their very nature, and liberals and conservatives can join hands in peace.

Maybe...

Date: 2006/06/19 09:38:59, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
As far as I can remember Darwin thought that white Europeans would 'outcompete' other races and that they would eventually dissapear. He didn't advocate genocide or anything like that, and 'social darwinism' didn't appear until after his death. The main thing to remember is that even if if his book was called 'On the Origin of Species: why white people are superior and everyone else should be killed', this has nothing to do with whether or not the theory is true. Bizarrely Darwins views, or the consequences of 'believing in evolution' are common arguments against the theory itself. I really can't work out why.

Date: 2006/06/19 23:51:19, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
These are the stuff of nightmares. Each individually has the potential to decimate the human population of Earth. And soon.
Agreed. I fail to see how colonising space would be the best solution though, considering the costs involved. Maybe since a lot of the ID types are engineers etc they would like to see space colonised so they shut up about it.

Date: 2006/06/20 05:59:07, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Why is it such a difficulty for you guys to imagine a star or a galaxy being formed with it's light field being in place?
You keep telling us to read Answers in Genesis and they don't like the explanation.

Date: 2006/06/21 10:23:26, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
At the moment the front page says my last post on the gay marriage thread was at
Quote
June 21 2006,20:08
when it was actually at
Quote
June 19 2006,14:01


When I made that post I also remember the next last post by stevestory was given on the frontpage as being much newer than it was

Date: 2006/06/21 10:28:19, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Why doesnt Dembski take his arguments and publish them in a mathematical journal?

Surely the Evilatheistconspiracy doesn't control maths as well?

Date: 2006/06/21 11:52:33, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Ah yes, hence the title 'Last Action' as opposed to 'Last Post'.

Oops.

Date: 2006/06/21 13:37:42, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Speaking of people being banned, what happened to Thordaddy?

Date: 2006/06/22 23:33:33, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Hmm... I wonder how that will turn out.

Date: 2006/06/23 04:35:14, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Written on the blog of a guy who asked for how much money just to testify in KvD?
Do you have a link for that?

Date: 2006/06/25 09:17:43, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
it'd be interesting to hear from Chris Hyland, Bob OH, Tiax, & Jack Krebs as to whether DT is representing his treatment of them accurately.
In my case I can't argue with that, all my comments appear immediately so I'm guessing I'm not on the moderation list.

Date: 2006/06/25 19:45:39, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Ok this thread is getting pretty boring. Could someone let me know if Dave actually says something interesting or if he actually moves onto evolution.

Yes Dave I know you're trying to work through your arguments methodically but there's no point. Evolution is disproved if you can prove a young Earth, and since you cant you might as well abandon the geology arguments. Yes I know you want us all to read Henry Morris, but since were talking about very old books have you read the new geology by George Macready Price? Youll find all the standard creationist dating arguments in there, and it was written in 1923. Morris said that he got a lot of his arguments from there, and it was written with the assumption that geologists had misinterpreted their data becuase otherwise they contradicted Price's religious beliefs. Price's religious beliefs were based on the 'visions' of Ellen White, one of the founders of the Seventh Day adventist church, which appeared to be hallucinations caused by partial complex seizures. So here we can trace the origin of the modern creationist movement to mental illness, which puts things nicely in perspective.

Also Dave, can you explain why the majority of church leaders before there was such thing as geology or evolution thought the 'days' in Genesis 1 were meant to be taken figuratively?

Date: 2006/06/25 19:53:34, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Was it just me or when avocationist was over here didn't she claim to believe in some abstract version of God and not the literal biblical version. If so she seems to have changed her tune a bit.

Date: 2006/06/26 01:46:41, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
need at least three thousand billion million hundred trillion godzillian years, and even then, they wouldn't have enough time.
Exactly, so the age of the Earth is really irrelevant, and this discussion seems to be going round in circles so I suggest we agree to disagree and get onto something more interesting like how one monkape kind can expand into and incredibly diverse group of species in just a few thousand years through only the processes creationists accept as valid.

Quote
I wonder if the bible is consistent with the Book of Origin?
To be fair at least stargate gives a decent reason as to why the Ori need to be worshipped. I have yet to hear one for Christianity. Ps becuase you'll go to #### is not a decent reason.

Date: 2006/06/26 04:37:19, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Wow I didnt see that that's special stuff. I do love it how creationists all say that the fossil are either fully ape or fully human, but different creationists have very different opinions on which ones are fully ape and fully human. Same with mammal-like-reptile-vice-versa.

Quote
So humans and apes had to come about by natural processes -- no Intelligent Designer involved -- to say so would be unscientific !!!
I asked an evolutionary biologist friend about this the other day, the converstaion went something like this.

Me: Do you think you know all the processes of evolution?
Him: no
Me: How can you say then that you can prove that life evolved entirely via unintelligent processes?
Him: I have never said that.
Me: How can you say then that intelligent design isnt true?
Him: Since they claim that they can detect design the burden of proof is on them. What we are saying is that the processes that we are aware of fit the data very well, and we can make good predictions. Intelligent design may or may not be true but they have to prove it.
Me: Fair enough

Date: 2006/06/26 09:39:13, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
DOOOO WHAAAAT??  Where in the world did you get this from?  You are going to have to explain this one to me.  I didn't quite follow.
Hehe, ok so I can't prove the mental illness thing, but that is certainly the view of a great deal of doctors. To summarise:

George Mcready Price belived in a literal reading of Gen 1-3 due to his religious beliefs. These are based on the views of the Seventh Day adventist church, which are based on the visions of their 'prophetess' Ellen White, who claimed to have a vision where she saw the creation occur in literal days, and another where she saw Nohas flood shape the world. At some point when Price was a school teacher a friend gave him a book containing geological methods used to determine the age of the earth. He assumed that the geologists had misinterpreted their data, because otherwise the conclusions contradicted his religious beliefs. Based on these assumptions he produced a book called 'the new geology', which contained the YEC flood geology arguments in virtually all detail. Price's arguments were used by William Jennings Bryan at the Scopes trial, and were the main influence of Henry Morris, who described the book as a life changing experience. What Morris did was bring the arguments from a mostly Seventh Day Adventist/Lutheran belief into the mainstream denominations.

I would be very interested to see your evidence regarding the belief of the majority of Christians before the 19th century because every evangelical Christian I have spoken to on the matter says the exact opposite.

Date: 2006/06/27 02:36:35, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
I'm not sure what your point is Skeptic. Evolutionary biologists are aware this sort of thing happens, this book talks about the phenomenon at length. You appear to be suggesting that this somehow contradicts evolution but I cant for the life of me see why. Do you think that this article appeared in Science and then everyone just ignored it?

Date: 2006/06/27 02:46:58, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
I highly recommend this book for anyone interested in the subject. It's aimed at the general reader, and no previous knowledge of developmental biology, genetics or evolutionary biololgy is required.

It's a great read, plus there's more fulfilled evolutionary predictions than you can shake a creationist at.

Date: 2006/06/27 08:07:19, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Chris Hyland...  
 
Quote
Price's arguments were used by William Jennings Bryan at the Scopes trial, and were the main influence of Henry Morris, who described the book as a life changing experience.

Can you supply the reference which supports the assertion that Henry Morris said this?

From Henry Morris, History of Modern Creationism (San Diego: Master Book Publishers, 1984), page 79:
Quote
The most important Creationist writer in the first half century, at least in my judgment, was a remarkable man by the name of George McCready Price (1870-1962).
and from page 80:
Quote
I first encountered his name in one of Harry Rimmer’s books... and thereupon looked up his book The New Geology in the library at Rice Institute, where I was teaching at the time.  This was in early 1943 and it was a life-changing experience for me.  I eventually acquired and read most of his other books as well.


The point is that the Genesis flood is basically an updated version of Price's "the new geology" from 1923. I don't think that this was common knowledge when the book was first released because the mainstream Christian denominations would be less accepting of an idea that had its roots in Adventism.

Date: 2006/06/28 01:55:28, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
What I like about these two examples are the potential explanatory nature of the mechanisms behind mutation.  I favor movement towards a more robust description or inquiry behind some the concepts behind mutation, random mutation, environmental influences and pressures, etc.
If you think this kind of thing happends most of the time and is responsible for most of evolution i think your barking up the wrong tree. Im afriad you wont get your robust description any time soon.

Date: 2006/06/28 02:05:03, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Thats pretty interesting, I havent heard of that before, but Im not a herpetologist.

Date: 2006/06/28 02:09:05, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Which is why I get annoyed on UD when people use 'modern synthesis' as a strawman for modern evolutionary theory.

Date: 2006/06/28 02:37:52, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Not to sound corney or anything but, this is exactly what the creationists want.

Date: 2006/06/28 03:29:04, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Looks like camel spiders.

Date: 2006/06/28 05:52:35, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Why does it matter WHO advocates a particular idea?  If Charles Manson writes a book about how wrong murder is, should I disregard the idea that murder is wrong?
I agree that this does not affect whether or not the claims are true. I only brought it up because at some point the claim was made that creationism is based on a careful weighing of the evidence, which led to the conclusion that the bible was accurate. What actually happened was creationism was invented based on the assumption that science was wrong because it contradicted someones interpretation of the scripture. Subsequent creationist authors have become so called 'scientific creationists' because they have read works by previous creationists, and siezed on them as a way to combine science with their beliefs, regardless(up to a point) of the factual accuracy of the claims. At no point did someone read a geology or biology text, decide independantly that the conclusions were wrong, and then realise that they fit with the bible better. We can trace a chain of creationists, from Price to Morris to Ham to Denton to Behe and Dembski. For example Behe has claimed his revelation came after reading Dentons theory in crisis, which contains much that Denton has personally admitted was wrong. Behe spent years as a biochemist, but a religious one, and had no scientific concern with evolution until he read Denton. Here he found a way to better combine science with his religion, and so on the story goes, as the next generation of creationists see Darwins Black Box as a way to integrate their religion into science. Similarly Dembski has said that Morris spraked his interest in creationism. This does not automatically mean that the science is wrong, it does mean it should be looked at with a very critical eye.

Now several evangelical Christians and theologians I have spoken to tell me that before the nineteenth and eighteenth centuries, with a few exceptions, the mainstream church believed that Genesis 1-3 was not meant as a literal scientific text. Indeed many years before Darwin people knew that the earth was much older than Genesis says. People still thought though that animals existed as created kinds, because that was the best explanation available. In the years before Darwin, several people began to comment on the similarites and geographical distribution of organisms, until eventually Darwin wrote origin. Darwin didn't want to prove Genesis wrong, because the church at the time didnt think it was a literal Document. Darwin's own writings show that it was his continued experience of the evidence that eventually led him to believe in evolution, wheras the creationist story goes 'when I read 'insert creationist text I realised evolution/geology/paleontology/astronomy/etc was wrong'.

Quote
UNIVERSAL MORALITY
Does the fact that chimps and gorillas obey the golden rule prove you right or us right. Who cares. You could just as easily say that not killing babies makes good evolutionary sense.

Date: 2006/06/29 02:44:31, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
There was one but he's slown down a bit now.

Quote
Click Me, Fross, and be converted
I'm pretty sure that post was a joke. What's the bet no one notices.

Quote
I'm thinking of calculating the "God channel"
You'd better ask them first.  :D

Date: 2006/06/29 05:02:19, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
So there is no reason to believe that this same intuition would not also work well on biological machines, which--no honest molecular biologist can deny--is precisely what we find in Nature.
Yes there is.

Quote
There must be an Expert Sky Canoe Builder somewhere who made this wonderful sky canoe!"  Now you can laugh all you want, but this is the EXACT same situation we find ourselves in when observing the innovations in Nature.
No it isn't. Maybe hundreds of years ago when we didnt know any better it was a good inference.

Quote
COSMIC FINE TUNING
Just provide me with evidence of the probabilities of the constants taking these values. If you are assuming that all values have an equal probability I will need evidence to support this.

Quote
UNIVERSAL MORAL CODE
Unfortuately could also be explained as a product of evolution.

Quote
And I really could care less who it was that introduced the Creation and Flood ideas to me.  I am only interested in finding out if it is true or not.
Fair enough, except thats not what most creationists do, they latch onto previous ideas as a way to integrate their faith with science, and are completely biased in their examination of the evidence.

Date: 2006/06/29 06:44:39, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
ONLY ONE STUDENT IN TEN BELIEVES THE 'EVO-MALARKEY'


Quote
One study....found that one science student in ten did not believe in evolution.


No comment. Except to say I bet that includes engineers.

Date: 2006/06/29 09:09:51, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
When you have members of the school board saying things like we ought to stand up for Jesus because he died for us, that’s really asking for it.


Compare with:

Quote
Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools.

Date: 2006/06/29 10:50:05, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Thanks for the link. Nice to see some data  to support the interbreeding hypothesis. So much for Dave and the humans dont date chimps idea.  :p

Date: 2006/06/30 00:27:29, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
A bolt that is too large, too small, or that has threads that are too fine or too coarse to match those of a nut, cannot be combined with the nut to make a fastener
Thats funny, because when my colleagues do very high throughput protein-protein or protein-DNA interaction experiments, they tell me you sometimes have to take into account the fact that random mutation causing random binding happens more than you'd think. I should tell them it's impossible, since it will save them a lot of money in replicates.

Quote
ll of the component parts must have been present at the same time and in roughly the same place
Here's a fun experiment to do with the kids: take a small tupperware box, fill it with water and add a few handfuls of rice. Seal the box with tape and put in on a washing machine for a few minutes, and count how many times the grains of rice bump into each other.

Quote
Nobody claims, as Gil's strawman above suggests, that every last part of the flagellum came together in one fell swoop.
You have to make that rather weird assumption to be able to calculate specified complexity.

Date: 2006/06/30 00:50:18, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
will have to give way to software engineers and mathematicians (who, of course, will see that the biologists have all been wrong about evolution)
What none of them seem to realise of course is that mathematicians and software engineers have been an integral part of biological research for years and they don't seem to have much problem with evolution.

Date: 2006/06/30 00:52:56, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not immoral b/c it falls under God-Ordained Government Killing.
Dave don't make me think you're insane.

Date: 2006/07/01 14:05:25, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Have you ever paused to consider how much water it would take to lay down five thousand feet of sediment?
As someone without any geology knowlege can I ask how the creation flood model accounts for steep sides, meanders and perpendicular tributaries?

Date: 2006/07/02 07:29:00, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
You forget, they had the best in the business the Thomas Moore Law Center
I always thought the funniest part of the whole escapade was the fact that to prove that their policy was not religious they hired a law firm who's mission is to defend the religious freedom of Christians. I think that's called shooting yourself in the foot.

Date: 2006/07/03 11:43:28, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
What the he11 has StarWars got to do with Darwinism?

Date: 2006/07/03 12:30:19, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
And you think Darwinism hurts science because ...

Date: 2006/07/04 00:44:53, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
From that awesome site:
Quote
We are violated in our right to Liberty:

...

Sodomy is now legal and celebrated as "diversity" by order of the U.S. Supreme Court rather than condemned as perversion. Another usurpation of the rights of the States by the federal government.
Could someone explain to me how leagalizing sodomy violates Christians right to liberty?

Date: 2006/07/04 11:25:52, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Hehe.
Quote
Table 2. Predictions of Design (Hypothesis):
(1) High information content machine-like irreducibly complex structures will be found.
(2) Forms will be found in the fossil record that appear suddenly and without any precursors.
(3) Genes and functional parts will be re-used in different unrelated organisms.
(4) The genetic code will NOT contain much discarded genetic baggage code or functionless "junk DNA".


Table 3. Predictions of Darwinian Evolution (Hypothesis):
(1) High information content machine-like irreducibly complex structures will NOT be found.
(2) Forms will appear in the fossil record as a gradual progression with transitional series.
(3) Genes and functional parts will reflect those inherited through ancestry, and are only shared by related organisms.
(4) The genetic code will contain much discarded genetic baggage code or functionless "junk DNA".


Except that Irreducible complexity was predicted by Hermann Muller in 1918 (called interlocking complexity in 1938), and Specified complexity was named and predicted by Leslie Orgel in 1973.

Date: 2006/07/05 06:54:21, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Is it worth pointing out at this point that the geological column and the assigning of fossils to strata was worked out before the theory of evolution?

Date: 2006/07/05 13:23:42, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
David Icke puts Alex Jones to shame
Is David Icke the guy who said that Lizard people secretly rule the world?

Date: 2006/07/06 03:48:05, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
What I'm suggesting is given similar species A, B & C in reproductive isolation for a time but under the same pressures the resulting A', A", B', C', C", C"', etc would be very similar and in the event of isolation breakdown you could get B' + C' -> BC.
Can you give me any evidence that shows this could happen except in very closely related organisms. If you think there are some mechanisms that drive evolution in a certain direction in terms of morphology how does this have any effect on whether or not the animals can breed.

Date: 2006/07/06 14:25:08, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
but they will not rest until no one ELSE believes in them, either.


Until recently I wouldn't have agreed with you. I thought when people said 'we need to encourage more critical thinking to defeat creaitionism' I thought they meant in the sense of better science teaching. But everyone I've heard use the phrase recently actually means, 'if we could just make everyone into secular humanists this problem would go away'. If I was religious I would feel pretty insulted and patronised.

Date: 2006/07/07 01:05:10, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
If Dave thought she wasn't for real he would have banned her in a second.

Quote
P.S. My wife’s name is Janie. She is a French teacher. We met in French classes in college 30 years ago. “Belle” is the French word for beautiful, so JanieBelle has a special place in my heart.


er...

Date: 2006/07/07 05:50:53, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Plus they've parodied it in the simpsons a few times.

Date: 2006/07/07 12:02:37, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Gee, Bill, drinking, drugging, and skirt-chasing don't strike me as activities normally associated with professional scientists.
Well if you believe Anne Coulter scientists are liberals so they spend all day drinking, smoking pot and sleeping around so they can have as many abortions as possible. Either that or their gay and don't have abortions so instead they want to adopt kids to destroy the American family.

Quote
Funny thing is, even though God made all the difference in my inner world, my lifestyle remains pretty much the same. I never did get into drinking, drugging, skirt-chasing, etc, so I didn't have to give up a lot of bad habits.
Funny I gave all that stuff up after I stopped caring what God thought about me.

Date: 2006/07/08 06:53:36, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
what difference does it make...
It's to do with the fact that the scientific status of the theory of evolution is mostly dependent on a) public comments made by any supporters of the theory who aren't evolutionary biologists, and b) the precise wording of high school textbooks.

At least that's what you'd think.

Date: 2006/07/08 09:24:29, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Or all the flirting with the 17 year old lesbian cheerleader.

Date: 2006/07/08 16:42:14, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Two possiblilities here, either they never diverged enough to become reproductively incompatible (so were they really ever two species) or they evolved along similar paths (mechanisms) and became compatible again.


It's the first one, trust me. I would love to hear an explanation of how this 'evolved along similar paths to become repoductively compatible again' thing works.

Date: 2006/07/08 16:48:28, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Im all for thinking for yourself and critical analysis etc, but you do actually have to teach some things as true. What I got taught about evolution was: here are the mechanisms we are aware of, here is the evidence that makes us think that these mechanisms were a major force in evolution, etc. Im really not sure whats wrong with that.

Date: 2006/07/11 01:26:36, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
The scientific community is pissed because these people have decided that they have proven something...which they havent even begun to prove.
I think thats exactly right. Most ID supporters claim to be such because apparently scientists say that they can conclusively prove all of evolution proceeded unplanned and unguided, so no need for God. This is what seems to piss most of them off, and of course isn't true. So when scientists get annoyed at ID, most ID supporters think it's because of that. Whereas it's actually because the main ID proponents say they can conclusively prove intelligence was involved.

Date: 2006/07/11 23:37:52, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
They seem to be very good at selectively citing the literature. They can find dozens of papers about 'non-random mutation' (which kind of suggests it isnt the nail in the coffin of evolution they think it is), but they cant seem to find all the papers about transitional fossils that aren't mentioned on the news or in Scientific American.

Quote
The problem is there are estimated to be about a billion species that have ever lived, 99.9% of them now extinct. We have to explain the origin of about 1 new species a year for a billion years. A designer could do this by creating one organism a billion years ago that was programmed to diversify into a billion species by saltation or the designer could have hung around for a billion years creating one new species each year (on average). It seems to me Occam’s Razor forces us to choose the simpler case (one point of design input) instead of a billion cases.
Fair enough, but zero is impler until we see evidence of design.

Dave seems to be unaware that most of his avid listeners are YECs so his comment will fall on deaf ears.

Date: 2006/07/12 06:59:49, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Correct me if I’m wrong here but wasn’t Avida and all the software & hardware it runs on the result of intelligent agency?
That's getting awfully close to "it happened in the past so you cant prove it".

Date: 2006/07/13 12:02:11, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
I can't think of anything that describes all of those examples they seem to secribe different things. Are you talking about the lineage of specific traits of an organism or the evolution of adaption to an environment? By development do you mean change over the course of evolution or actual embryonic development?

Date: 2006/07/16 20:46:21, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Or "If Americans are descended from Europeans, why are there still Europeans".

Date: 2006/07/16 21:29:23, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Wait for it...

Date: 2006/07/17 01:52:56, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
“Who do you think wrote the textbooks you read? So I guess they filled your mind with misinformation.”


This I always find the most bizzare. Even if, as most of the people on UD claim, that scientists believe evolution because of some subconscious desire to remove themself from moral resposibility or somesuch crap, there would still have to be a massive effort to cover it all up. So far they have produced no evidence for this whatsoever, not even a single bad piece of reasoning or decent quote mine. The best they have is the fact that textbooks oversimplify complex scientific topics. I have gone so far as to accuse people at UD of making the whole thing up and the only response I got was a vauge answer about Richard Dawkins, and a complete misrepresentation of a conference similar to the maths conference talked about on evolutionblog. Currently on the conspiracy-o-meter this ranks significantly behind faked moon landings and George Bush ordering the WTC attacks based on supporting evidence, but creationists have no problem believing it because as Steve said it helps them be right.

Date: 2006/07/17 02:01:15, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
They've mentioned similar things before. Basically the mindset is that if it isn't taught in school, on the cover of Scientific American, or in one of Richard Dawkins' books, then it's not allowed to be part of the modern theory of evolution, and therefore is somehow support for ID. If you look back you'll see they've treated epigenetic inheritance and developmental plasticity in the same way.

Date: 2006/07/17 05:57:08, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Over at , UD Dembski wasn't sure whether the paper he linked to was an ID article or not. I can sympathise, becuase it's quite hard to decide what and what does not count as an antievolutionary paper since every creationist has a different definition of what 'Darwinism' is. So out of the kindness of my heart I've put together this handy list of anti-Darwinian papers in mainstream journals that should satisfy creationists of all stripes.

To find the right paper for you, read the list of statements about evolution in descending order. If you don't think that the statement applies to Darwinism, then keep going down the list, but if you think it does, then click on the link to find a bonafide mainstream article which knocks your straw man to pieces. Enjoy!

1.Random mutation has to refer to mutation in DNA.
Yes.
No. Go to next statement.

2.Random mutation has to refer to mutation in protein coding sequence.
Yes.
No. Go to next statement.

3.Random mutation of DNA can only act on single bases.
Yes.
No. Go to next statement.

4.Random mutation means that at a particular time every nucleotide in the entire genome has an equal probability of a mutation.
Yes.
No. Go to next statement.

5.New genes have to arise randomly from DNA sequence.
Yes.
No. Go to next statement.

6.Gene duplications always occur one at a time.
Yes.
No. Go to next statement.

7.Genomes of populations can only change due to natural selection.
Yes.
No. Go to next statement.

8.Every feature of an organism is a trait which has selectable value otherwise it couldn't have evolved.
Yes.
No. Go to next statement.

9.Environmental conditions can't affect the phenotype and/or the genotype.
Yes.
No. Go to next statement.

10.Random mutation/natural selection means that all new features of organisms must arise due to new genes and not new interactions between existing genes.
Yes.
No. Go to next statement.

11.Only immediately useful mutations can participate in the evolution of complex systems.
Yes.
No. Oh go on then.

Date: 2006/07/18 02:22:29, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Hmmm… only 15,000 years to get 350 different dog breeds from a small population of domesticated wolves? I wonder how long it would take to go from a small human population (say 8 adults) to get the 20 or 30 different human groups - i.e., Pacific-Islanders, European, African, Asian, Native American … etc, etc? Maybe 5,000 or 6,000 years?
Ithink someone missed the point of the article.

Date: 2006/07/18 10:59:27, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
I just want to say that I think the posts ridiculing Denyse O'Leary's physical appearance are in very poor taste.
I agree so FYI this one is from DaveScot over at Janie's blog:
Quote
if my dog was as ugly as the Canadian cross dresser I'd shave his ass and teach him to walk backwards.
I think he isn't going to be commenting on UD in the future.

Date: 2006/07/18 13:12:07, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
#### google cache only got the first 3 comments. I get the impression that Dave was unimpressed by some of her comments so he put one of his bold comments at the end that pissed her/Dembski off. Apparently she said something like anyone who doesnt realise a man and a woman is the only moral relationship isn't a modern human. Then Janiebelle posted a comment taking offence and she got banned. I think all the comments were deleted shortly after.

Date: 2006/07/19 03:12:29, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Dave I think in terms of scale a fairer comparison would be:

Not Similar


Not Similar


See the difference?

Date: 2006/07/20 13:17:22, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
they completely erase the distinction between the animate and inanimate.
Thats not true, for example Leslie Orgel came up with a great way to distinguish life from non-life in 1973. He called it specified complexity.

Date: 2006/07/21 02:12:02, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
It'a an interesting question, like everything else in biology the answer is that it probably applies some of the time. My problem is that I never learned much population genetics so I haven't really looked into the population vs individual arguments. At the individual level my main problem with the idea is that selection tends not to act on individual genes but phenotypes that are caused due to the interactions between genes. So it is possible to see 'selfish gene networks' which appear to function as the replicators Dawkins talks about.

Date: 2006/07/24 04:43:41, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
It stated that Tyre will be bare, and it's not.
Er, give it a week.

Date: 2006/07/25 11:50:24, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
I will keep 'Paradigm Dawning' in mind for if I ever start a prog band and need a name for my first album.

Date: 2006/07/25 11:59:06, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
In spite of evilutionist lies, here's some indisputable evidence that our ideas are gaining ground everywhere:

Update: University department based on design principles

Date: 2006/07/26 03:18:01, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Science doesn't make guarantees.  It offers explanations to explain the data available at the time but is always adaptable should new data present itself.
The phrase my high school biology teacher used was tentative explanation, evolutionary biology could be overturned tomorrow. Scientists accept that we do not yet have a full picture, and that there are many things we have yet to learn. I've never met an evolutionary biologist who cliams we can conclusively prove that all life originated by purely random mutation and selection. The creationists on the other hand do claim to be able to currently prove conclusively that intelligence was involved, so there's a big difference there.

Quote
On my side, I offer a potential theory concerning the mechanism of mutation and supply data as support and it is ignored or derided.  Why?  Because it threatens the cornerstone of evolutionary belief and that is random mutation.  Random mutation must be defended for two reasons. 1) It reinforces an atheist philosophy, and 2) It is the very concept that is attacked by creationists so it must be opposed.
I can't recall anything you've said that would support creationism or refute atheism so I'm not sure what your point is there.

Quote
When someone's philosophy is threatened there is no room to entertain actual debate about the theory, it just must be defended, right or wrong.
I have yet to see a scrap of evidence that evolution is being supported scientifically to defend atheism. I assure you most scientists don't care either way.

Date: 2006/07/28 00:38:34, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
If Jonathan Witt is in favour of a marketplace of ideas I take it he thinks it's okay to teach Holocaust denial in history classes and Astrology in science classes.
I think at a high school level you could teach these things as long as you explained why they are wrong int the context of the subject. Same goes for ID I guess, personally I think explaining the many flaws in the IC=unevolvable hypothesis is a very good way to teach molecular evolution. In the spirit of critical analysis, it would also be a good excersise in a Kansas (and anywhere else) science class to analyse the proposed Kansas science standards and explain why what they say is wrong.

Date: 2006/07/28 02:29:51, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Just in case any of the contributors at UD read this I thought I'd help you out by letting you know that I've read this paper and this paper, and neither of them support ID.

p.s. the title of the seceond paper isn't an indication that intelligent design has become pervasive throughout biology it is in fact mocking you for not doing any research.

Date: 2006/07/29 06:04:18, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
The best that I can hope for is expansion and refinement of the theory.
If you don't think evolutionary theory is ever expanded and refined you don't read enough. I thought you said at one point you were reading Stuart Kauffman there's a good example.

Quote
If you can identify surface proteins that correspond to gene regions then you could predict where the mutation would occur and given greater understanding and better technology you could examine the possible results of mutations at specific genes, maybe to the point of anticipating outcomes.


People do look at this, the point is it is the exception not the rule.

Date: 2006/07/29 11:59:33, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Yeah I've thought that sometimes but they've never mentioned it.

Date: 2006/07/30 00:36:45, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
What was more provocative was his belief that religious belief could be rectified (eliminated) by more vigorous science education.
I've heard a few people say/imply this, although instead of science education they ussually say 'teach critical thinking'.

Date: 2006/07/31 04:57:20, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Research assistant doesn't mean you need to do original research. He might help Dembski with the research for his books for example. Similar to Richard Dawkins last book.

Date: 2006/08/02 05:56:12, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Dembski and Incorygible's posts reminded me of this:
Quote
What have you experienced at the hands of scientific materialists? Are you aware of the Sternberg case? The pressures directed against frontline ID proponents are real. From your armchair, it is easy enough to say that we need simply to get to work. But families and livelihoods really are under threat by these Darwinian fascists, and when our days are spent trying to shore up the latter, the former does not get done.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53yh2yWREHU

Date: 2006/08/03 15:16:57, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
On the topic of directed mutation creationists tend to bring up this paper.

Date: 2006/08/04 00:39:07, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
or am i stepping on your toes here?
I think your right Im not sure why this is against random mutation. It's no more nonrandom than something like genetic assimilation. There's nothing in the paper that would show support for creationism that I can see, it's just a property of the DNA transcription machinery that needn't even have been something that was selected for. As far as I can tell it just means that evolution is slightly easier than we thought. This diagram sums up the paper nicely.

Date: 2006/08/04 01:03:30, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
This also lead me to thinking about non-human design. I was wondering if chimpanzees modify the twigs they use to catch insects on. If so this would be a great test of the explanatory filter!


On UD I was given beaver dams as an example. The problem with the EF asI see it so far as we can't calculate the relevant probabilities to any kind of accuracy. Additionaly CSI and IC are exactly what we would expect evolution to produce, as predicted by Orgel in the 70s and Muller over 80 years ago respectively. So saying that these count as predictions of ID is just wrong, and Dembskis other avenue involes hopelessly mischaracterising evolution and trying to prove it can't generate CSI.

Quote

[To Dembski]

A failure to hybridise could be due to their having evolved to far to let it happen. You know this. Sometimes you allow your zeal to get in the way of your common sense. And yes, sometimes those on both sides make such mistakes.

omment by MikeFNQ — August 4, 2006 @ 5:41 am
Someones getting banned.

Quote
Second, the Darwinist Stalin government of the USSR sponsored human-chimp hybrid research and it failed to produce viable off spring.
Wow I never knew you could make the government worse by calling them Darwinist for no reason. Lets try:
Quote
I am angry at my Darwinist government for not calling for a ceasefire in Lebanon
Take that Tony Blair!

Date: 2006/08/07 04:28:30, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
So then we should not be surprised that from time to time when one or two ostriches pull their heads out of the lofty sand pit and crane their necks out of the ivory tower to gaze down at the fast changing world (of science) below, they will notice events of yester year as breaking-news.

Ostriches in a tower what???

Date: 2006/08/10 08:30:15, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
But wait - Darwin was an evil atheist who only came up with evolution to destroy God, but in the origin of species Darwin says he believes in a creator, even though he only came up with evolution as part of an atheist conspiracy...

Comment by SomeDeadGuy — August 10, 2006 @ 6:20 pm

Date: 2006/08/11 03:20:39, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
It has been suggested that embedded proteins correspond to specific genes and can regulate or influence expression, etc.
Could you provide a reference for this, thanks.

Date: 2006/08/13 10:11:32, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
I don't know much about astobiology but why if the cells are extraterrestiral would they expect to find DNA?

Date: 2006/08/14 03:08:59, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Skeptic thanks for the links. We briefly discussed this on another thread. I have two points about Stress->Upregulation of certain genes->hypermutation scenario: It only invalidates random mutation depending on your definition of random, and it is definately the exception as opposed to the rule.

Date: 2006/08/14 11:37:32, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Imagine that the membrane-bound proteins are sensors that respond to stimuli which initiates a cascade resulting in mutation at a specific gene.


Other than what's described in this paper I'm having a really hard trouble imagining what you mean by cascade.

Date: 2006/08/15 08:09:43, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Ive not heard a great deal about Dictyostelium from the creationists considering it's the model organism for the study of the evolution of multicelularity.

Date: 2006/08/15 08:21:38, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Just before you get too excited Dave I think I should just point out a couple of things:

a) the survey was all students not just science not just science students

b) the survey is based on self selection, so what it actually tells us is of the people with a .ac.uk email address (includes anyone who works at a UK university including secretaries, IT technicians etc), who are registered with the website and decided to fill in the survey.

c) most people in the UK think that intelligent design is the same thing as theistic evolution

Date: 2006/08/15 23:20:17, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
"What ever makes you think it's Academics buying your books?"


I was going to write a comment to that effect, Im not sure why the assumption is that only academics can buy from Cambridge University press, at first glace assumed that me was talking about the University if Cambridge, and I'm pretty sure that most academics there have no idea who he is let alone want to read his books.

To be fair though No Free Lunch and Darwins Black Box are in our university library, although prophetically under the 'history of science' section.

Date: 2006/08/16 23:25:30, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Secondly, perhaps there has been a debate about Darwinian evolution in Iran, but those who defended it are no longer alive to tell the story.
Err...

Date: 2006/08/21 02:38:06, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Many who are very much pro-ID today can point to that first brief exposure to ID which opened their eyes for the rest of their lives. Names that come to mind:

Kenyon reading A.E. Wilder-Smith’s Cybernetic Approach to Evolution
Johnson reading Denton
Behe reading Denton


Ironic condisering even Denton admitted that a lot of Theory in Crisis was wrong based on current data.

Date: 2006/08/21 03:19:47, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
When the program airs, could someone tell me if it explains how evolutions responsibility for the holocaust has any bearing on whether or not it is true, or indeed whether it should be taught to children. Im still waiting for someone to tell me that.

Date: 2006/08/22 05:09:39, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Thus we see in Dembski massive denial, facile dismissal pretty much on par with Behe's demonstration at Dover.


Basically ID's claim seems to come down to 'if you cant provide Behes crazy level of detail for complex systems' then you cant infer that evolution isnt goal directed. Once you strip away all the jargon and maths that is all it is.

Date: 2006/08/22 09:57:22, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Here’s what recruiting the right people means to an ad campaign (which is what Darwinism has become)


Some might say ironic considering the Discovery Institue employs a PR firm.

Date: 2006/08/24 10:25:00, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Muslims as opposed to who specifically? Also before you start a good definition of 'incompatible' as it applies in this case would be useful.

Date: 2006/08/25 00:30:05, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
I'll paraphrase much of what i said about the course in that PT thread later tonight.
Any kind of summary of that thread from someone who kept up with it would be useful. I didn't follow the course to much and I don't really fancy wading through hundreds of posts.

Date: 2006/08/29 00:43:24, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Thanks for the overview, although I have to say I'm stll confused on what the pont of the course was, especially since  everyone who attended appeared to have made their minds up based on current evidence, so it was obvious from the start that no one would change their mind.

Does anyone know if the ID advocates present agreed with the official outcome of the course regarding the scientific status of ID?

Quote
If the point were to examine a part of the culture wars, the political aspects of ID would have been front and center, and there would have been no attempt to avoid discussing the political aspects and pretend that it's all just "science".


Yes the mixing of the culture wars and science seems very bizaare and counterproductive to me.

Quote
Alas, ID simply doesn't have anything to do with science, and everything to do with politics.
Agreed, the only avantage of focusing strictly on the science would be to show that stripped to the bare bones any scientific claim of ID is based simply on unreasonable demands of evidence or mischaracterisations of evolution. But this has been done a hundred times before.

Date: 2006/08/29 02:14:12, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
I agree with Louis. From Evolution and Christian Faith:
Quote
Nonetheless, what I've learned from the political success of the intelligent design movement is the need to teach what makes bad science bad. I favor teaching intelligent design as an example of bad science. I don't favor simply tossing both Darwin and intelligent design to students and saying, “Hey, you decide.” That would be irresponsible. We have to say why intelligent design is junk science. The decision by Judge John E. Jones III in December 2005 concerning the Dover, Pennsylvania school board might be assigned as a reading, specifically section E4 (pp. 64-89), where he ruled that the intelligent design curriculum presented in this case was not science. (pp. 99-100)

I agree with this, but there isn't an option for it. So C.

Date: 2006/08/29 02:32:40, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Watch the Pope make a statement that endorses some sort of theistic evolution, which is then claimed as a victory by ID.

Date: 2006/08/29 02:55:09, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Im trying to work my way through the post. A lot of the attacks against Pim seem to be because of his apparently granting legitimacy to ID arguments by posting refutations. Or am I missing a lot of context.

Date: 2006/08/29 04:21:09, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
That's a rather vague claim; can you support it with evidence?


I haven't read a lot of the posts, and I agree he said some very weird things that would seem to suggest he grants ID some scientific respectability. But I also saw a lot of posts that took issue with him posting refutations of ID arguments, which was a little weird. But as I said Im probably taking them out of context because I havent read the whole thing.

Date: 2006/08/29 04:50:55, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
This is an important first step. If you concede that Islam, if followed literally, is incompatible with the West, I'll immediately move on to the stats.
Just in case you missed it Ill post a quote from the post directly above yours:

Quote
If your arguing that muslim fundamentalists make bad intergrators then you and I agree. But then so do christian fundamentalists and jewish fundamentalists and sikh fundamentalists etc etc etc. In addition, not all muslims are fundamentalists. Hardly a shock I'm sure!

Date: 2006/08/31 03:14:59, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
does he even calculate the CSI for anything?
He does for the flagellum in NFL. He calculates the probabilty of the formation of the flagellum by multiplying several probabilities together, one of which is the probability that all of the proteins form spontaneously out of random amino acids. This is below the UPB so he concludes CSI.

Date: 2006/09/02 12:55:05, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Anyone know any antibiotics that attack DNA?  How do they get in there to do it?
Most antibiotics either block protein synthesis by binding to ribosomes, block cell wall syntheisis or block enzymes involved in DNA replication, so they do get into cells, but they don't "splice DNA" as far as I am aware, although someone with better knowledge in this area might correct me. DNA intercalaotrs that damage DNA are used for a variety of purposes such as to attack tumours because if the DNA is sufficiently damaged the cell goes into apoptosis. Maybe he is confusing the two.
 
Quote
 
Quote
But, again, let’s first note that while randomness is a component of this repair mechanism, the mechanism itself appears to be completely pre-determined.
You mean it evolved beforehand?
This is why I think it all goes back to the origin of life in the end.

Date: 2006/09/03 14:48:24, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Popper might be interested to know that a lot of philosophers of science don't believe pseudoscience exists. Rather, they think it is just really, really bad science which produces nothing.
You get the problems then of things like string theory and evolutionary psychology.

Quote
Even if there's no clear, perfect philisophical distinction between science and pseudoscience, for practical purposes there is.
I agree, whats also useful I find is the distinction between pseudoscience and protoscience. If the only exposure to ID I had was Telic Thoughts for example, I would consider classifying it as protoscience. Their claim seems to be that ID is not yet science, and it is they who need to come up with theories, test predictions etc. When I have suggested this over at UD I have been told that it is bollocks (their word not mine), and ID has infact been scientifically proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, and only the atheist conspiracy says otherwise. When confronted with this you tend to classify it as a pseudoscience, so i think the label is useful and means something other than just makes unproven claims.

Date: 2006/09/04 05:15:35, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
How the #### do you get a stingray to poke you in the chest?
Dunno, but I remember a conversation with a marine biologist a few years ago who told me it was not unheard of for them to sting all the way through someones leg or arm.

Date: 2006/09/06 02:09:16, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Behold the Panda-Dog!
Ha! That a dog and a bear have evolved exactly the same fur colour is perfect proof that mutations are not random!

Date: 2006/09/07 02:43:09, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
if you act secretive about what you're doing people will consider that more worrisome than whatever it is you're actually doing.
Thats the problem though, with things like 911 the government generally lies about some part of it or witholds evidence, probably to cover up their own incompetence, which just feeds into the hands of the conspiracy theorists. And of course PNAC saying in a statement that we need another 'Pearl Harbour event' so they can get the people on side probably doesn't help either.

Date: 2006/09/07 07:05:48, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
What on Earth have goths got to do with anything? I used to know a couple of goths who go to church every week.

Date: 2006/09/07 08:16:39, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Maybe Paul Stone and Casey Luskin can write an article for Wikiality.

Date: 2006/09/10 06:39:11, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
The neocons want, literally, for the US to run the world as it sees fit.  To do that, we need a military.  And every tank that rolls, every jet that flies, every naval task force that sails, is completely totally utterly dependent upon one thing --- oil.  We need it.  They have it.  That's what this is all about.  it has nothing to do with "terrorism" or 9-11 -- it was planned years before anyone ever heard of Al Qaeda.  9-11 just gave the neocons a convenient rallying cry to do what they wanted to do all along.  And even more conveniently, it offered the opportunity for a "war" in which (so sadly) we must restrict civil liberties and rally round authority.  And even *more* conveniently, the "war on terror" is never-ending.  In a "war against terrorism", what the heck constitutes "victory"  How will we know then the war is over?
Interestingly that's exactly what PNAC say.

A minor nitpick I know but if the Americans really want to convince the rest of the world that the war was all about Osama and 9/11 they could update the FBI page on him that doesn't mention 9/11 at all, and update the official list of 9/11 highjackers to not include the people that have been proven to be alive. It does kind of suggest that that isnt the real reason the administration is acting.

Date: 2006/09/10 14:43:48, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
[Updated 9.10.06] I don\’t know what I was thinking. He\’s back if he\’ll have us.

–WmAD

Date: 2006/09/17 12:40:39, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
we might need eventually to start an Official Evolution News and Views Thread.
It could also double as an IDthefuture thread.

Date: 2006/09/18 13:08:28, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Over here we seem to be growing a compensation culture. Years ago we used to laughat some of the stupid compensation claims tha Americans made. Now it is becoming a huge industry here.
A couple of years ago someone came up to us on the street and ended up trying to persuade my friend to sue her brother for pushing her of the swing and breaking her leg when she was 5.

Quote
There is also a growing number of people that seem to choose to live on benefits. Something that I consider unsustainable.
This does seem to be a worrying trend although its hard to tell sometimes how much the news blows it out of proportion.

Quote
To get back on-topic. I do not believe that muslim lack of success is the fault of individual muslims. I consider it a mix of our perception of them combined with (sometimes) their militancy.
What tends to happen in Britain is a situation of tolerant segregation (the government calls it multiculturalism), Im not really sure what the solution is though.

Date: 2006/09/21 13:02:55, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
John Davison says:

Quote
Get with the program. Or better yet, go back to “After the Bar Closes” and quote me. No one else has and you probably won’t either.


Three hours later...

Quote
Well come on Chris Hyland. Mention my name and quote me directly at “After the Pub Closes,” Esley Welsberry’s private little inner sanctum, flame pit and “groupthink,” head-nodding, auto-congratulating sewing circle. Just think, you could be the first. What an opportunity. Don’t pass it up. It is your chance to achieve lasting fame.


Never let it be said Im not a nice person.

Date: 2006/09/24 04:07:33, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
If we didn't have Christianity, then what would we do with all the churches?
In the UK we convert them into indoor climbing walls, housing and bars.

Date: 2006/09/25 09:17:21, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Hold on, if your about to post hundreds of links showing that Christians have contributed a great deal to western society, then I should point out that is not the topic of this thread. Granted though I haven't read what Dave said about the topic, but if thats the case it should me more of a 'why the west would be a lot different if Christianity had never existed' thread. Surely multiculturalism is more of a topic for the Muslim thread.

Date: 2006/09/25 12:50:51, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
1) The West needs Christianity if it wants to remain healthy. This is partly due to Christianity's role in shaping the West in the first place.
I would appriciate if you explained the second part first. That is, I grant the importance of Christianity (as well as other things) in shaping our culture, but I dont see how that affects whether or not it is nessecary now.

Date: 2006/09/25 22:37:39, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Dave will show why the West is fundamentally Christian, and should remain so.


Ghost no one is arguing that Christians have not made great contributions to western culture. What is important is the 'remain so' bit. If you start posting huge lists of important people who were Christians it will just be a huge waste of time. Why does the west need Christianity now.

Date: 2006/09/29 13:49:27, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
"ID papers are rejected from peer-reviewed journals because of the Darwinatheist conspiracy"

"Name one ID paper that has been rejected from a mainstream journal"

...

Date: 2006/10/03 03:13:57, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
I can view ISCID just not UD. It did work for me after a while but then broke again as soon as I tried to post a comment.

Date: 2006/10/03 11:48:23, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Im confused, either you have a mechanism wherby DNA ingested by humans can be passed to the gametes or you don't.

Date: 2006/10/04 05:22:50, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
I assume that 'Overwhelming Evidence' is the List That Dare Not Speak Its Name?
Isn't that a website for students?

Date: 2006/10/04 05:28:35, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
He says that amphibian cytochrome should be closer to bacterial cytochrome than human cytochrome is, and fish should be closer still and fungi should be closer still, if the ToE were true.  But it is not as this chart clearly shows.
I cant be bothered to read through the posts but has Dave admitted that this is a load of nonsense yet?

Date: 2006/10/04 06:14:55, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Yes, it's true that mutations accumulate with time, but do you really believe that a 400 myo lungfish had very different sequences than a modern lungfish?  They look identical, remember.
Im pretty sure cyctochrome C doesn't determine what an organism looks like. And yes to your question by the way.

Denton's analysis gives this tree:

The distance between bacteria and all the other species should be approximately (as you said mutation rates etc are not exactly equal) the same, as the divergence times are equal. It just so happens that they are between 64%-72%, which leads Denton to conclude that they are all equally similar to the bacteria. You're going to have to explian slightly harder why this isn't what evolution would predict.

 
Quote
One of my favorite quotes ever is from this book ...
Allow me to share a few of mine:  
Quote
One of the most surprising discoveries which has arisen from DNA sequencing has been the remarkable finding that the genomes of all organisms are clustered very close together in a tiny region of DNA sequence space forming a tree of related sequences that can all be interconverted via a series of tiny incremental natural steps
Quote
So the sharp discontinuities, referred to above, between different organs and adaptations and different types of organisms, which have been the bedrock of antievolutionary arguments for the past century (3), have now greatly diminished at the DNA level. Organisms which seem very different at a morphological level can be very close together at the DNA level
Quote
Thus, new organs and structures that cannot be reached via a series of functional morphological intermediates can still be reached by change in DNA sequence space

Date: 2006/10/04 06:54:27, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
So you actually believe that a 400 MYO lungfish had significantly different sequences that the modern lungfish which is still living today?  How much different?  Can you hazard a guess?  20%?  40%?  And yet you agree with me that identical homologies in modern species have identical sequences?  IOW my golden retriever here in Missouri would have identical sequences to your golden retriever in England, right?  Yet the 400 MYO old lungfish--which is just as identical to the modern lungfish as the two golden retrievers--you think would have very different sequences?  And you base this on what logic?
Short answer: There has only been a relatively short time since the two dogs had a common ancestor for mutations to occur, whereas there have been 400MY for mutations to occur in the lungfish lineage, mutations that are neutral as far as the phenotype of 'being a lungfish' goes, which I suspect is the majority of nucleotides in the genome.

Date: 2006/10/04 08:08:24, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
The fact remains, like it or not, that the information which comprises Denton's chart was a surprise to the evolutionary community.  You can be sure that if the molecular data had been "transitional looking" instead of "typological looking" (possibly I'm using incorrect terminology here) evolutionists would have jumped on this as supportive of their theory.
This is simply wrong Dave sorry. If the graph showed what Denton thought it should, ie (bacteria to snails) > (bacteria to birds) > (bacteria to humans), that would have forced some major rethinks.

Quote
How do you know there has been 400MY?
Because you said so.
Quote
probably manufacture a great many polypeptide molecules that differ only slightly from those manufactured by their ancestors millions of years ago
So what, humans manufacture a great many polypeptide sequences that differ only slightly from chimps, and your assertion
Quote
 My view is that the "400MYO" lungfish would have identical sequences to modern lungfish
certainly does not follow from the quote. Also
Quote
Similar Morphology = Similar Sequences
certainly doesn't apply to cytochrome c.

Date: 2006/10/04 08:28:14, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Very interesting thanks. I suspect that at least in the early days the ability of the ID movement and the DI to aquire funding and support depended very much on their ambiguity on the age of the earth.

Date: 2006/10/04 09:21:16, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
I, on the other hand, have firm evidence to support my speculation that ...

Ancient lungfish had similar sequences to modern lungfish, namely "Similar Morphologies=Similar Sequences in Modern lifeforms" ... and, the Evo community used to think that ancient lifeforms should have similar sequences to modern similar forms ...
No you don't you havent provided any evidence. You seem to have no idea what you're talking about. Modern fish and modern humans have spent equal time diverging from bacteria. The cytochrome C gene has nothing to do with morphology, so your argument makes no sense.

Date: 2006/10/04 12:28:59, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Dave you are still wrong, I will try again to explain why. Here is the picture I posted before:

You can clearly see from this tree that the distance between bacterium and yeast is the same as between bacterium and horse, because yeast and horse share the same common ancestor. Even if you don't accept that they share a common ancestor I'm not sure why you can't see that this is what the tree should look like if they do.

Date: 2006/10/05 07:33:08, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Dave, we're not talking about biochemical activity, we're talking about the DNA sequence of the gene. Most changes to the DNA sequence of the gene won't affect the biochemical activity of the protein at all. As someone mentioned before the human gene functions perfectly well in yeast, the biochemical activity is not changed, the nucleotide sequence of the gene is.

Date: 2006/10/06 04:39:43, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
The latest, of course is the odd idea that a modern lungfish, which is indistinguishable from an "ancient" lungfish, supposedly has a far different biochemical makeup.
Ok this is important: Dave no one is saying it had a different biochemical makeup, we are saying the nucleotide sequence of the cytochrome c gene will have been different. The sequence of the gene can be quite different without affecting the biochemical activity of the protein it produces, hence the reason yeast can use the human protein even though the sequence of the gene is quite different. If you do not understand this you need to learn some genetics and biochemistry.

Date: 2006/10/06 16:28:44, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Why would you say that the nucleotide sequence of the Cytochrome C will have been different?  What in the world possible basis do you have for saying this other than the assumption that ToE is true?
I am assuming that large amounts of time seperate the two fish that is all. Just by looking at them if we have no idea about the timescales involved, then we can't make any inference about neutral mutations. We can't look at them and say they must have very similar sequences, unless we assume that there is very little time seperating the two.

Date: 2006/10/07 17:00:45, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
The only reason that you think otherwise is ...

THE ASSUMPTION THAT EVOLUTION OVER MILLIONS OF YEARS HAS, IN FACT OCCURRED, AND ...

THE ASSUMPTION THAT MANY NEUTRAL MUTATIONS MUST HAVE OCCURRED BECAUSE OF THIS ASSUMED IMMENSE LAPSE OF TIME.
If we're having a discusson about evolution then we need to at least assume an ancient earth for the sake of argument otherwise its a waste of time. If those two fish are seperated by 400 million years then we have every reason to assume many mutations will have occured, and if we assume an ancient earth then Dentons figures support common descent.

Date: 2006/10/07 17:24:21, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
You are correct that IF 400 MY separates the two specimens, then surely many mutations occurred.  But since they look virtually identical, and all MODERN similar specimens we anlayze yield similar sequences, then we should strongly suspect that possibly, just possibly, there is NOT 400 MY separating the two specimens.
The secons sentence has nothing to do with the first. If you showed me two lungfish fossils and I knew nothing about their ages, I couldn't say anything about their cytochrome c differences.Im not sure what you're trying to argue with the fish, I think a 400 million year old fossil is that old because of dating, which us a different topic. If you want to use DNA to disprove evolution we shoul probably stick with living organisms.

Date: 2006/10/08 03:13:18, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
We have no reason to believe that "living fossils" should have significantly different sequence data than their "ancient" counterparts, other than the ASSUMPTION of ToE.
No not the ToE, the assumption that there is a significant amount of time between the two.

Quote
5) Whenever we compare modern organisms, we find that Similar Organisms reveal very similar sequences.

Thus the validity of the assumption in (4) is quite likely false.  This throws doubt on ToE with its assumed millions of years.
This just makes no sense. The reason we assume an ancient and current species will have different DNA is because we know that there is a great deal of time between the two. The only way we could look at modern organisms and change our minds is if we didn't see any mutation occuring in modern organims.

Quote
1) Evolutionists NEED Deep Time for ToE to work.
Yes of course we do, who has said any different?

Quote
3) ToE advocates should expect a sequential nature when examining sequence data of modern organisms which resemble the ancestors listed above.  Indeed, I have documented at least one very prominent one who did expect this, Emile Zuckerkandl, the editor of the Journal of Molecular Biology.  Michael Denton implies that there were many who expected this prior to 1965.
Im sorry this is untrue, the data of Dentons fits perfectly with common descent. We would expect all eukaryotes to have the same distance from a abcteria if they share a common ancestor.

Quote
Now if that is not clear, then I give up.
Its clear what your saying its just not clear why you think it, or why you think its a good argument.

Date: 2006/10/09 15:35:29, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
In Memoriam: Thread 1695 "The Real intelligent Designer" quietly blackholed on 9-oct-2006. Leaves some orphaned links on the  'recent comments' page (for the time being).
It was a couple of hours since I read the comments but I didnt see anything too bad or did I miss something?

Quote
Someone emailed me and told me of the Glen vs. Pim fights that have been occurring on PT
I noticed a couple of people on this board don't seem to like Pim anymore and he doesn't seem to have posted on PT in a while what's that about?

This is the problem with not living in the US you wake up and suddenly every thread you were watching has a hundred extra comments.

Someone else doesn't get that Dembski isn't about to go back on something he spent a large part of a book trying to prove.

Date: 2006/10/10 07:05:29, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
That's all I saw too, I wonder why it got deleted.

Date: 2006/10/14 02:56:26, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Er, I must have missed the post that showed quotes from scientists that prove any of your points. Could someone point me to them, preferably quotes form the past couple of years.

Date: 2006/10/14 03:03:02, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Eh?

Date: 2006/10/19 12:26:47, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
If, on your birthday, two of your grandchildren gave you gifts, one a bouquet
of flowers and the other a lit stick of dynamite with a short fuse,
which one would you respect most?
The one with the flowers.

Date: 2006/10/19 12:30:57, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Oh sorry was that a rhetorical question?

Quote
Arden, you know why my fanger smells like
lemon pie?
It's got my rang on it.
Is it just me or does that sound dirty?

Date: 2006/10/20 01:04:32, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
To be honest I didn't put much thought into that page because it just seemed to be saying: 'if a piece of evidence doesn't prove by itself that all life descended from a single cell than it doesn't count as evidence for evolutiuon'.

Date: 2006/10/23 10:17:34, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
predesigned variability
Could you please explain how to decide which traits are designed and which evolved.

Date: 2006/11/02 08:55:50, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Regarding morpho-anatomy, chimps are not closer to gorillas than to us.
Do you have any good links that explain this, anatomy isn't my field (it's larger than a protein :D).

Date: 2006/11/02 14:53:41, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
That probably was the best strategy. The other option would be to get employees on the stand who only would have ended up proving they were indeed employees. An having Hovind testify would probably only make things worse. Presumably the lawyers advice was to go for some kind of plea bargain but Hovind refused, so the only way they could have actualyl made a positive case was to get people to lie for them.

Date: 2006/11/13 17:28:17, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Once on UD I pointed out that the human chromosomal fusion was a prediction of evolution and someone pointed me to this article, which is probably the most stupid thing ive ever  read apart from that Carl Weiland article that AFDave linked to once. After that I didnt read anything he wrote, but this piece trying to rebut Carl Zimmer looks pretty funny.

Date: 2006/11/21 08:43:26, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
WHAT PERCENTAGE OF MUTATIONS ARE "BENEFICIAL" ??  

Best we can tell from Kimura .. ZERO?  NEARLY ZERO?
No one is sure, but the picture from the current research on microorganisms is 'more than we thought'. Additionally this problem of near-neutrality only manifests itself in organisms with very small population sizes, and even then there is much evidence that positive selection has taken place, such as in humans.

Also, the idea of near neutrality is becoming an important component of the modern theory of evolution, see here.

Date: 2006/11/22 15:27:23, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Russell ... McNeill doesn't have a mechanism
There isn't a mechanism, there's lots, I believe several are mentioned on those UD threads.

Date: 2006/11/24 10:44:34, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Dave if you don't think any new mechanisms have been discovered since the development of the modern synthesis I suggest you check out some of these links.

Epigenetic Inheritance
Developmental Reprogramming
Gene Duplication
Genome Duplication
Genetic Drift
Exaptation
Developmental Plasticity
Mobile genetic elements

http://www.febsletters.org/article/PIIS0014579305001675/abstract
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/95/15/8420
http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi....e=micro
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/302/5649/1401

You tend to find 'RMNS' is an oversimplified blanket term.

Date: 2006/11/24 12:10:51, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
One of Fundy Dave's many problems is that he's so ignorant he can only conceive of things in oversimplified blanket terms.
I think a possible problem is that oversimplifications are what are taught in schools by necessity, 'survival of the fittest' is another one. But creationists take this to mean that this is has some effect on the scientific theory. In fact Icons could have been called 'Evolution is simplified when it is taught to children, therefore it is wrong'.

Date: 2006/11/24 19:13:29, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
this mechanism cannot make livers or intestines
Not on it's own, but you did ask me what mechanisms Allen McNeil had in mind when he said the modern synthesis had been superseded.

Quote
All we are talking about here is mutation affecting GENE REGULATION instead of genes themselves.  It’s still all driven my mutation and subject to natural selection.  This is not a novel mechanism.  It is simply a different application of RM+NS.
It wasn't part of the modern synthesis which was the question I was answering.

Quote
IOW … yippee!  If mutations are good and are the magic genie which drives evolution, MORE MUTATIONS are even better!  Wow!  Now this duplicated gene is free to mutate all it wants to!  What a wonderful system!
I'm sure that's what the scientists who have observed it happening said.

Quote
Incompatible with long term survival?  Sorry guys … not very convincing as a mechanism for the evolution of higher genomes.
It appears to have happened a lot in our evolution. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1197289.

Quote
Like natural selection, there is no new information being created here.
Again I'm just listing things that weren't in the modern synthesis, although if the last paper I quoted in my last post doesn't give a mechanism for the creation of new information I'm really not sure how information is relevant.

Quote
Transposons are HARMFUL, not beneficial.  How is this a better mechanism than mutations?
Mostly harmful, look here. In any case they really are mutations, just not the result of copying errors.

Quote
RM + NS is dead.
No not really, if you're going to quote Allen all he said was the modern synthesis is dead in the same way that Einsteinian gravity superseded Newtonian gravity.

Quote
Dr. John Sanford has figured this out.
By all accounts he figured out the Jesus thing first which caused him to believe the evolution thing. Not that that's a problem it's just something to note considering he's wrong (about the evolution thing not the Jesus thing (science doesn't care about that (although a lot of scientists do))).

Date: 2006/11/27 13:08:02, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Incidentally the material sent round was Unlocking the Mystery of Life, which you can watch  here, and my review is here.

Apart from the guy in the article the only teachers I've seen talk about using it want to use it to show that ID is not science. Also the number of schools who replied positive is suspiciously similar to the number of private Christian schools who use the ACE curriculum.

Date: 2006/11/27 20:48:22, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
I tend to think that the biggest difference between Dawkins et al and myself is that I think an important part of this fight is explaining to the religious that theories such as evolution are not a threat to a belief in God, preferably through a proper understanding of the nature of science and the scientific method, taught in schools if at all possible. Also this presumably conflicts with the goal of some people who appear to use the terms 'critical thinking' and 'rational thought' as synonymous with atheism.

Date: 2006/11/28 06:26:18, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
How about a wedge in a vice.

Date: 2006/11/30 09:27:38, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
I've been reading Jason Rosenhouse's latest post and I think I've kind of worked out what my problems with the Dawkins Moran et al. camp are, which I think are basically the same as Lennys point on that incredibly long thread on PT a few months ago.

In the UK, most people aren't religious, and most people that are are would certainly fall under the theistic evolutionist camp and don't buy anything that Dawkins or the creationists are selling as far as conflict between religion and science go. There are also quite a few atheists, but the majority of the population subscribe to some kind of agnostic deism, which is explained by phrases like 'there must be something beyond us', and 'something must have started it all off'. They don't believe in any kind of personal God, but can still believe in psychics and horoscopes if they want. Polls show the percentage of people who would be OK with ID is higher than the percentage of religious people, and this is becauseof a misunderstanding of ID (most think it is the same as theistic(deistic) evolution), and science, so they are OK to slot things like ID into the gaps that don't currently have a scientific explanation, or at least one that they know of. Therefore the best way to solve the problem in the UK is to improve the teaching of science, the scientific method, and evolution in particular.

In the US most people are religious. The only reason ID and creationism get a look in as far as education goes, even if we assume that its main adherents promote it for scientific reasons, is because a great deal of people think that evolution extrapolates to atheism. The reason that creationism may take over the public schools, is if the number of people that think this increases. Therefore there are two options.

a. Make more people atheists by teaching them critical thinking in science class, with the hope that it will cause them to question their religion.
b. Show the religious that science in general and evolution in particular are not in conflict with their faith.

I have no opinion on whether (a) is a worthy goal or not, but I do know that it will take decades maybe even longer to accomplish, especially combined with (b). Unfortunately if you don't do (b), the fight is going to be over pretty quickly, becuase no matter what you do, if religious people think that evolution and faith are incompatible in any way, the rate at which they become creationists is going to far outweigh the rate at which they become atheists or agnostics. Although I can't prove it, I suspect that becoming a creationist will lead to fundementalism in other areas as well. Therefore in the US, the number one most important way to keep creationism out of the classroom is to show religious people that evolution is not incompatible with their belief in God, otherwise we are going to loose the battle for education pretty quickly, and it is quite probable that the atheists will loose their long term goal as well.

Also, people have suggested that Miller and Collins are as harsh in their books about atheists as Myers and Moran are about theistc evolutionists, can anyone confirm this/provide quotes? Cheers.

Date: 2006/11/30 09:34:09, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
I introduced everyone in class to Ms. Dewey tonight! (I'm their weird techno geek girl.)
I saw that, finally the internet is living up to the expectations i got from watching science fiction films starring Arnie in the early ninties.

Date: 2006/11/30 15:33:32, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Ghost:
Quote
I think the most fruitful class of mutations on average is gene duplication. Gene duplication + natural selection seems to be a very good way to increase the complexity of the genome. You apparently think that this process does not increase biological information. Would you mind explaining why?
Dave:
Quote
This was covered in response to Chris Hyland's post about the supposed 8 alternative mechanisms for evolution, one of which was gene duplication.  Please download the thread and do a search beginning just before Thanksgiving and you will find it.  If you can't, let me know.
Just so you know Ghost, Dave didn't explain why gene duplications can't add information. What he said was:
Quote
IOW … yippee!  If mutations are good and are the magic genie which drives evolution, MORE MUTATIONS are even better!  Wow!  Now this duplicated gene is free to mutate all it wants to!  What a wonderful system!
He also claimed that no one has observed gene duplication, which kind of suggests to me that Dave doesn't spend much time reading the science he claims to refute.

Date: 2006/11/30 19:41:12, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
The fact is that MUTATIONS ARE ERRORS.  Says so right there in the link which Chris Hyland supplied which he thinks I don't read carefully.
Firstly I'm not sure how the fact that mutations are caused by errors in the copying process has anything to do with your argument. Secondly I didn't accuse you of not reading the wikipedia page properly, I accused you of not fully surveying the literature in a field you're claiming to refute.

Date: 2006/12/02 07:09:27, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
If a robodog is created by human intelligence; it's possible that the retriever also was created by an intelligence, he said.
No one's deniying the possiblility, but as Jason Rosenhouse pointed out claiming that it is in any way evidence is the same as saying mountains are evidence for the existance fo giant moles. Hopefulyl at some point Paul will realise that there are a couple of subtle yet important differences between the two.

Date: 2006/12/03 09:36:46, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
In response to the creationist DVDs being sent to schools in the UK a government petition has been started to oppose their inclusion in science class. If you are from the UK or have friends there the petition is up at http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/NoCreSciEd/. Thanks

Date: 2006/12/03 14:41:14, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
We realised that just after we posted it and we agree it could have been better worded. If you read the description it makes it clear we are specifically talking about science class.

Date: 2006/12/03 15:10:52, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
"biological philosopher"?
Maybe it sounds better than philosopher of biology.

Date: 2006/12/03 19:33:36, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
In any other nation on this planet, if a leader had assumed power with less than half of the popular vote, abrogated international law, imprisoned people indefinitely without trial based on secret evidence obtained through torture, and invaded several nations based on false premises, the people would be in the streets, and that government would fall.


In the UK general election in 2005 Tony Blair won with 35% of the popular vote(22% of the electorate), although that generally represents a complete breakdown of public trust in government. There was a vote in the commons that was meant to extend the time people could be detained without trial that was narrowly defeated. The next day several papers declared the MPs who voted the bill down to be traitors. Although recently arrests in the UK actually mirrored the extreme scenario that the government said would require longer detention (involvement of foreign governments, encrypted files, etc.) and it was handled perfectly well in the time. Don't know about the torture thing, but our government has all but admitted it knows the CIA is using UK airports to transport people to eastern Europe for torture.

As for Americans we basically think you are either Larry the cable guy, Bill O'Reilly or George Clooney :D. I was going to say Ann Coulter instead of Bill O'Reilly but everyone here thinks she's a parody like Stephen Colbert.

Date: 2006/12/03 20:16:54, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Yeah we would but your chocolate bars suck :p .

Date: 2006/12/09 07:49:07, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
I do find it quite ironic that creationists thin the gap between life and non-life is much larger than I do yet they think we can make inferences about evolution by equating living things with manmade contraptions.

Date: 2006/12/09 12:24:08, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
However that appears to be the same with all anti-IDists (ie IDiots)- they think that they can erect any strawman of ID they want and then attack that strawman as if it really meany something- and the sad part is they really think they did attack something real.

or
Quote
However that appears to be the same with all IDists (ie IDiots)- they think that they can erect any strawman of evolution they want and then attack that strawman as if it really meany something- and the sad part is they really think they did attack something real.

Date: 2006/12/12 22:00:48, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
From wnd:  
Quote
There's a slow poison out there that's severely damaging our children and threatening to tear apart our culture ….

The dangerous food I'm speaking of is soy. Soybean products are feminizing, and they're all over the place. You can hardly escape them anymore. …

Soy is feminizing, and commonly leads to a decrease in the size of the penis, sexual confusion and homosexuality. That's why most of the medical (not socio-spiritual) blame for today's rise in homosexuality must fall upon the rise in soy formula and other soy products. (Most babies are bottle-fed during some part of their infancy, and one-fourth of them are getting soy milk! ) Homosexuals often argue that their homosexuality is inborn because "I can't remember a time when I wasn't homosexual." No, homosexuality is always deviant. But now many of them can truthfully say that they can't remember a time when excess estrogen wasn't influencing them.

Date: 2006/12/18 08:52:37, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
"Exaptation", something else that doesn't exist in the ID-Universe.
Yes it does, but in the ID universe it is a meaningless word made up after the publication of Darwins Black Box for the sole purpose of refuting Irreducible Complexity.

Date: 2006/12/18 19:12:06, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Yes, but wouldn't an awfull lot of PhDs prefer a research job over industry?
The article says that 18% of life science phds end up with tenure. In my experience thats about the percentage who actually want jobs in academia. There's lots of research jobs available in industry with better pay than academic jobs.

Date: 2006/12/20 18:28:26, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Who's Chapman? Why does he need an intelligent design advisor?

EDIT: Ok I know the answer to the first question still not sure about the second.

Date: 2006/12/21 03:58:20, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1887#comments

Quote
There is no objective moral law, just as there are no objective readings of your magic book.


Insults the Bible...

Quote
And since you got personal, I grant myself the right to reply: You are a twat!


...and swears. He's outta there.

Date: 2006/12/22 03:06:24, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
I'm from Northern England near Manchester (not NH). The English garden party thread brought back several repressed memories from my childhood.

Date: 2006/12/22 13:06:26, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Well officially it's the North, especially to most of the Londoners who think everything north of Watford Gap is the North.

Date: 2006/12/26 03:14:41, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
There a quite a few genes that are conserved over all domains of life, such as those involved in DNA and protein production, transcription and translation, and central metabolism. There are also a lot of genes that are used across a lot of species for different purposes, as recent analysis of the sea urchin and amoeba genomes has shown.

For those with plenty of time on their hands I highly recommend 'The principles of life' by Tibor Ganti. A good review is
here.

Date: 2007/01/05 11:40:50, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Am I right in thinking that the worse thing that actually happened to him was that some staff said he should be fired but the staff who were in the position to disagreed?

Date: 2007/01/08 15:59:54, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
we in fact proceed on the assumption that the cell was designed and asked the question "how was it designed, i.e. how does it work


Thats good, so all biology research is ID research.

Date: 2007/01/09 08:06:28, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Turns out it's an organization that calls itself Truth In Science, which appears to be the UK equivalent of the Discovery Institute.
Except that they appear to all be hardcore YECs.
Quote
So much tard, so openly tardalicious, and yet so little outcry.
Most of the public think they're harmless religious nutters.

Date: 2007/01/10 09:41:47, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
I know someone who was told they'd get £1000 for clocking in between 6pm on millenium even and 9 in the morning, so they went in for half an hour. I think with the exchange rates at the time that works out to about $3000 an hour.

Date: 2007/01/10 09:55:29, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
The ID packs that they sent out to school apparently did have links to the DI
The video predominently features Behe, Dembski, Nelson, Meyer and Johnson if that counts.

Date: 2007/01/18 13:03:21, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
The basic rules of science apply, that's all. The standard questions are Who? What? When? Where? Why? How? Any theory must make specific empirical predictions that distinguish it from other such theories.
I'd settle for 'what', as in 'what did the actually designer do', but apart from some rumblings at Telic Thoughts and John Davison they don't seem to want to bother. Hence the reason when asked to make predictions all they can say is 'we predict evolution can't ...'.

Date: 2007/01/21 20:41:41, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
random processes unguided by God
I've read quite a few books and been to quite a few lectures and seminars on evolution, surprisingly the phrase 'unguided by God' hasn't come up. I think you might be confusing science with atheism

Date: 2007/01/22 05:05:17, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
In my opinion, nothing. In my opinion, God is everything, so there is no process or for that matter, material, separate from God.
I know lots of people who believe this, in fact a Christian friend told me once that God makes the flowers grow. If this is true, we still cannot say scientifically that intelligence is needed to make the flowers grow.
Quote
Alright, I worded it sloppily. The common phrase and what young people are taught, is random, unguided, purposeless. I think you knew that, right?
My point was that just because the major evolutionary processes appear unguided to scientific investigations does not mean that God wasn't involved. Im no theologian but I can think of many ways God could act without us being able to detect it scientifically. You can use evolution to support atheism if you like, the same way people use the big bang and the cosmological constant to support the existence of God, but the idea that a evolution as a scientific theory disproves God by it's very nature is a misunderstanding of the nature of science.

Date: 2007/01/23 13:13:30, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
No, I said nothing of the sort. I said that kids have been taught that there is no need to have a God to explain things anymore, because science has got it covered. That is uncalled-for, it is a metaphysical statement, and it is a positive statement.
I agree that this can be a problem, but ID proponents that make this statement all the time if not more than atheists do. After all if this was their only problem it could be solved quite easily and then the only people who would be complaining would be biblical literalists and Richard Dawkins.

Quote
Yes, what I said was that the ID people are in a better position to evaluate the claims of ID because they have less to lose.
Except that most of them think that evolution=atheism so they have quite a lot too lose. Ill grant that there are exceptions but Im pretty sure that most biologists have nothing to loose. Mostly because I know a couple that don't believe in evolution don't have tenure and their careers are getting on pretty fine because they do good work. Im also not very sypmathetic to these types of claims becuase all the DI needs to do is come up with an ID theory and do some research to show it's a legitimate scientific field.

Date: 2007/01/24 03:56:09, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
The theory of ID states that certain features of biological organisms and of the universe are best explained as being the result of intelligent design.
In scientific terms that's a conjecture or a hypothesis at best. The 'theory of intelligent design' needs to include what the designer did, and in more detail than 'he designed things somehow'. For example it needs to include whether evolution was frontloaded at some point, or if the designer intervened whenever anything needed doing. It needs to take a position one way or the other on common descent, and most likely the age of the earth. If the earth is young it needs to explain how x number of kinds could evolve into x number of species in a few thousand years. If life was frontloaded it needs to explain how the unused information was not degraded by mutation, and in more detail than something like 'some kind of fantastic error correction mechanism'.

Most importantly this theory needs to make predictions, and by predictions I mean the outcome of future investigations, not what will happen in evolution in the future. These also can't be incredibly vague, ('layers of information';), something we already know, or something that was predicted years ago based on evolution (the whole silent mutations can affect protein function thing, IC).

Date: 2007/01/24 15:26:55, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Those are ALL important questions.
Which all need to be addressed before you can claim there is a theory of design, which needs to be done before you can claim positive evidence for design. The alternative would be strectching incredulity to breaking point, but this would involve something like producing the designer, discovering a centaur or a unicorn,or decoding a stretch of DNA that reads 'designed circa 4004 BC'.

Date: 2007/01/24 18:08:40, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
I predict that we will find specifics in  genetics/embryonic development that prevent species from jumping the species barrier. I.e., we will find a species barrier. Of course, that could be a problem if there is frontloading. If there is frontloading, we will have to find out how the programming allows for saltation into new species, on a periodic but not gradual basis.
Firstly I keep quite up to date with the literature and currently there is absolutely no evidence of this barrier, in fact is is considerably less likely than it was a decade ago. Secondly the way you prove frontloading is to first hypothesize mechanisms and then make predicitons. I don't see how you can 'discover frontloading' and the work out the mechanism. Im pretty sure that it would be a lot easier to disprove evolution by proving that there is some kind of frontloading mechanism than just coming up with negative arguments. This is what the ID people should be doing, and if they are right this whole debate will be over much quicker. Unfortunately they seem to have no wish to do this at all.

Quote
Re "discovering a centaur or a unicorn,"

Course, that by itself wouldn't be evidence that anything else was deliberately engineered - something with bioengineering tech and a sense of humor might have read some human mythology and decided to pull a prank (i.e., it might have nothing to do with how anything else originated).
Your right, I think sometimes I read so much ID stuff that even I start to think evidence against evolution = evidence for ID. Excuse me while I bang my head against the wall a few times.

Date: 2007/01/24 21:16:51, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
I'm confused. ID can't do research because anyone who 'comes out in support of ID' will be bullied and or ruin their career. But here is a list of hundreds of scientists who question evolution. Thats a very similar kind of logic to 'Darwinists stop ID getting published here are a load of published  papers that support ID'.

In any case if you want to do research 700 scientists is more than enough to be getting on with I would have thought.

Date: 2007/02/01 13:15:53, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Kick start to help Avocationist:

My theory of intelligent design checklist goes:

1. How old is the Earth?
2. Did all species:
  b. All descended from a smaller number of species(ie kinds) (goto 3)
  c. All descended from a common ancestor(goto 5)

3. If the earth is old, how does special creation better explain the nested heirachies found in nature than the idea that species evolved from a common ancestor with guidance from an intelligent designer.(goto 5)

4. If the Earth is young, how did a small number of species evolve into all those that currently exist in a few thousand years (taking into account extinct fossil species).(goto 12)

5. Assumiung some evolution took place did the designer:
  a. Act periodically to add information
  b. Set life off with all the information already contained in the genomes

6. If information was 'frontloaded' into genomes what did it look like in ancient organisms before it was used, and how did it avoid being degraded by mutation

7. What triggered the release of new information

8. What mechanism did the organism use to detect the trigger

9. What mechanism did the organism use to activate the new information

10. What evidence shows that these mechanisms have been in operation

11. If theses mechanisms are unknown what experiments could be performed to determine them?(goto 13)

12. Assuming the desinger intervened to input new information how could this be tested scientifically? Assume that the theory of evolution and common descent have been disproven.

13. Assuming the theory of evolution has been disproven, what discoveries could falsify your mechanisms, idea of common descent, and age of the earth.

You can assume for all of these questions that the theory of evolution has been disproven.

There may be more quesitons, but you need answers to all of them before you can claim there is a theory of ID, let alone that it is better than the theory of evolution.

Date: 2007/02/01 21:00:13, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
I've always more or less condensed this down into:

(1) what did the designer do, specifically?
(2) what mechanisms did the designer use to do whatever the heck it is you think it did?
(3) where can we see the designer using these mechanisms today to do . . . well . . . anything?
I'd say all my questions are an expansion of your question 1. A theory of intelligent design needs to say what the designer did. Especially if they refuse to name Him/Her/Them/It.

Date: 2007/02/02 04:18:07, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
you might want to check up on the latest efforts by the "truth in science" gang in the UK.
The government basically told them they weren't allowed to show unlocking the mystery of life in science classes, and to take it up with the scientists.

Date: 2007/02/05 18:09:12, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Plenty of good questions. Where I disagree with you is that they have to be answered before anyone can approach origins with other than mindless chance as the assumption.
They don't have to be answered before people can approach origins from a telic perspective, in fact answering them would be approaching origins from a telic perspective. My point is that you have to answer them if you want to say there is a theory of intelligent design that is better at explaining life than the theory of evolution. Reseach has to be done to answer these questions if anyone wants to claim that ID is science.

Date: 2007/02/09 05:53:50, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
I don't think so.

Date: 2007/02/09 11:34:17, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
let me add I only looked in on this thread to see what two otherwise very sensible people were doing here
Me too, well to see what one person was doing. Im blaming Stephen.

Date: 2007/02/12 05:13:33, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Does the bible say the holy spirit is a magnetic field?

Date: 2007/02/22 10:56:38, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Problem is, I can't decide if it would be funny or annoying to read the essays afterward about how the contest was BS, because the act of typing the random strings infused them with some CSI and blah blah blah...
They'll say that they couldnt detect any of the strings to be designed because what they claim is they dont get any false positives and that designers can mimic random strings. What you need to do is get something that looks designed that wasn't.
Quote
So if I hand great_ape the complete works of Shakespeare, he can't tell me whether it has CSI or not unless I tell him how they were generated.  CSI is useless for determining design because you have to know the causal story in order to determine whether something has CSI.
Thats the problem, the complexity in CSI is low probability. So if you cant calculate the probability its a bit useless. You will see in discussions relating to the biology the definition of complexity tends to change.

Date: 2007/02/22 13:45:50, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
What started my alarm bells ringing is the bolded portion.  These weasel words are used elsewhere by other less knowledgable people (wink, wink, nudge, nudge).  Why would this statement appear in an apparent Evo/Devo book?
So their ideas sound a lot more groundbreaking to nonscientists than they actually are. Come to think of it this is what the large majority of creationist quotemines are actually based on.

That new synthesis just sounds like a cross between epigenetic inheritance and developmental plasticity. I love it when creationists bring up mechanisms that increase the scope and power of evolution as if its a disproof somehow.

Date: 2007/02/26 17:21:50, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
You're telling me in a nation of 300 million people they can't find 10 fundies with BS degrees in biology, who could populate their blogs and write about biology and not sound like complete retards? JoeG and Troutmac and the UD regulars are the best they can do?
I imagine the problem is finding 10 biologists who are willing to tone down the religion for the sake of the intelligent design movement. I imagine there are plenty of people with degrees in Biology teaching at fundementalist universities who teach creationism for students, but are probably not what the DI is looking for. Im pretty sure that the ones who do fit the bill aren't willing to spend their time posting on blogs and getting laughed at. As far as talking about biology goes discussions tend to be pointing out a paper showing something extremely complex, show incredulity at how it could evolve, suggest some analogies to manmade machines and point out words such as design and program in the abstract. It seems that to support ID as a scientific endevour you have to accept that this is adequate scientific reasoning to conclude design, so I dont see how a biologist would be able to add apart from finding more of these papers.

Date: 2007/03/01 08:30:43, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Lyell and Hooker arranged for Darwin's and Wallace's theories to be presented to a meeting of the Linnaean Society in 1858. However, Darwin's theory was far more developed and the publication of Origin of Species the following year changed biology forever. Wallace freely admitted to Darwin's scientific priority.
That and what are you more likely to read: a book called "The Origin of Species" or a paper called "On the Tendency of Species to form Varieties; and on the Perpetuation of Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection".

Date: 2007/03/02 13:08:28, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
This is just a rip off of Wikiality.

Date: 2007/03/02 19:54:24, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
In Christian discourse, the name Jesus almost always refers specifically to Jesus of Nazareth, believed by Christian followers to be God's dad, who came to earth as a human c 2 AD. However, God has recently revealed on His blog that Jesus is actually His nephew, not His son.

Date: 2007/03/03 08:30:43, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
I've been to a lot of science classes in my life and I can't remember anyone telling me that intelligent causes were excluded from science. I do remember though a lot of people telling me that ideas with no evidence should probably be excluded from science.*

* I wish there were more ID supporters on this forum so some genius could reply with 'well that means Darwinism should be excluded from science then!' and we could all bow down to their debating prowess.

Date: 2007/03/06 18:41:48, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
The next tactic for the creationists? Pretty obvious:

Date: 2007/03/07 00:19:40, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Maybe back then they really thought they were on to something with this Complex Specified Information, and Irreducible Complexity, and the other junk.
My suspicion is that they actually have done a bit more work in this area than they are letting on, and came up empty handed, since presumably in the early days they did think that they were going to convince the scientific establishment of ID. There are certainly enough scientists on their team to know that evolutionbad + everyknowncomplexmachineresultofintelligence does not a persuasive scientific argument make, but that seems to have become there only argument and hasn't changed for some time. It fees like a resignation to the fact that that's all they're going to be able to come up with, so they're spending money on the Doug Axe type experiments instead of research that might actually help them.

Having said that maybe I'm just being too kind and it is either about money or Jesus but you do have to wonder if they did believe what they were doing at the start were they so stupid to think that TDI and DBB would convince the world.

Im sure the standard response is that there's an atheist conspiracy, but it turns out The Protocols of the Elders of Darwin was a cheap forgery.

Quote
Jerry Falwell said 9/11 was God's retribution for the evil in America.
So he thought it was a justifiable act then?

Date: 2007/03/08 21:33:36, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
5:55 pm
JMP38:
I want to make a plea to Design Theorists like Bill Dembski and others. PLEASE GET TO WORK.

Dembski:
Question: Who are you to tell us to get to work??
I wasn't under the impression that pleading was intended to imply authority.
Quote
As Campana notes in his reply, Grassie was clearly mistaken when he identified the bulk of ID supporters (whether among the intellectual leaders or among the sympathizers in the broader public) as largely young earth creationists.
To be fair the only thing wrong with that sentence is that most ID supporters appear to be young earth creationists.

Date: 2007/03/12 21:33:52, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
While everyone is checking those links gpuccio kindly provided it's probably worth checking out the recent publication records of all those scientists and trying to spot the odd one out. Presumably the reviewers of Behes research are reading those shameful comments by his colleagues and rejecting his papers.

Date: 2007/03/13 07:14:17, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Doctors don’t study evolution. Doctors never study it in medical school, and they never use evolutionary biology in their practice. There are no courses in medical school on evolution. There are no ‘professors of evolution’ in medical schools. There are no departments of evolutionary biology in medical schools.
So I don't need to listen to anything he says about evolution then?

Date: 2007/03/23 13:24:52, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 23 2007,17:08)
As far as I can tell, ID is pretty much used up. As a creationist tactic, it ran aground over a year ago. Are they going to try to get this boat back in the water? Is there a plan? Has anybody seen the IDers strategizing? Do they intend to do anything other than fade into obscurity posting bitter and delusional blog posts?

I think that this Biologic institute will produce a bit of research similar to what Axe has already done which will probably give them some new things to talk about for a while but then it will die down again. Until they get it into their heads that they should come up with an actual theory. Unfortunately this will involve alienating all the YECs so their support will die.

Date: 2007/03/23 15:41:31, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 23 2007,17:47)
So maybe that's their strategy. Come up with a dozen knock-out experiments and then say you have papers proving intelligent design.

I suppose they'll have their own little building, to join the research institutes at ReasonsToBelieve, the Creation Research Society, etc.

Thats my prediction.

Has that BBC documentary with Ken Miller just been shown in the US or are they just digging around for things to blog about?

Date: 2007/03/25 20:00:34, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Empathy is the anchor in my life, and that's what I should have said to them.
I think the response to this would be that since you can't prove that empathy evolved, or explain exactly how chemical reactions in the brain produce it it is not material and therefore as an atheist you are a hypocrite.

Date: 2007/03/27 13:11:24, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
“May I suggest, as a birthday gift to Dawkins, a direct, illustrated, and annotated demonstration of the application of the concept of complex specified information to a biological example?”
Quote
In return for a detailed, illustrated and annotated description of a possible Darwinian pathway for the bacterial flagellum?
Could someone explain how those things are in any way equivalent.

Im betting 'deatailed' means something that hasn't even been shown for systems they are perfectly happy to accept evolved.

Date: 2007/03/27 19:07:01, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
But then, none of the nazis or klansmen I've ever met, based their crap on evolution anyway -- they all claimed to be "The Real Christians™©" instead.
Iv'e only ever asked two of the racists I've ever met* to explain to me what they have against black people. The first said it was something to do with Noah's son Ham that I can't recall, and the second said that because we can trace a line from Adam to Solomon who is white, black people aren't really human.

*I've actually met a lot more but they mostly just hate "Islamics".

Date: 2007/03/31 08:32:20, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
some people are perhaps so thoroughly consumed by their ideologies that they have the mental equivalent of firewalls which just won’t allow them to see as valid anything which isn’t compatible.
So if the designer is an alien what ideology is it incompatible with exactly.

 
Quote
I cannot walk one mile, or dig one foot deep in my back yard without seeing “obvious” evidence of a great prehistoric flood
 
Quote
Quick, sage, better let AFDave know about your "obvious" evidence of a global flood
He didn't say global flood. Maybe he just meant a great prehistoric flood in his backyard.

Date: 2007/04/01 15:11:23, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
post deleted due to the fact that  I just got it.

Date: 2007/04/04 05:13:05, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
DaveScot blogs, Another Icon of Evolution Bites the Dust - Antibiotic Resistance. And I thought IDers had no problem with microevolution. In any case, to support his assertion, DaveScot cites Alekshun & Levy.
The paper actually lists a few dozen cases where mutations cause resistance. Not only that it points out that bacteria are constantly responding to animicrobial agents in the soil, and so may be already immune to antibiotics that have a similar actions. Plus when resistance is transfered from another bacteria it appears to be in the form of new alleles of existing genes, not exactly unexplained by evolution.

Telic Thoughts vs UD

Quote
Well, it's happened again. Dave Scot had a post on the Supreme Court ruling that the EPA has the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Of course, this is seen as a tragedy of near cataclysmic proportions by Dave. Must be the taxoplasma taking effect. So I tried posting a comment of my own. It never showed up. This is about the fourth time for me. I should have made a copy of it.


My favorite comment is this by Doug:
Quote
DaveScot doesn't delete all posts that are in disagreeing with his views.
To some extent I like the atmosphere at UD over TT.

Many times the conversations here just go on and on and on and on. Insults get tossed back and forth and comments seem to side-track the actual article.
If that isn't a new benchmark for the pot caling the kettle black I don't know what is.

Date: 2007/04/04 19:59:00, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
OE Troll post of the month
Quote
One would think that Noah would be able to accomplish just about anything in building his Ark, since the directions supplied by God (the designer) might have included all sorts of clever "hacks" allowing end-runs around the restrictions of conventional physics, chemistry, and biology. Such hacks would allow actions similar to entering and exiting the Matrix (as in, the global simulation depicted in the movie having that name). I can imagine that a clever designer could include pressure points and worm-holes in the structure of the Universe allowing those who knew of their existence to bypass its normal laws.
Quote
What I find scary in all of this is the possibility that the Moral Fabric of the Universe might have similar UEEs embedded in it, allowing someone to kill, rape, get an abortion, watch pornography, take drugs, molest children, or steal without having to pay consequences in the afterlife. This might seem like an impossibility, but, if one allows me to be theological for a moment, we already know "the Lord works in mysterious ways": Jesus had to die for our sins, and someone had to kill Him, and those who killed Him were DOING THE LORD'S WORK. So perhaps Judas and the scourging Centurions are all in Heaven. The Lord also routinely destroys churches (even fundamentalist ones) using tornados. So we can't discount the possibility that a truly evil person might find a UEE allowing him to kill millions, live a thousand years, and then breeze on into the Kingdom of Heaven, perhaps without even having to die first.
If the whole scientist thing falls through I'm going to turn that into a pilot.

Date: 2007/04/11 14:17:27, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
LeeBowman
Quote
“Paris - Pope Benedict, elaborating his views on evolution for the first time as Pontiff, says science has narrowed the way life’s origins are understood and Christians should take a broader approach to the question.

The Pope also says the Darwinist theory of evolution is not completely provable because mutations over hundreds of thousands of years cannot be reproduced in a laboratory… ”
Then of course in the next paragraph that Lee leaves out:
Quote
But Benedict, whose remarks were published on Wednesday in Germany in the book Schoepfung und Evolution (Creation and Evolution), praised scientific progress and did not endorse creationist or "intelligent design" views about life's origins.

Date: 2007/04/13 13:44:43, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
The more inquisitive students must be wondering why those profs. won't step up to the plate and debate.  Hopefully, the students will start asking questions about this hesitation to engage in dialogue.
Maybe but the answer is pretty easy. I would suspect that if you put a random biologist in a debate against a creationist the biologist will loose. This is primarily because the creationist will have a very broad but very shallow knowledge of what they are debating, and so can come up with claims that a scientist may not be able to refute on the spot. Furthermore the scientist will need to be quite familiar with the history of antievolutionism, as well as be able to answer questions on topics such as eugenics and philosophy of science. If you pick an random biologist they probably wont fair well, but is interesting that someone like Wes or Ken Miller who understands the arguments usually wins.

Date: 2007/04/13 14:25:45, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Granville Sewell asks Is ID really rooted in science? Of course he doesn't actually provide any evidence for it, and most of the post is the claim that 'There are, in fact, some fairly persuasive reasons to believe that the development of life was due to natural causes, but when we honestly analyze them, they all reduce to the argument “this doesn’t look like the way a designer would have done things.”' although he doesn't provide any evidence for that either.

Edit: If someone starts to read that post undecided on the answer to that question I really hope they don't see the second reply

Date: 2007/04/14 19:11:38, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
I certainly want students to understand every facet of this controversy, and that would include the view from opponents of ID.  The topics surrounding this debate are extremely interesting and I believe it would spark the interest of students and lead more of them into the field of science.
I don't think it would be very easy to make it sound fair, in the end any scientific explanation of 'both sides' of ID has to conclude with an explanation of why virtually all biologists (whether your talking about biologists in general or those who have studied ID) don't agree with it. If it was me my explanation wouldn't include the words 'conspiracy', 'darwinism', 'materialism', 'atheism' or 'worldview' so I suspect I would be accused of being biased.

Date: 2007/04/15 06:59:47, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Neither would mine.  I think it would be biased to use those words, don't you?
I'd be interested to hear your explanation then because I haven't met an ID advocate who thinks that the scientific consensus is because the scientists just don't agree with the ID arguments for scientific reasons.

Date: 2007/04/16 07:34:01, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
What country is VMartin supposed to be from?

Date: 2007/04/18 05:39:44, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
An atendee to the design conference speaks to a DI fellow:
Quote
I asked him how many of these conferences were planned by the Discovery Institute, and he seemed hesitant, telling me that he didn't know if any more of them were going to be possible, since the costs were too high for the Institute to handle. He mentioned something about it costing $70,000, although I don't recall if that was the amount to produce the Dallas event alone, or if that was the current cost for the whole series thus far (the only previous event being in Knoxville). He complained that there had been virtually no money allocated for advertising, the sole contribution being $1000 paid to Scott Wilder for an "interview" of Stephen Meyer a week previously. He then told me (quite openly, also, which I thought was odd) that the financial situation of the Discovery Institute was grim, and that they were "bleeding money" and were "barely able to keep the lights on in Seattle."

Date: 2007/04/18 07:46:20, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Here's the link: http://goosetheantithesis.blogspot.com/2007....el.html

What really puzzles me about the whole thing is that even if it is just an excuse to evangelize for Jesus, assuming that ID proponents actually believe what there saying, it should have been pretty easy to get some positive results from research. What has always surprised me is that no one can even say what ID research would be in any detail. You'd think they would at least try.

Date: 2007/04/18 10:23:40, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
In the UK there has recently been a program called 'The Great Global Warming Swindle', which real climate and some of the sciencebloggers have talked about. The main thesis was that solar activity was resposible for warming, but the data used to show the correlation was outdated and false. When a scientist sent an email to the programs creator to tell him this he responed with:
Quote
You’re a big daft cock
and
Quote
Go and fuck yourself
Obviously a scholar of the highest caliber.

Date: 2007/04/19 10:31:47, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Hahahahaha!

When random professors who probably know nothing about ID wont debate them they complain. When someone who actually understands ID offers, they refuse!

Date: 2007/04/20 17:20:15, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
When I say random I mean that the DI emailed all the departments and assuming they had decided to send someone they would have been whoever was free that day.

Date: 2007/04/21 22:00:16, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Early 2005 I went to a seminar on simulating the signalling cascade that controls the bacterial flagellum. Searching for more information on google led me to an interview with Michael Behe, which mentiond his book called darwins black box. We had a copy of this in our library (thanks Andy MacIntosh), so I give it a read and wasn't very impressed. From that I found the Discovery Institue website and read a few articles and found we also had NFL in the library (in the history of Science section).

A few months later I was at the Royal society for a conference, and was talking to someone who worked there who mentioned they were going to publish pictures of a live giant squid. When I googled for that I found pharyngula, and then the Pandas Thumb.

Then a couple of months later the Dover trial started and my friends at work finally believed I hadn't made the whole thing up to make religious people sound stupid.

Date: 2007/04/22 09:05:15, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
No, no, no --- ever since the big holy war within AiG, the Aussies simply won't talk to any Americans anymore.
Is that the one that involved accusations of necrophilia and witchcraft?

Date: 2007/04/22 20:02:48, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
For Georgia, I presume you are talking about the Cobb sticker case.  That was mostly decided on the second plank of the Lemon Test (religious motive).

I think we should count ourselves lucky Cobb settled the case (religious organizations were begging them to take their money and continue the appeals).
That would have ended the same way as Dover. The only way they could get what they want is to prove that evolution is less supported than other scientific theories. In any of these cases you have to ask the question why does the overwhelming majority of the scientific community disagree, and the answer isn't that it's an atheist conspiracy. The best they could have got is a general 'this textbook contains science...' disclaimer.

Date: 2007/04/23 08:52:30, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote (Thought Provoker @ April 23 2007,01:35)
Hi Chris...
     
Quote
The only way they could get what they want is to prove that evolution is less supported than other scientific theories.

Sorry, but I have to disagree.  The courts can't protect against School Boards being stupid.  If they want to teach their students that there are only nine planets and Saturn is the only one with rings around it or that PI is exactly 22/7, there is nothing the courts could do about it as long is there is no evidence of religion.

I agree there are plenty of things that they could teach that would just make them look stupid, but when they start singling out evolution, it is virtually impossible to hide the religious motivations. If it went to court they would either have to admit that they were stupid in which case they'd get thrown out, or argue the case, which would mean using ID arguments. Of course the most likely third option is that you will have plenty of evidence of the board's religious motives.
 
Quote
I don't know why you guys are so certain we will always prevail.
There is always a chance that a case could be assigned a fundementalist judge who would side with antievolution but its pretty unlikely I would have thought.

Date: 2007/04/24 00:14:34, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Screw him Steve, I say we start our own ID journal and charge a healthy subscription fee. Given the level of research involved I reckon I could do a paper every couple of weeks. I'm sure the DI will give us a grant.

Date: 2007/04/24 00:18:07, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
... one of the 3 ID foundational books along with ... Denton’s Evolution a Theory in Crisis
Ironic considering Denton says a lot of it was wrong.

Date: 2007/04/25 09:52:49, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
I think there is this kind of idea among celebrities that as long as you have a prius* you don't have to feel guilty any more. I wonder how many air miles Al Gore and Sheryl Crow use.

*Which does annoy me do you not have diesel cars in America?

Quote
Along a simialr line, I've always thought that the President, Vice President and all members of Congress should be paid minimum wage.
You need to get a balance so that it's enogh to live comfortably but low enough so that Bush and Cheney wouldn't touch it. Essentially the message needs to be 'if you become president you'll never be a milionaire', that should keep out the assholes. Ironically in the UK although our head of state earns more than Bush 'per person' he earns a #### of a lot less than his wife.

Date: 2007/04/25 11:30:20, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
That makes sense, I only asked because when the BBC tested the prius it was considerably less fuel efficient than several similar sized diesel cars available at the time, and at the moment I'm in San Francisco and I've seen more In two days than I've ever seen in the UK.

Date: 2007/04/27 16:26:33, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Not to mention the fact that I've read a couple of dozen papers on functions of junk DNA written before Intelligent Design existed.

Date: 2007/04/30 17:36:53, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
They cannot reproduce themselves, thus they do what they can to “convert” you, your wife and your kids to their image, in their likeness.
I wonder if he could show us an example of a gay person that wants to convert people because I've never met one.

Date: 2007/05/08 13:27:55, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
the elongation required much more than simple quantitative changes: new features were required, for example, to handle the much higher blood pressure required by the long neck.
And of course it's inconcievable that there was a point when the features that handle higher blood pressure were advantageous but not nessecary for survival, and intelligent design makes so much more sense.

Date: 2007/05/09 10:38:37, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Behe’s done the experiments and broken down molecular machines to the point of realization that they must work as a whole to function properly.
The point most people miss is that this was entirely unsurprising to biologists at the time. People have written about the fact that evolution will produce systems that cannot be reversibly broken down for nearly a century.
Quote
If you can’t, the ID inference remains a strong conclusion.
Not without positive evidence it doesn't.
Quote
They believe design cannot be detected in nature, but they ultimately believe in a designer.  They make no sense to me ~whatsoever~.
I know several who are perfectly open to the fact that design could be detected, they just think it hasn't been yet.

Date: 2007/05/11 14:00:46, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
It's called single transferable vote I believe, I think I'm right in saying its the most proportional system that still allows constituencys. We were all politely told we couldn't have it in the UK because it's too complicated for our tiny brains to comprehend even though we use it for local government elections, european parliment elections and Scottish and Welsh Assemby elections. Of course I'm not so cynical as to think this is because Labour wouldn't have won a majority in the last two elections. Oh well I doubt Gordon Broon can get a majority in any event.

Date: 2007/05/11 14:22:10, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
I guess so, I was never a big fan of the third way anyway. At this point I think he'll do anything he can to get the people to not want him to be tried in The Hague for war crimes.

Did you notice the Broon campaign seems to have abandoned the label of 'new Labour' and gone back to the old logos. I'm thinking of joining Labour on monday so I can vote for the other guy, he's definately someone Lenny would approve of.

Date: 2007/05/11 14:59:35, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Haha yes I did notice that it was quite amusing. I thought Tony timed that quite well.

Date: 2007/05/11 18:23:34, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
I dunno --- I'd be willing to bet that I'd probably think him too conservative for my taste.
Possibly but John McDonnell is pretty socialist, plus he says he'd recall all British troops from Iraq within 24 hours of being elected. That being said my communist friends think he's too right wing.
Quote
If elections could really change things, they'd be illegal.
One of my favourite quotes from Yes Primeminister is 'no government will reform the system that put it in power'.
Quote
Alas, in the US, the electoral system is carefully maintained to PREVENT any viable third party from arising.
Same here but think fourth. Having said that there's more difference between the Rebublicrats and Democons (is that right?) than there is between ours.

Date: 2007/05/11 19:43:27, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
The guy who's likely to be the PM after the next general election (if you believe opinion polls), David Cameron ...
Quote
]When asked about the issue he said on Friday: "Personally I don't support the teaching of creationism," but he added, "I'm a great believer that we need to trust schools and governors of schools to get these things right and I think that's the right approach." He said he advocated a "more devolved system" for deciding what schools were allowed to teach.
Essentially the education minister has said they can't teach ID, but there are likely to be isolated incedents of schools teaching it anyway. In the UK the national science curriculum is decided by scientists, and public opinion will be fine as long as they are kept informed.

Date: 2007/05/11 19:46:45, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
[Checks to see if he has over 500 posts]

Sounds like a good idea.

Date: 2007/05/12 08:32:07, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Tony and Tony's Cronies are the most religious bunch we've had in Number 10 for a while.
Maybe but they have said you can't teach ID, plus remember the 'we don't do God' incident. Tony is certainly pretty religious, but he is unwilling/prevented from talking about it.

What I think is important is that the public know that the BS is BS.

Date: 2007/05/12 09:00:36, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Wes, including the supernatural in the science classroom is merely a fear tactic on your part.  You know as well as everyone else that you don't have to mention the evil word "supernatural" even once in reference to ID unless you're an evolutionist.
Thats's nonsense. ID advocates repeatedly talk about the supernatural and how the problem with science is materialism. Have you ever read anything written by Paul Nelson?

Date: 2007/05/12 09:12:03, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
I spend more time watching various Discovery Channels than anything else.
Presumably avoiding the large amount of evilutionist propaganda.

Date: 2007/05/12 09:37:34, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
That certainly doesn't mean that the "supernatural" will be discussed or taught in the science classroom.  There is no need to address it in class, just as there is no need to address whether natural or supernatural occurrences started the process of natural selection when we are discussing evolution in the science classroom.
I agree, but the Discovery Institute do not.

Date: 2007/05/12 23:13:51, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
As a non American it looks like the Bush administration doesn't give a shit what the religious right thinks as long as they get their vote. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Date: 2007/05/14 09:24:13, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Theistic evolutionists don't think their ideas are science, which to me seems like a massive difference. I think people could interpret Romney's statement either way but I found this bit quite encouraging  
Quote
In my opinion, the science class is where to teach evolution, or if there are other scientific thoughts that need to be discussed," he said. "If we're going to talk about more philosophical matters, like why it was created, and was there an intelligent designer behind it, that's for the religion class or philosophy class or social studies class.
As far as I'm concerned he can believe what he likes as long as he knows what is and isn't science.

That being said I completely agree with him about the next DI tactic and I've read the textbook he refers to, it's basically a 'critical analysis textbook'. What it doesn't explain of cause is why the overwhelming majority of mostly theistic scientists in the world disagree with it's analysis.

Date: 2007/05/14 10:35:28, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Granted, I completely agree that the TE of Miller et al as a set of ideas does not pose the antiscience threat that IDC does, but it is in essence the same kind of god of the gaps reasoning that is profoundly unscientific at its core.
I don't think they are claiming that it is scientific.

Date: 2007/05/14 12:08:09, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Watch tonights news about the Labour election. I'm voting for the other guy.

Date: 2007/05/14 13:14:58, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
The worry is that we'll have a court case which pits WIMIist against TEist, and since both sides are apparently promoting religion-free science books the religiosity and intent of the authors will be called into question, both are openly religious, both claim their faith is nothing to do with their science (as has been done before) and because the TEist is the more honest person the case is thrown out and the WIMIist is allowed to promote their crypto-teleological drivel in a bad textbook.
I don't quite understand the point. Is it that in this case it would be better to say look the pro-science people are not religious but the anti-science people are, and that saying TE is ok is basically saying WIMI is no more religious than evolution?

Quote
2) I've apparently given him too much credit as a TEist. If he's promoting unspecified interventions throughout evolutionary history then (as Paul notes) then he's making a claim that is in principle mechanistically detectable.
I agree. It's a difficult line to draw really but if someone thinks that God's action may be mechanistically detectable then good luck to them as far as I'm concerned. Where the line would be crossed for me is if they thought it already had been detected, or if they thought it would be a scientific inference to attribute the action to God if it were discovered. If it was aliens for example then I see now reason that couldn't be detected, so really it would depend on what form the intervention would take.

Date: 2007/05/14 23:20:37, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
I was rejected for tenure at one college the same year I cleared the same amount of grant $$ as my salary
Not only that but at this point we have no idea whether or not Gonzalez is bringing in the grants, which surely is more important than the number of papers he's published.

Date: 2007/05/16 12:26:09, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
There you go:

http://abc.go.com/fallpreview/cavemen/index?u=0

Date: 2007/05/16 12:50:32, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
To stay in the mainstream, scientists must not acknowledge the possibility of actual free will
I think this could be the most unsupported statement I have ever heard from an ID advocate.

Date: 2007/05/16 23:00:42, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
So who the heck can we vote for here?  I admit that politics isn't my forte, but Cameron has apparently been pandering to the fundies a little recently, and yeah, Blair certainly does that.  Brown isn't showing any particular reason to make us think that he's gonna run the country any different to Blair - he's already been spewing the same old bull about what Labour has done to reduce NHS waiting lists etc when in actuality IMHO they fucked it up.  :angry:

The Lib Dems don't exactly inspire me, they'd probably turn out to be just as useless as Labour and the Conservatives.  Feel like I'm in voting limbo.
Ok now I agree with you.

Date: 2007/05/16 23:20:15, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
I've never laughed so hard at creationist dishonesty:

Quote
Two of the five active tenured astronomy professors in the department that denied tenure to Guillermo Gonzalez at Iowa State University are connected to a widely-publicized statement that denounces intelligent design as "creationist pseudoscience."

...

Iowa State University has made much of the fact that Dr. Gonzalez's tenure application was rejected starting at the level of his department. Now we know that at least 40% of the tenured faculty in astronomy in his department are connected to a statement that regards intelligent design as "creationist pseudoscience" and insists that "it is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible" for it "to be introduced into… science curricula."


For anyone who doesnt know the statement actually reads:
Quote
It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools.
ie nothing to do with teaching at university whatsoever.

I did some investigation of my own and it turns out the project Steve statement also says:

Quote
Evolution is ... a major ... inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible ... curricula
So it turns out it's a pro-ID statement after all.

Date: 2007/05/17 04:50:29, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
I think students should definately have comparative religious education classes, as they do in the UK, but I would be quite concerned if my child had to take something called 'Bible Study'.

Date: 2007/05/17 05:17:07, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Haha it gets even better:
Quote
Science Professor Expresses Astonishment at Iowa State's Denial of Tenure to Gonzalez
Can you guess what science?
Quote
Dr. Robert J. Marks, Distinguished Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Baylor University

Quote
I went to the Web of Science citation index which is the authority on citations. Only journal papers, not conference papers, are indexed. There are lots of Prof. Gonzalez's papers listed. My jaw dropped when I saw one of his papers has 153 citations and 139 on another. I have sat on oodles of tenure committees at both a large private university and a state research university, chaired the university tenure committee, and have seen more tenure cases than the Pope has Cardinals. This is a LOT of citations for an assistant professor up for tenure.
Right from now on whenever I see a post about this from a creationist I'm going to search for:
Quote
$
and if I don't find anything I'm not going to read it.

Date: 2007/05/18 17:27:16, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
This one passed me by:  
Quote
Many prominent U.S. conservative groups are shifting their attention overseas this week, organizing a conference in Poland that will decry Europe's liberal social policies and portray the host nation as a valiant holdout bucking those trends.
 
Quote
The chief organizer is a Rockford, Ill.-based conservative think tank, the Howard Center. Co-sponsors include more than 20 other U.S. groups allied in opposition to abortion, gay marriage and other policies they blame for weakening traditional families in Western Europe.

``Europe is almost lost - to demographic winter and to the secularists,'' says a planning document for the congress. ``If Europe goes, much of the world will go with it. Almost alone, Poland has maintained strong faith and strong families.''
 
Quote
Co-sponsors of the congress include the American Family Association, Concerned Women For America, the Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, the Heritage Foundation and the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, which promotes the ``intelligent design'' concept of the universe's origins.

From The Grauniad.

Can someone find the DI article from a while back where they were up in arms that someone called them a conservative think thank?

Date: 2007/05/20 09:58:50, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
In The Privileged Planet, Gonzalez argues that the number of factors deemed necessary for complex life to exist is about 20. Multiplying the probabilities of each of these factors happening at the same time in the same place, creates a probability so small that it points in the direction of an intelligent designer and not natural occurrences, Gonzalez said.
Does anyone know of a link to where someone calculates these probabilities.
Quote
There is nothing wrong with the sort of ID Guillermo Gonzalez writes about. The flagellum may have been unspun but the Anthropic Principle and teleology have not.
I think it's not so much his espousal of intelligent design as his endorsement of the intelligent design movement.

Date: 2007/05/20 15:08:50, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Well if those values are cosmological constants we have no idea what the probabilities might be. Unless someone has sampled a large number of different universes and I haven't heard about it.

Date: 2007/05/21 23:41:00, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Probably worth pointing out that those things did perfectly well as government owned companies in the UK (the roads and the sewers are still governemt run I think). Although obviously not democratised to the extent Lenny wants.

Date: 2007/05/23 08:47:53, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Alas, those days are gone, gone, gone, and they will never return.
Completely true, but you try explaining that to an anarchist or a libertarian.

Date: 2007/06/01 06:42:33, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
This is from The Thumb but I thought it belonged here:
Quote
But most mutations do not end up being beneficial…in fact the overwhelming majority don’t, or are neutral.

So how many beneficial mutations would be required in the line of development from the cell to the human brain? Hundreds of billions, certainly. And yet we don’t see that many benefical mutations on a yearly basis as spread out since the 600 million years since the Cambrian.

Perhaps they occured at a much greater rate in the past?

Date: 2007/06/03 08:57:06, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
I was taking a skim through some of that stuff on the Baylor webpage UD links to. The main complaint seems to be that an evolutionary search cannot perform very well without external information input.

Since there isn't a particular target in evolution, I'm assuming that they mean the fitness function(s) as the thing that smuggles in information. Am I right or are they talking about something else?

Date: 2007/06/04 05:16:57, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 04 2007,07:59)
Even the clowns at UD are asking where they can read a refutation of  Mark C. Chu-Carroll's review.

 
Quote
s there anywhere I can read a rebuttal of Carrol’s (or a similar) argument, or an explanation of why he is misrepresenting Behe?


Well, it will not be on UD that's for sure!

I'm a clown at UD am I? :p

Date: 2007/06/04 13:00:59, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Perhaps you could explain to me whether or not Mark Chu-Carroll's review mischaracterises Behe, and if not why is it wrong.

Date: 2007/06/13 08:25:17, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
If ID were capable of honesty:
I've read the book, those butterflies need to be made out of straw.

Date: 2007/06/13 12:56:57, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Yet I somehow missed information for what these genes in the sea sponge serve for. Are we really witnessing "exaptation"?
Well if they serve no purpose and are the result of frontloading then I suggest that you write a grant to perform some experiments to confirm this.

Quote
So sometimes the genes use organisms and sometimes an organism uses the genes
There is no reason why both cannot be true at the same time.

Date: 2007/06/13 16:40:39, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
It's your conviction they have some purpose. I've only asked what.
I'm basing my assumption on the fact that the functional regions of the proteins have been conserved and they are expressed in the sponge, most noticably in cells that perform a sensory function. Similar to the way certain sensory proteins involved in vision and hearing in humans are used in different sensory capacities in sea urchins.
Quote
You know it reminds me little to mushroom coloration. There should be some cryptic or aposematic function of  mushroom coloration according darwinism - and yet nobody know to explain it.
Why should there be?

Date: 2007/06/13 16:43:09, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Interesting, but my theory is still that Dembski, Behe and Wells will travell back in time and seed the first life so that they can sell books.

Date: 2007/06/19 11:03:38, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
There might have been many independent creations and no common ancestor. I am not sure that sponge and a human has anything common. Their evolutionary ancestors might have been created independently and so no common ancestor of them ever existed.
And the earth might actually be three hours old, I'm sticking with the most parsimonious explanation.
Quote
It is often the case that new organisms showed up "abruptly" without predecessors. The origination of mammalian orders seems to be such a case. Then the evolution slows down and no new "body plan" evolves.
Are you basing that on anything other than an incomplete fossil record?
Quote
In such cases we can presume that an ancestor bear all genetic setup for further evolution. Subsequent evolution only unfolds front-loaded dispositions.
In what form was the information stored before it was unfolded? What stopped it being degraded by mutation before it was used? What signals caused the information to be unfolded? What mechanisms recognised the signals and caused the unfolding of information? How do these mecahnisms explain large changes caused by both large scale rearrangements and single point mutations? Answer those questions and I'll take that theory seriously.

Quote
Btw - can you explain me your position? I suppose that also according darwinism life could arose many times in different places too. So maybe according darwinism sponge and human may have no common ancestor either?
Im not sure what you mean by Darwinism here. The modern theory of evolution says that sponge and human do share a common ancestor.

Date: 2007/06/20 10:39:29, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Of course saltationism need something like frontloading.
Why?

Date: 2007/06/20 13:59:00, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
It must occurs at once by saltus  - otherwise predator wouldn't be deceived.  Such evolutionary process supposed that wing patterns and coloration had been there already as hidden potentiality.
From a previous post:
Quote
In what form was the information stored before it was unfolded? What stopped it being degraded by mutation before it was used? What signals caused the information to be unfolded? What mechanisms recognised the signals and caused the unfolding of information? How do these mecahnisms explain large changes caused by both large scale rearrangements and single point mutations? Answer those questions and I'll take that theory seriously.

Date: 2007/06/21 12:34:43, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
On a completely different topic, Dave, you (I believe it was you) had a post many months ago where you suggested that if evolutionary simulators wanted to better simulate reality, they should subject everything to random errors, their entire program, the compiler and OS and the hardware (well, that was the idea anyway). I thought that was one of the most significant points ever made at UD (though as I recall no one else seemed to).
Since the real world equivalent to fitness functions in a genetic algorithm is the environment, Im not quite sure what changing theOS and hardware would be equivalent to apart from changing universal constants etc.

Date: 2007/06/22 08:40:24, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Allow them as long as it isn't illegal. I got taken out of classes when I was 15 for not shaving, I wish it had occured to me then that sueing was an option. It's worth pointing out that in the UK the schools enforce strict uniform regulations, so I suspect that in this case the school will have a 'no rings' policy. I know that apparently muslims in the school are allowed to wear bracelets, but as far as I can remember in my school the policy was bracelets are ok rings are not. A good example of the state of the situation over here is that in one of my cousins schools ony students 'of afro-carribean descent' are allowed braided hair.

Quote
She told BBC Breakfast: "In the Bible it says you should remain sexually pure and I think this is a way I want to express my faith."
I don't know why she's complaining, she'll be off to sixth form in a few months and then she can wear a T-shirt that says 'I am sexually pure' and then everyone will know.

Date: 2007/06/22 10:47:11, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Btw. there is a question asked by Chris Hyland  what is behind "frontloading", what mechanisms took place. I can only copy/paste from John's work.
I've read Johns work, it only partially attempts to answer some of the questions.

Date: 2007/06/22 17:19:00, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Am I exceedingly ignorant if I don't know what these things are supposed to be a parody of (apart from creationists obviously).

Date: 2007/06/23 11:04:44, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Margulis concluded, is that "Random changes in DNA alone do not lead to speciation. Symbiogenesis--the appearance of new behaviors, tissues, organs, organ systems, physiologies, or species as a result of symbiont interaction--is the major source of evolutionary novelty in eukaryotes--animals, plants, and fungi."
I haven't really read much about this but what evidence does she base this on?

Date: 2007/06/23 11:41:22, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
they look like "Magic: The Gathering" cards.
Thanks. I've no idea what that is but they're funny anyway.

Date: 2007/06/23 12:30:28, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Margulis's once radical theory of the endosymbiotic origin of mitochondria (eubacteria) and chloroplasts (cyanobacterium) is fairly well accepted by most biologists, based on structure and genetics.
Yes I should have just posted the
Quote
the appearance of new behaviors, tissues, organs, organ systems, physiologies, or species as a result of symbiont interaction--is the major source of evolutionary novelty in eukaryotes--animals, plants, and fungi."
bit.

I haven't seen a phylogenetic analysis that shows much evidence of this process occuring in multicellular animals. I would be very interesting if it did, and would be another one of those things that gives more power to evolution and provides no support to creationism.

Date: 2007/06/23 14:14:15, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Phylogeny totally supports endosymbiosis. Mitochondria are in fact close to proteobacteria.
And endosymbiosis is a common phenomenon. Lots of insects have other endosymbionts (Buchnera for instance).
I know that mitochondria are the result of endosymbiosis and that many insects especially have endosymbionts but this doesnt really support her claim particularly well about the importance of endosymbiosis in developing evolutionary novelties in animals.

Date: 2007/06/24 11:00:16, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Many single-celled forms of life exist, but no known forms of animal life have 2, 3, 4, or 5 cells.a The forms of life with 6–20 cells are parasites, so they must have a complex animal as a host to provide such functions as digestion and respiration. If macroevolution happened, one should find many transitional forms of life with 2–20 cells—filling the gap between one-celled and many-celled organisms.
Quote
If evolution happened, one would expect to see gradual transitions among many living things. For example, variations of dogs might blend in with variations of cats.
Wow this guy has an awful understanding of biology.

Date: 2007/06/24 18:35:59, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
We are all here atheists
I'm not an atheist.

Quote
If there is no aposematism/mimicry in the given case detected, what is the reason of coloration? Please consider mushrooms to avoid mantra of "sexual selection".
Andy why exactly does the colour of mushrooms have to be a selectable trait?

Date: 2007/06/24 19:28:23, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
My belief is that most scientists, in general, don't give these issues much real thought at all.
Er, biologists do it's quite important it tends to come up quite often in meetings and such.

Quote
I believe the core groups such as NCSE, etc. are thoroughly and completely convinced beyond any doubt whatsoever that evolution (microbe to man) is a fact.
That's what most biologists think to.

Quote
The majority of scientists are materialists
I'd like to see a survey of biologists religious beliefs where the answers were 'believe in God', 'believe in God some of the time', 'agnostic/atheist', and 'who even gives a crap why don't you ask me something important and stop wasting my time?' You'd find the atheist vote shrinks quite considerably.

Quote
so when a place like NCSE tells them that the only reason why people doubt evolution is due to fanatical religious beliefs, they would have no reason to question it
I've seen plenty of evidence that the majority of scientists who question evolution do so due to religious beliefs. What is much more important to scientists is that creationists are wrong.

Quote
Certainly, biologists go nuts about the topic because it hits so close to home and they believe their entire world would fold if common descent were not a "fact".
Biologists tend to have strong reactions to Intelligent design folk because a) the ID people try to completely bypass the scientific process and and get their theories taught in schools etc, and b) because creationists routinely paint biologists as part of a corrupt atheist conspiracy.

Quote
in reality, I still see very little necessity in believing that every organism on the face of the earth evolved from a flippin' little microbe.
Well the main reason is because they think that's what the evidence points to.

Date: 2007/06/24 20:38:55, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
The chances of getting anything that even mildly resembles creation science or ID is so slim it's ridiculous, and the peer review process would be a joke.
I can't speak for young earth creationism, but I have never seen anything from ID that would be able to qualify as an article for most journals (ie research). I am yet to see an example of an ID paper that has been rejected for example. Or a grant that would lead to research to put in a paper for that matter.

Quote
This is why Brown doesn't submit his work to be published.
From that page:
Quote
does a writer have a right to challenge the reviewer’s conclusions if the writer disagrees?
In my experience yes.

Quote
Jeez, look what happened with the Steinberg incident... and that paper wasn't such a big deal, yet Eugenie about blew a gasket!
Well the paper a) did a lousy job of reviewing the literature and its wasn't a suitable subject for the journal (and I don't just mean ID), so there's two reasons that it shouldnt have been published for a start.

Quote
I'm merely stating that scientists certainly wouldn't publish something that they feel goes completely and utterly against the grain.
Assuming that's what the evidence points to they would. If there was actually compelling evidence of ID or that the earth is only 6000 years old journals would be falling over themselves trying to publish it. Again I cant speak for YEC's but the ID folk don't appear to be looking for the evidence that would be needed.

Date: 2007/06/25 14:31:27, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
So I presented here mushrooms as part of Nature where their coloration and sometimes their lethal effects are almost impossible to explain using Natural or Sexual selection. Maybe it is only free play of life to present itself, something that is hidden under veil of Natural selection before eyes of darwinists.
The modernt heory of evolution doesn't say every feature of an organism has to be the product of natural selection.
Quote
I don't underestand how one can be a darwinist and believe in some supernatural power as well.
I have no opinion on the existence or otherwise of the supernatural, so that's not a problem. Millions of people are able to believe in both, so thats good enough for me. I have plenty of Christian friends who believe that God makes the flowers grow, that doesn't mean that we can't attibute it to a natural process.

Date: 2007/06/26 13:12:32, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Just in case anyone still cares, it looks like the school banned the rings when it became pretty obvious that this girl was kicking up a fuss going about the school as a virgins-for-god recruiting sergent for her parents company (ie UK silver-ring-thing).

On a side note, the companies 'media consultant' says:  
Quote
Increasingly, girls in particular are not looked on as human beings with value, and worth who have the right to say no to sex, or to keep sex for a loving, long-term relationship in marriage. It causes me great sadness to think that girls are often looked on as just sexual objects and others expect them to want sex and agree to sex, whatever the level of relationship.
This is her:

Not quite pornstar Adam but funny all the same.

Date: 2007/06/29 11:20:56, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote (VMartin @ June 29 2007,16:02)
Of course anybody can review John Davison's interesting work Semimeiosis as an evolutionary mechanism published in Journal Of Theoretical Biology in 1984. I reccomend it becauese it can elucidate the question of common descent with scientific arguments.

Not unless you have a link for it they can't.

EDIT: I mean a link to the paper, not just the abstract.

Date: 2007/08/02 18:34:45, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
It's hard to call really. I'd have to know how long he'd been off for and how much of that time he'd been playing squash for. When I broke my leg my doctor told me to try sports basically from the moment my cast came off.

Date: 2007/08/08 12:48:09, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 08 2007,12:18)
God, ultimately, is a personal concept and in truth it has no bearing on God's existence what anyone's personal concept is.

I know that's hard to accept but I believe your resistance comes from the fact that you're trying to frame this as a scientific question and it is not one.

Since this is turning into a fairly one sided discussion I will jump in and agree with skeptic on this point. That's certainly how the vast majority of religious people I know view it.

Date: 2007/08/08 17:39:25, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
But plenty of other people claim that God does all kinds of physical things...like flooding the whole planet.

Those claims can be tested, and if people put their god up to tests that he will fail, too bad for them and their god.
The point is that many people don't make claims about their God that can be scientifically tested. You can argue that this makes God meaningless, but that's different argument.

Date: 2007/08/31 17:29:45, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
Quote
Even stranger, she admits that her faith in her deity is totally indistingushable from fantasy and that for her this simply isn't the point. She makes no claims that god exists or her way is the right way, she simply believes because it works for her. If you asked her to define some moral absolute for you, she'd laugh at you and point out why is was absurd for the same reasons I have.

Even stranger than that, I cheerfully agree with her but do not share any aspect of her faith.
That sounds like pretty much every Christian I knew growing up. I find it hard to see how this kind of religious faith conflicts with science.

Quote
Seriously, though, economics seems divided into ideological camps, everything from free market libertarians to Keynesian New Dealers to commies.
Thats why I hate listening to people argue about economics. They manage to have a heated discussion about why their system will lead to a better outcome without mentioning that they have completely different measures for the desirability of the outcome.

Date: 2007/09/01 05:55:34, Link
Author: Chris Hyland
In Lennys defence Im pretty sure he didnt mean that the answers religion gave were useful or correct.

My problem with this whole topic is that if the answers to all those points are 'cant be done' then I don't see how religion and science are nessecarily in conflict, and I know a lot of religious people who would answer cant be done to all of those questions.

 

 

 

=====