AE BB DB Explorer


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


form_srcid: DiEb

form_srcid: DiEb

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is 54.204.163.26

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

form_author:

form_srcid: DiEb

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 'DiEb%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC

DB_err:

DB_result: Resource id #4

Date: 2008/05/29 11:39:34, Link
Author: DiEb
Upps, I didn't activate my account - though I thought so. My bad :(  So, I tried in vain to post for a couple of days - gave me a kind of UD feeling, self-induced :)

As Old Man in the Sky did it predicted, I was silently banned from UD after my last post, which can be read here.
(Thanks for keeping it!;)
So, Sal now gets his favorite kind of discussion: one without an opponent :)

Date: 2008/05/29 12:32:54, Link
Author: DiEb
Hi, I was silently banned from UD after posting this. This happened in the early morning, though my posts appeared for a short time, no one answered to them. So, UD could make a stealth banning...

Date: 2008/05/29 15:33:08, Link
Author: DiEb
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 29 2008,13:37)
http://www.uncommondescent.com/evoluti....-289743

 
Quote
125

Lormy Kathorpa

05/29/2008

11:59 am
You shouldn’t have too much problem answering these simple questions should you?

It would probably be easier for him if his posts were allowed to appear.

126

Patrick

05/29/2008

12:19 pm
Dieb can post a comment, but he’ll need to wait until it’s released from moderation by an admin.

It seems that someone at UD has an eye on this site :)
I just posted
Quote
Trying to post a paradox: "This post doesn't appear"
FYI: my last tries to post something on this board weren't dignified with the usual "your post is awaiting moderation" screen, but didn't appear at all.
I'll give it a shot...

and - alas - this one is awaiting moderation again.

Date: 2008/06/08 01:15:29, Link
Author: DiEb
Sal has his "gotcha" moment (or hasn't he?)
Over there, in the silent backwaters of UD, I've got a conversation going on with Sal Cordova, (re-)starting here. Amusingly, I wasn't able to post at UD for a couple of weeks (my contributions wouldn't even make the "your post is awaiting moderation" stage) - but a gentle hint from AtBC, and this was solved... Thanks!

Date: 2008/06/08 05:03:36, Link
Author: DiEb
Quote
Ah, thanks for reminding us, DiEB.

No, thank you for wading through the posts - I'm afraid, there's only little amusement in it...
Quote
But can you answer a technical question for me - do Fourier series follow a Dirichlet distribution?

:D well, it's the same name, so they better should, they appear on the same site when I google for the terms  - as they say: words mean things :p

Date: 2008/06/08 07:01:24, Link
Author: DiEb
Quote (olegt @ June 08 2008,06:35)
Hi DiEb,

Yeah, its' funny to see how Sal is arguing about fine mathematical points while at the same time he cannot spot a missing minus sign in your answer for the Fourier transform (#148).  A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

yep, guilty for the minus - I've to admit that I had quite a few typos in the terms I used - some I spotted, some not. So, thank you: that is a point for what I could be rightly chastised...
I tried to format the expressions nicely, but that's quite difficult at UD: < sup> and < sub> tags only work in the preview...

Date: 2008/06/11 14:03:41, Link
Author: DiEb
"1 Freedom Figher[sic] vs. 17 Nazi Darwinists"

I'm pretty sure that neither the Airforce nor the Luftwaffe pilots thought that the were fighting for or against Darwin...

Date: 2008/06/19 15:38:29, Link
Author: DiEb
MorseDeTranslator :D

Date: 2008/06/20 07:13:23, Link
Author: DiEb
Just a quick question: How long does it - generally - take to get a post moderated at UD?
My current answer to Sal is now in the pipeline ("Your comment is awaiting moderation.") for ~15 hours....

Date: 2008/06/24 12:26:56, Link
Author: DiEb
Well, A. Schlafly is a wizard of statistics, as you can see for yourself - imagine, how Lenski's paper could benefit from such an input - NOT....

Date: 2009/08/19 12:07:29, Link
Author: DiEb
Quote

1

DiEb

08/19/2009

10:36 am
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Your critique of Dawkins is very subtle, as you don’t mention Dawkins’s name in your paper and you don’t use Dawkin’s algorithm – in fact, the only thing reminding of Dawkins is the weasel phrase.



Quote
6

DiEb

08/19/2009

11:15 am
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

I would think that it does matter: Dawkins’s algorithms depends very much on the size of the population. In fact, with a population size of one, it’s just a random search…


I suppose I'm moderated for all eternity...

Date: 2009/08/25 01:43:07, Link
Author: DiEb
It took over six hours to get this little snippet through moderation. Is this normal?

 
Quote
138
DiEb

08/24/2009

8:51 am

-Indium

in 125 & 128, I raised questions similar to yours. Here's another detail on the mutation rate: Dawkins's algorithm works best with a rate of 4% – 5%, while Dembski's algorithm prefers the maximal possible rate of mutations in each step (as he only allows for beneficial – or at least neutral ones).

Date: 2009/08/26 11:11:41, Link
Author: DiEb
over eight hours in moderation & still counting for this little marble:
 
Quote

I took the string
SCITAMROFN*IYRANOITULOVE*SAM
and calculated a next generation using Dawkins's algorithms with populations of 10,50 and 100 - and mutation rates of .04, .05 and .1. The tenth string in the list is the second generation given in the paper of Mark and Dembski. The differences with the first generation are in bold face:

1. SCITAMROFN*IYRANOIEULOVE*SAM
2. SCITAMROFN*IYRANOITULOGE*SAM
3. ECITAMRI*N*IYZANOITULOVE*SAM
4. SCITAMROFN*IYRANOITUL*VE*SAM
5. SCITAMROFN*IYRANOITULOVE*SEM
6. SCITAMOOLNOIYRAMOITULOVE*SEM
7. SCITANROFN*IYYANOITULOVE*SAM
8. SCITIMROFN*JYRANOITULOVE*SAM
9. SCITAMROFN*ICRHNOITSLOWE*SAV
10. OOT*DENGISEDESEHT*ERA*NETSIL
Can anyone spot a difference in the design of the strings? Anyone? KF? Anyone?

I wonder if it will ever get through - and what's about my posts to Denise...

Date: 2009/08/26 11:45:38, Link
Author: DiEb
Every time a try to submit the following post, the page turns white. I suppose there is no chance that I win Dawkins's book...
 
Quote
Just to elaborate: The interesting part is what Atom describes as oracle, i.e., the application of the fitness function. In Dawkins description we read
Quote

The computer examines the mutant nonsense phrases, the 'progeny' of the original phrase, and chooses the one which, however slightly, most resembles the target phrase

An oracle - a black box -  which accomplishes this just hints to one string when presented with a population of strings. No further information has to be exchanged. It is not necessary to know how the  oracle defines the best string: It could just hint you to the one with the greatest number of correct letters - or perhaps the one which shares the longest substring with the target phrase.

Date: 2009/08/26 15:42:20, Link
Author: DiEb
Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 26 2009,14:39)
Speaking to DiEb on the side, I realize what is stake here.

Dembski's latching algorithm requires the mutation engine to know the target; Dembski's Weasel does not.

This may seem too obvious or too stupid even to consider, but it's really the heart of the argument.

IDiots really believe that mutations have to be directed; Weasel demonstrates this is unnecessary. the inability to understand a simple algorithm masks an inability to accept reality.

Quote
Dembski's latching algorithm requires the mutation engine to know the target; Dembski's Weasel does not.


What a surprise that the Newton of Information Theory doesn't realize that his algorithm and that one of Dawkins exchange different amounts of information with the environment...

Date: 2009/08/28 15:30:55, Link
Author: DiEb
Quote (Indiumas @ Aug. 28 2009,10:33)
Might as well say hello here I think, I am Indium from Uncommon Descent.

Willkommen an Bord!

Date: 2009/09/18 01:35:10, Link
Author: DiEb
Just a quick question: Waiting for an answer of kf, I've to read at the thread Uncommon Descent Contest Question 10: Provide the Code for Dawkins’ WEASEL Program:

Both comments and pings are currently closed.

Is this O'Leary's usual procedure?

Date: 2009/09/19 15:56:32, Link
Author: DiEb
My first implementation of the weasel behaved the same way: exactly one letter is changed.

Why? It's easier to handle mathematically: the neighbourhood of a string is then much smaller, and, when seen as a Markov chain, you have a sparser transition matrix.

That's why Dembski and Marks use a mutation probability of µ=10^{-5}  - and a generation size of two: then, they can come up with a neat differential equation.

But in reality, Dawkins weasel is well understood and nothing special: it's a very simple evolution strategy and studied as such since the 1970th.

Date: 2009/09/19 15:58:09, Link
Author: DiEb
ouch, 1970s....
And even with this mutation, the algorithm doesn't latch...

Date: 2009/09/19 16:27:21, Link
Author: DiEb
It's most probable if almost every letter is correct. So, imagine 27 correct letters and a population of 100.
The probability that the next generation is worse is
(27/28)^100 = 2.63%
That's not so bad!

Date: 2009/09/19 16:50:10, Link
Author: DiEb
It gets worse, of course, if a chosen letter is only changed with probability 26/27 ( as in the programs ). Then, we have a probability of a change to the worse at the last stage of (26/27 * 27/28)^100 = 0.06%...

But a more complicate calculation yields that the probability of a change to the worse during the run of such an algorithm with a generation size of 100 is 0.48%

That's quite observable :-)

Date: 2009/09/19 17:51:53, Link
Author: DiEb


And here is a little bit more about the latching of the new weasel(s)...

Date: 2009/09/20 03:52:29, Link
Author: DiEb
What amuses me about the weasel: all programs I've seen until now define the fitness of a string as the number of correct letters. That's the obvious choice - though many others are possible (e.g., length of longest correct substring): Dawkins only stated that the string is chosen which most resembles the target.

The only exception is the algorithm of Dembski and Marks...

Date: 2009/09/20 05:04:56, Link
Author: DiEb
Yep, it's striking how the whole idea of fitness or a fitness function is missing from Dembski's and Marks's paper: for them, the fitness function seems to be given implicitly  by the search space, which is amazingly odd as they are talking so much about no free lunch theorems.

Date: 2009/09/20 14:03:03, Link
Author: DiEb
At the moment, there are at least three of my comments held in moderation - for up to one day. Here's one of them
Quote


23

DiEb

09/20/2009

12:41 am
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

– Andrew Freedman
I calculated the expected number of runs for some combination of population size and mutation probability (in brackets the standard deviation) Sorry about the format

size — 4% ———- 5% ——— one mut.
10 1305 (924) 12,461 (12,140) 477,456 (477,303)
20 326 (121) 341 (140) 754 (652)
30 222 (80) 223 (84) 168 (90)
40 170 (60) 170 (63) 101 (38)
50 139 (49) 140 (51) 79 (25)
60 119 (41) 120 (42) 67 (19)
70 105 (35) 105 (37) 60 (16)
80 93 (31) 94 (32) 54 (14)
90 85 (28) 86 (29) 50 (13)
100 79 (25) 79 (26) 48 (12)
200 49 (14) 49 (14) 35 (8)
300 40 (10) 40 (10) 32 (6)
400 35 (8) 35 (9) 30 (6)
500 32 (7) 32 (8) 30 (6)

1: 4% – 5% is the best rate of mutation, values outside this interval will produce longer runs
2: For his interview, Dawkins needed the program to run for ~ 2000 generations. This could be achieved by the combination (10 children, 4% mutation rate) But I suppose that Dawkins just fooled around a little bit with his program to get an optimal number of runs, i.e., the program was running during the length of his interview…
3: I’m glad to see that your numbers agree with mine…
4: For the book, the number of children was 100-200, not fifty, as I said earlier. Sorry. That is, if Dawkins used the algorithm which most people think he described…

Date: 2009/10/10 11:43:34, Link
Author: DiEb
I'd love to start a new topic - but it seems that I'm not allowed to do so. Could someone start a thread titled Conservation of Information in Search - factual errors in an article of R. Marks and W. Dembski (or something like that)? It would be nice to have a place to collect our critique of their weaselings...
One problem with the article is that it is so sloppily written: For instance, the references seem just to be copied together (like creationistic pamphlets of old) from earlier works. And every time, I touch one, I find an error. That's not the fault of the reviewers, as those aren't expected to check the references - it's the fault of Dembski and Marks. And it is a typical sign of sloppy research.

Date: 2009/10/13 13:40:21, Link
Author: DiEb
I'm mainly interested in the evolutionary algorithms used in W. Dembski's and R. Marks's paper Conservation of Information in Search - Measuring the Cost of Success, i.e., the examples E and F in section III examples of active information in search. I tried to gather my thoughts, at first in my blog, but now on this page of <a href="http//rationalwiki.com" target="_blank">rationalwiki</a>: This wiki allows for math-tags, and - of course - for  collaboration. I'd love to get some input/critique/reactions...

Date: 2009/10/13 19:39:17, Link
Author: DiEb
I completed my little project on the evolutionary algorithms in Dembski's and Marks paper here. Completed? Well, it's a complete draft :-)
One little insight: I suppose that one author  wrote 2) Optimization by Mutation and the other 3) Optimization by Mutation With Elitism - it's virtually the same, just with another notation, so that they didn't spot what they were doing....
I'd bet that Marks wrote 2) - it feels a little bit more rigorous

Date: 2009/10/18 22:23:20, Link
Author: DiEb
Has anyone listened to this? At 3' 22'', W. Dembski says about his paper  "Conservation of Information in Search: Measuring the Cost of Success":
 
Quote
We have some powerful results that follow up on this paper. This is a paper called "The Search for the Search", which is coming out... It should be out now, but there is some delay in the journal's publishing [???]. That will really nail things down.
(my own transcript)

I didn't have the stomach to listen to the whole thing, but I'm quite interested in this new paper.

BTW, Dembski says about the first paper:
Quote
It shows that Darwinian processes require information.

Um, not information as we know it, Jim.

Date: 2009/10/19 05:24:21, Link
Author: DiEb
R. Marks and W. Dembski try to get a new paper through peer-review. In a podcast, W. Dembski announced it as

We have some powerful results that follow up on this paper [Conservation of Information in Search:Measuring the Cost of Success]. This is a paper called "The Search for the Search" which is coming out. It should be out now, but there is some delay in the journal's publishing vent[?]

You can find a draft here.

Date: 2009/10/21 01:09:00, Link
Author: DiEb
I stated my problems with Dembski's and Marks's new paper The Search for a Search here. Don't worry, I kept it entirely non-technical :-)

Date: 2009/10/22 07:42:54, Link
Author: DiEb
I tried to post the following at UncommonDescent:

The Horizontal No free Lunch Theorem doesn't work for a search of length m > 1 for a target T ? ?:

Let ? be a finite search-space, T ? ? the target - a non-empty subset of ?. A search is a (finite) sequence of ?-valued random variables (?1, ?2, ..., , ?m). A search is successful, if ?n ? T for one n, 1 ? n ? m.

I suppose we do agree here. Now, we look at a search ? as a ?m-valued random variable, i.e., ? := (?1, ?2, ..., , ?m).

When is it successful? If we are still looking for a T ? ? we can say that we found T during our search if

? ? ?m / (? / T)m

Let's define ? as the subspace of ?m which exists from the representations of targets in ?, i.e.,

? := {?m / (? / T)m|T non-empty subset of ?}

Obviously, ? is much smaller than ?m.

But this ? is the space of feasible targets. And if you take an exhaustive partition of ? instead of ?m in Theorem III.1 Horizontal No Free Lunch, you'll find that you can indeed have positive values for the active entropy as defined in the same theorem.

But that's not much of a surprise, as random sampling without repetition works better than random sampling with repetition.

But if you allow T to be any subset of ?m, your results get somewhat trivial, as you are now looking at m independent searches of length 1 for different targets.

The searches which you state as examples in this paper and the previous one all work with a fixed target, i.e., elements of ?. You never mention the possibility that the target changes between the steps of the search (one possible interpretation of taking arbitrary subsets of ?m into account).

So, I'm facing two possibilities:

  1. You didn't realize the switch from stationary targets to moving ones when you introduced searching for an arbitrary subset of ?m
  2. You realized this switch to a very different concept, but chose not to stress the point.

Date: 2009/10/22 07:45:54, Link
Author: DiEb
Heck, in the preview, all the nice Omegas, phis, etc. appeared! So, please, insert 16 X Omega, 7 X phi, 2 X Theta and 4 X Phi...

Date: 2009/10/22 07:46:49, Link
Author: DiEb
..or look here.

Date: 2009/10/22 11:23:24, Link
Author: DiEb
I hope I can get some people interested in this paper of W. Dembski and R. Marks - before it is published and has this majesty of peer review attached to it (William Dembsky in an interview with Casey Luskin)

BTW: As a follow-up to their previous paper, the sensible thing would be to get it published in the same journal. But, seemingly, there have been problems...

Date: 2009/10/22 13:48:26, Link
Author: DiEb
If you like Casey, you'll love him when he teams up with William Dembski:

Information and Clear Accounting in Evolution: An Interview With Dr. William Dembski

How Information Theory Is Taking Intelligent Design Mainstream: An Interview With Dr. William Dembski

Date: 2009/10/30 08:35:13, Link
Author: DiEb
If you can't wait for the great conference in Rome, I just put this in the moderation queue at Uncommon Descent:  
Quote

I assume that we can save valuable time if we just look at last year's results:
Perhaps someone can report the results of the conference of November 2008, held in Rome, featuring:
1. Josef Holzschuh: The Second Law of Thermodynamics and Evolution
2. Jean de Pontcharra: Are Radio-dating Methods Reliable?
3. Maciej Giertych: Impact of Race Formation and Mutations on the Theory of Evolution

The titles and their abstracts seemingly didn't change, but perhaps, they use some new pages in their power-point-presentations?

Date: 2009/10/30 13:18:51, Link
Author: DiEb
Quote (Freddie @ Oct. 30 2009,10:26)
New member finally finds reason to post ...

Thanks to all for all the lolz over the years and hope I get the formatting right on my first post!  This from the November 2008 conference Press Release:

       
Quote
It should be emphasised that these scientists are not “creationists” and would be offended to be considered as such.


If one were to point one's browser to Kolbe Center Advisory Council then you'd find four out of the five speakers listed as members.  The Kolbe Center's About Us page states ...

       
Quote
... the Kolbe Center also seeks to show the superiority of special creation over all forms of molecules-to-man evolution as an explanation of the origins of man and the universe. According to the molecules-to-man, or macro-evolutionary, theory of origins, all living things are descended from non-living matter. During billions of years, this non-living matter changed into all of the different kinds of living organisms. According to the special creation model of origins on the other hand, God created the various kinds of living things, including man, by divine fiat and later, after the Fall, engineered a global flood that produced most of the "fossil record."


So no sir, no creationists here, sir ... no indeedy!

Did I win anything yet?


     
Quote (J-Dog @ Oct. 30 2009,08:41)
       
Quote (DiEb @ Oct. 30 2009,08:35)
If you can't wait for the great conference in Rome, I just put this in the moderation queue at Uncommon Descent:            
Quote

I assume that we can save valuable time if we just look at last year's results:
Perhaps someone can report the results of the conference of November 2008, held in Rome, featuring:
1. Josef Holzschuh: The Second Law of Thermodynamics and Evolution
2. Jean de Pontcharra: Are Radio-dating Methods Reliable?
3. Maciej Giertych: Impact of Race Formation and Mutations on the Theory of Evolution

The titles and their abstracts seemingly didn't change, but perhaps, they use some new pages in their power-point-presentations?

Good catch!~
I think you just earned The Great Detective Badge Of The Week!

Of course they aren't creationists, they just have a patristic understanding of Genesis....

Date: 2009/11/09 04:37:58, Link
Author: DiEb
It took a while, but now I think my trashing of W. Dembski's and R. Marks's new article "The Search for a Search" (currently - and I suppose indefinitely -  held in peer-review) is fairly complete. See for yourself. Any idea of an improvement is welcome!

Date: 2009/11/09 05:44:43, Link
Author: DiEb
Wow, it disappeared from their list of publications at the Evolutionary Informatics Lab, too...

Date: 2009/11/09 07:25:50, Link
Author: DiEb
This seems to be quite typical: They still have the announcement for the article "A Search for a Search" on the Evolutionary Informatics Lab site, but they don't link to the actual article as they did earlier. Instead, they link to the article "Conservation of Information in Search" - wherein one cannot find the announced results, i.e., the vertical and the horizontal no free lunch theorems...

Date: 2009/11/09 14:39:34, Link
Author: DiEb
I'm still trying to get in contact with W. Dembski:
 
Quote


8
DiEb
11/07/2009
2:10 am

In his podcast, W. Dembski announced that the paper A Search for a Search (a collaboration with R. Marks) in to be published soon. I’ve quite a problem with this article (see here or here), so I’m interested in the progress of its peer- review. Anything new?

 
Quote

9
DiEb
11/08/2009
9:12 am

@Dr. Dembski,

Here, I added an example to illustrate why I think that the formulation – and the proof – of the Horizontal New Free Lunch theorem apply only to the trivial case of a guess, but not to searches in general.

 
Quote

10
DiEb
11/09/2009
6:48 am

@ Dr. Dembski,

the article “The Search for a Search” isn’t any longer linked from R. Marks list of publication, and EIL seems to have dropped the article, too.

What has happened?

Until now, the reaction was very indirect: the "Search for a Search" started to disappear from the net...

Date: 2009/11/11 00:51:03, Link
Author: DiEb
I tried it again, on the thread ID and Science Education:

Quote


2
DiEb
11/11/2009
1:45 am
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Articles like W. Dembski's and R. Marks's "The Search for a Search" will  shape the view of Intelligent Design in general and help us to judge whether it is a scientific theory. So, when will it be published? Any problems?

Date: 2009/11/11 02:45:51, Link
Author: DiEb
I'm used to extensive periods of moderation at Uncommon Descent, but only one of my comments over the last weeks didn't appear at last.

Granted, some delays were so long that a discussion was made rather impossible...

Date: 2009/11/11 07:26:49, Link
Author: DiEb
Quote (midwifetoad @ Nov. 11 2009,06:18)
 
Quote
Many searches are needle-in-the-haystack problems, looking for small targets in large spaces. In such cases, blind search can stand no hope of success.


From Dembski's abstract.


I keep wondering how this line of argument is relevant to evolution. There are some rare instances in which populations "need" to find solutions to changing conditions. The record of extinction suggests this "search" is not generally successful.

Behe and Dembski suggest that structures such as flagella are the end result of a search, but I am no aware of any biologist who thinks flagella ever constituted a goal. As with many other biological structures, they happened.

But it is a monumental intellectual fraud to suggest that specific structures are sought after by biological evolution.

I'm only a mathematician, so I just wanted to show that Marks and Dembski are wrong according to the rules of their own world, not that their world is just a la-la-fantasy-land...

But a thought: I get the impression that (intelligent design) creationists believe in the power of the word, all words, literally. So, if someone calls some algorithm a evolutionary strategy, it has to be linked with the Theory of Evolution in general, and burning the effigy means destroying the real thing.

Or look at the information shell game: all different kinds (Shannon, Fisher,...) may be used as aspects of the real information, like the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are aspects of the real god. Of course, an unbeliever will get that always wrong...

Date: 2009/11/13 10:10:09, Link
Author: DiEb
Quote
on ths board, we need More DiEb.

Thanks! I'm glad - btw - that P. Olofsson reiterated my concerns: hopefully, his comment isn't ignored - as dozens of mine are...

Date: 2009/11/15 15:16:04, Link
Author: DiEb
What can I say? I never waited longer than a day, but a couple of hours are usual to get published. At least one comment didn't show up at all - an innocuous question for W. Dembski.

Date: 2009/11/16 01:24:03, Link
Author: DiEb
I just wanted to comment on the thread, but comments are closed, so the following will not be published at UD:
Quote
Dear Dr. Dembski, the easiest way to get the article at rationalwiki taken down would be to show how  wrong the critique is.

Date: 2009/11/16 09:07:12, Link
Author: DiEb
Quote (midwifetoad @ Nov. 16 2009,08:38)
I peaked early in my career:

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y101673

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/06/and-the-winner.html

But what a peak it was! One of my favorites!

I put quite an effort in a lesson on Fourier theory for Sal - but this was especially futile, though fun...

Date: 2009/11/17 17:28:35, Link
Author: DiEb
Dembski didn't like it when I discussed Section I - III of his article The Search for a Search at RationalWiki. So, I just added a short paragraph on Section IV: IMO, Dembski's and Marks's formulation of the integral they use in their Theorem IV: Conservation of Uniformity doesn't make sense...

Date: 2009/11/19 14:13:05, Link
Author: DiEb
Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 17 2009,20:53)
 
Quote (DiEb @ Nov. 17 2009,17:28)
Dembski didn't like it when I discussed Section I - III of his article The Search for a Search at RationalWiki. So, I just added a short paragraph on Section IV: IMO, Dembski's and Marks's formulation of the integral they use in their Theorem IV: Conservation of Uniformity doesn't make sense...

Out of curiousity, has any response to their IEEE article "Conservation of Information in Search" been submitted.  I thought you were working with Tom English on one.

I was a little bit preoccupied with the whole "The Search for a Search", but, thankfully, Tom English is doing all the heavy lifting ;-)

Date: 2010/03/09 17:23:58, Link
Author: DiEb
I really had retired from the whole discussion of Dembski's papers - I was preoccupied with the real life. Most won't have noticed my silence, but I most certainly have others left disappointed by my inaction (my apologies, Tom and Olaf!)

But the new paper of Dembski really irks me. Wow, he found out that it's important to look at the number of queries, and at the exchange of information via the oracle - or as I put it here on Aug 26, 2009:
Quote
...And that's rather a pity: W. Dembski is a guy who is interested in information, and the amount of information which is transferred from a environment into the algorithm. He should be interested in the flow of this information: How is this information exchanged?
The answer: Via the conversation with the oracle....


Now, I've got to comments on the thread, waiting to be reviewed:

Quote
I haven't read the paper in detail yet. And it's a little bit hard to figure out the number of queries needed on average for various combination of parameters from the three-dimensional pics of the Active information per query. I'd like to compare these numbers with mine for the algorithm mutating children with a fixed mutation rate for L=28 and N=27 and L=100 and N=2. And of course the numbers for K children each with a single mutation, again for L=28 and N=27!

It's good that the exchange of information from oracle to program is looked at now - that got muddled up earlier.


and

Quote
at II C: Results: Figure 2(B) shows the active information per query for the ratchet strategy given different alphabet sizes and message lengths. Increasing the message length does not appear to significantly change the efficiency of active information extraction. However, increasing the alphabet size has a rather noticeable effect.

One should think so : As I calculated earlier - when [URL=http://rationalwiki.com/wiki....cussing[/URL]  Conservation of Information in Search - Measuring the Cost of Success - the expected number of queries for theOne Child Ratchet Algorithm  (a more common name would be ES(1+1)) with exactly one mutation per child is

E(Q) = (N-1) * H_(1-&beta;L)* L

so that the average information per query is
I = log(N)/(N-1) * 1/H_(1-&beta;L)

(&beta;: rate of correct letters to start with
H_k: k-th harmonic number)

Date: 2010/03/09 17:25:21, Link
Author: DiEb
Quote
The effect of log(N)/(N-1) is noticeable, the effect of of 1/H_(1-&beta;L) less so.

Date: 2010/03/10 13:11:57, Link
Author: DiEb
at deconstructing the dawkins weasel:
 
Quote

20
DiEb
03/10/2010
7:00 am
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

I started to have a closer look at the paper (section I, II, III A, III B, III C).


Comments are welcome at http://rationalwiki.com/wiki...._Oracle, too!

Date: 2010/03/11 03:33:56, Link
Author: DiEb
And another comment awaits moderation:
Quote
@William Dembski
Amusing thought: the remarkably good performance of the FOO Hamming oracle algorithms for the  Hamming oracle results in a much worse performance of this algorithm for other oracles  - an obvious conclusion of the No Free Lunch theorem.

@Winston Ewert: using the standard notation helps. But at least be consistent - your variance of ES(1+1) is  introduced as the Rachtet Strategy in this paper, and  was called Optimization by mutation with elitism in Conservation of Information.


I'll elaborate on this thoughts here.

Date: 2010/03/11 08:37:11, Link
Author: DiEb
Quote (JLT @ Mar. 11 2010,06:35)
Quote (DiEb @ Mar. 11 2010,09:33)
And another comment awaits moderation:
     
Quote
@William Dembski
Amusing thought: the remarkably good performance of the FOO Hamming oracle algorithms for the  Hamming oracle results in a much worse performance of this algorithm for other oracles  - an obvious conclusion of the No Free Lunch theorem.

@Winston Ewert: using the standard notation helps. But at least be consistent - your variance of ES(1+1) is  introduced as the Rachtet Strategy in this paper, and  was called Optimization by mutation with elitism in Conservation of Information.


I'll elaborate on this thoughts here.

There's an editing error at rational wiki, a superfluous "In the most simple of examples using a needle in a haystack" in the Footnotes section.
Otherwise, good work! Have you got a reaction by any of the authors, yet?  
Not that I really expect them to respond to criticism...

Thanks, I corrected it.
I never got any direct response, but some amusing indirect ones:

  • Dembski cried foul on my critique of his problematic article "The Search for a Search"
  • well, the article is delayed - and will look quite  different in print, I suppose

Date: 2010/03/16 12:36:36, Link
Author: DiEb
Again into moderation - at new peer reviewed id paper
 
Quote
I've a problem with your mutation rates: what you describe as mutation rate µ isn't what is observed when looking at the outcome of your algorithm - the effective mutation rate is just µ*(N-1)/N...

You got the effective mutation rate right in your earlier paper Conservation of Information in Search - Measuring the Cost of Success ? where you looked at a bit string: here, you toggled a bit with rate µ, sensibly forbidding that a bit changes into itself.

I think that this is the usual procedure.

Date: 2010/03/21 02:26:36, Link
Author: DiEb
Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 20 2010,22:22)
Quote
Actually, it looks like game board for the home edition of Mornington Crescent.

I thought about making that analogy.

Quote
Quote
Actually, it looks like game board for the home edition of Mornington Crescent.

I thought about making that analogy.


Surely the simplified version for children and non-Brits? With optional diagonals?

Date: 2010/03/23 04:20:23, Link
Author: DiEb
Quote (fnxtr @ Mar. 22 2010,23:03)
 
Quote (Tom Ames @ Mar. 22 2010,20:24)
     
Quote (fnxtr @ Mar. 22 2010,18:40)
       
Quote (Amadan @ Mar. 22 2010,09:21)
         
Quote (BillB @ Mar. 22 2010,03:42)
           
Quote (Amadan @ Mar. 22 2010,00:31)
               
Quote (Louis @ Mar. 21 2010,04:49)
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. Mornington Crescent eh?

Tut tut.

Fairlop.

Louis

Totteridge & Whetstone (Ha! It's still Sunday here! Bet you forgot about low tide too.)

It ain't Sunday any more, and it's the 22nd so ...

Mansion House.

Oh dear God, you're playing Purley Rules???

What a noob. Pathetic.

Pathetic?

Okay, I'm still a pre-novice, but I don't see that one on the map anywhere.

Is it near Parsons Green?

I see what you're doing. Screw you guys.

Dollis Hill.




(cough)daylightsavingstime(cough cough)

(I'll wait my turn)

Sorry to mention the obvious: Standard Greenwich Rule. Daylight-saving-time is unobserved  in correspondence Mornington Crescent.

Date: 2010/03/23 12:51:07, Link
Author: DiEb
Quote (sparc @ Mar. 23 2010,12:19)
Quote (Tom Ames @ Mar. 23 2010,12:05)
Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 23 2010,08:56)
Why would observation (or not) of daylight saving time matter? Are these Mornington Crescent trips timed?

Not at all. Rather, it's because your red tokens can't be shunted towards the secondary nexus when the obverse of the lane marker is exposed. (Which state is dependent--in part!--on the solar angle.)

I get the impression one has to be British or under the influence of drugs to grasp what you are talking about.

I'm sorry <i>you</i> haven't a clue...

Date: 2010/03/25 17:24:13, Link
Author: DiEb
just listening to the 1978/79 series of ISIHAC - wonderful stuff.
Carry on!

Date: 2010/03/29 18:32:17, Link
Author: DiEb
My impression of philosophers was always: They try to do mathematics - without proper definitions...

Date: 2010/04/06 12:32:20, Link
Author: DiEb
Quote (Bob O'H @ April 06 2010,12:02)
WmAD announces a new design for the E[v]IL website. Bookmark the errata now.

DiEb
04/06/2010
12:04 pm
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Quote
I see that there is an errata section: Wouldn't  this be the place to correct the errors in Conservation of Information in Search: Measuring the Cost of Success, too?

BTW: Could someone please have a look into the somewhat unusual use  of the term mutation rate in your paper Efficient Per Query Information Extraction from a Hamming Oracle (mentioned by me earlier in this thread)?
Thanks!

Date: 2010/04/07 01:28:03, Link
Author: DiEb
Quote (DiEb @ April 06 2010,12:32)
Quote (Bob O'H @ April 06 2010,12:02)
WmAD announces a new design for the E[v]IL website. Bookmark the errata now.

DiEb
04/06/2010
12:04 pm
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
 
Quote
I see that there is an errata section: Wouldn't  this be the place to correct the errors in Conservation of Information in Search: Measuring the Cost of Success, too?

BTW: Could someone please have a look into the somewhat unusual use  of the term mutation rate in your paper Efficient Per Query Information Extraction from a Hamming Oracle (mentioned by me earlier in this thread)?
Thanks!

I'm afraid that this comment has been moderated into the nirwana: perhaps they didn't like the link to Tom English's blog?

Date: 2010/04/07 10:41:56, Link
Author: DiEb
Kind of an anniversary...

I tried to find my oldest edit at Uncommon Descent, and it seems to be this one from Apr 2008 - so, it's kind of an anniversary: my comments have now been moderated for two years!

Though only four or so didn't appear, I seem to be still a kind of threat...

Date: 2010/04/08 01:37:39, Link
Author: DiEb
Quote (keiths @ April 07 2010,20:03)
A nice takedown by Sooner Emeritus:
 
Quote
Dr. Dembski,

It happens that I do regard the errors in calculation as nits on a contortionist elephant:

 
Quote
Conservation of information theorems indicate that any search algorithm performs, on average, as well as random search without replacement unless it takes advantage of problem-specific information about the search target or the search-space structure.

It takes more pages to disentangle your polymorphous misunderstanding of past work than are in “Conservation of Information in Search.”

However, the fact that four nits of miscalculation inhabit a single section of an article by “the Isaac Newton of Information Theory” is of some interest. It is much easier to show people with a modicum of mathematical literacy that you’re not careful with your math than to explain to them a) the so-called “conservation of information” theorems and b) your misunderstanding of those theorems.

So I say, more power to DiEb. It clearly takes him very little time to find errors that have eluded you, Prof. Marks, and your reviewers in the IEEE Systems, Man, and Cybernetics Society.

Thanks, Sooner Emeritus!
As W. Dembski asked for it, here is a concise list of his errors. I tried to comment on UD - at the moment, I'm in moderation, as usual:
Quote
Dear Dr. Dembski,
it’s Skitt’s law which states something like “any post correcting an error in another post will contain at least one error itself”. So, while I’m confident that my list is correct, there may be an error in it. But perhaps you could correct it, and we’ll converge to an ultimately error-free version of the paper?

The format of UncommonDescent doesn’t allow for a display of mathematical expressions, so I put the list here.

Date: 2010/04/08 03:23:19, Link
Author: DiEb
Quote (Tom Ames @ April 08 2010,02:10)
Given Dembski's steadfast belief in his inability to make errors, I think we should start calling him the "Pope of Information Theory".

LOL

Another post to W. Dembski re errata:
Quote
Dear Dr. Dembski,

essentially, it's the same list I sent to you (info AT designinference.com) and Robert Marks (Robert_Marks AT baylor.edu) in an (unanswered) email on Oct 17, 2009. How time flies! Or as you put it Your concerns will get addressed in due course.

Date: 2010/04/08 08:18:01, Link
Author: DiEb
Quote (Bob O'H @ April 08 2010,07:49)
I sense Friday coming on
 
Quote
19

William Dembski

04/08/2010

7:32 am

Sooner,

Robert Marks is the corresponding author on the papers in question. It is appropriate for him to be the contact person for DiEb and anyone else about them. That said, I’m not sure where you’re getting the impression that Prof. Marks has made any concessions to DiEb. Is DiEb himself suggesting to you that major retractions are on the way? I meet with Prof. Marks weekly and the impression I get from him is that you all are not to be taken very seriously.

By the way, what exactly are your qualifications? Bob Marks is world-class in the field of computational intelligence (which includes evolutionary computing). Do you care to dispute this? How do your publications stack up with his?

It seems to me that you confuse two types of errors. There are what you regard as misconceptions on our part about evolution. From our vantage, you are the ones with the problem of misconceiving. Then there are the straight-up mathematical/arithmetic errors (like an exponent being too large or too small). The latter errors are easily correctible and in no way undermine the conclusions we draw.

I’ve opened this forum for you to lay out both types of errors. You prefer simply to cite a long messy response that takes our paper without permission in full and then intersperses comments.

Having raised the charge of error, you now seem unwilling here to enumerate them. Another insulting post from you here in which you blow smoke and avoid specifics, and who knows, you may need to find another forum…

Oh, was that a threat?


Go on, Sooner & DiEb - post the criticisms there. You know we want you to.  :-)

Another one for the moderation queue:
Quote
Dear Dr. Dembski,
does it make sense to comment while my previous two comments are still held in moderation? Well, I'll try:
1. I have not conferred with Sooner Emeritus. However, Rob Marks told me that he preferred an email conversation over entries on blogs and wikis. Nevertheless, I carry on commenting on UD - and rationalwiki
2. I don't know whether there are concessions made to me, or whether there are major retractions on the way. Sadly, Rob Marks never addressed the content of my concerns to me directly. But if you are talking about The Search for a Search, I can only hope that the Horizontal No Free Lunch Theorem - if it still exists - and its proof will look considerably different in the upcoming publication from the one in the draft.
3. Here, I'm talking only about a couple of minor mathematical errors in Conservation of Information in Search, errors which could have been correct much earlier.
4. Generally, I have no problems with the conclusions you draw within your papers. Mostly, I can't follow the statements about your papers as made in the podcast with C. Luskin (something like: driving a nail in the coffin of Darwinian evolution - I don't know whether I understood that absolutely correctly), and in the announcements here at UD (deconstructing Dawkins's weasel)...
5. A concise list of these minor errors is just one click away.

Date: 2010/04/08 08:19:36, Link
Author: DiEb
Quote (Maya @ April 08 2010,08:15)
Quote (DiEb @ April 08 2010,01:37)
Thanks, Sooner Emeritus!
As W. Dembski asked for it, here is a concise list of his errors.

I think you have a typo in errata numbers 1 and 2.  The "actual" and "should" formulae are identical.

It's about minor errors - so, here the signs are different...

Date: 2010/04/08 11:55:33, Link
Author: DiEb
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ April 08 2010,11:36)
Slimy Sal:
 
Quote
Not necessarily because if the partitioned search performs better than Dawkins real weasel then a critique that demonstrates the insufficiency of the partitioned search will by implication demonstrate the insufficiency of Dawkins Weasel.

And
 
Quote
By the way DieB, can you state for the record whether you believe partitioned searches will find targets better on average than the real Weasel.

Sigh. Sal Sal Sal, when will you learn? Anybody fancy pointing Sal to any one of the innumerable analysis regarding Weasel?

I'm writing for the moderation ring:

Quote

The partitioned search as described in the paper Conservation of Information in Search does need quite a different fitness function (or oracle, if this pleases you more) from the weasel, and all the algorithms described in the later papers.

The real weasel doesn't find targets well - in terms of the number of queries necessary: Dembski et al. have shown in their last paper that there are deterministic algorithms which are way more efficient.

In fact, if we understand the oracle/fitness function thoroughly, we may be able to construct even an optimal algorithm: that's what the Search for a Search is about, I think.

The advantages of the weasel are the typical advantages of evolutionary algorithms:

1. it is easy to program
2. it is easy to understand
3. it gets results even when we don't understand the fitness functions completely (think TSP)

As I said earlier: it isn't about being the theoretically fittest, it's about being the fittest present - the story of the two hunters, the bear, and the pair of running shoes springs to my mind...

Quote
Not necessarily because if the partitioned search performs better than Dawkins real weasel then a critique that demonstrates the insufficiency of the partitioned search will by implication demonstrate the insufficiency of Dawkins Weasel.

I don't follow this logic.
And my argument is that the given rationale for the paper to be pro-ID doesn't hold any longer.
Of course, there may be other arguments how this paper is still pro-ID, I just haven't heard those yet.

Date: 2010/04/09 17:21:50, Link
Author: DiEb
Quote


35
DiEb
04/09/2010
4:40 pm

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Judging from the fact that – after a year of contributing to this site – I’m still hold in moderation, I have to assume that I’m classified as Potential Trouble. That’s unfortunate, but I can’t see what I can change about it, as I’m an ID-critic.

However, I would see it as a courtesy if the moderation process could be accelerated a little bit: In a discussion, it’s a little bit annoying if a comment doesn’t appear for over fifteen hours…

Date: 2010/04/10 01:50:00, Link
Author: DiEb
After a day of waiting for moderation, the only one who can read my edits is still me. So, I'll share my potentially troublesome edits here:

At Evolutionary Informatics Lab website receives facelift
 
Quote

33
DiEb
04/09/2010
12:47 am
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Dear Dr. Dembski,

I meet with Prof. Marks weekly and the impression I get from him is that you all are not to be taken very seriously.

Does this mean that the paper A Search for a Search will appear as drafted? And who is you all?



At We are not in Kansas anymore  
Quote

21
DiEb
04/09/2010
10:36 am

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Now, you have lost me completely. What do you think is the case against Dawkins? Perhaps you should re-read the paper in question – it can be easily found at the EIL.


Current Time at Uncommon Descent:
04/10/2010
1:46 am

Date: 2010/04/11 02:22:38, Link
Author: DiEb
General Questions:
At the moment, there are a couple of my comments waiting for moderation at Uncommon Descent - for up to two days (in the threads We are not in Kansas anymore and Evolutionary Informatics Lab website receives facelift). I can still see the comments, so they don't seem to be pulled ( or is this a case of I can read dead comments?)
  • Is there any chance that they will appear?
  • Whom to call? There aren't any contact addresses at Uncommon Descent!
  • Who is responsible for Uncommon Descent - and its moderation policy? I can't find any info on the site!
  • What's the current record for the longest (not infinite) period of moderation?

Date: 2010/04/11 16:14:37, Link
Author: DiEb
Quote (Freelurker @ April 11 2010,10:35)
Quote (DiEb @ April 11 2010,03:22)
General Questions:
At the moment, there are a couple of my comments waiting for moderation at Uncommon Descent - for up to two days (in the threads We are not in Kansas anymore and Evolutionary Informatics Lab website receives facelift). I can still see the comments, so they don't seem to be pulled ( or is this a case of I can read dead comments?)
  • Is there any chance that they will appear?
  • Whom to call? There aren't any contact addresses at Uncommon Descent!
  • Who is responsible for Uncommon Descent - and its moderation policy? I can't find any info on the site!
  • What's the current record for the longest (not infinite) period of moderation?

What I've been doing is to copy here any comment of mine I make at UD that doesn't get through moderation or that doesn't get through within about 18 hours. I include the timestamp of the comment.

I've had to do this with many of my comments, but all the ones for which I have done this in the last several months have ultimately appeared at UD. (Of course, often the thread has moved on and my comment is way back from the end.)

There are probably many people, both here and at UD, who want to see your comments and to respond to them. Please keep at it!

Not a bad idea. Indeed, my comments have appeared now, after a delay of one or two days  :)

So, I decided to get myself involved, again, at the thread we are not in Kansas anymore:

Quote

32
DiEb
04/11/2010
3:41 pm
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

The NFLT are formulated for sets of functions which are closed under permutation. The set of characteristic functions of single elements on the set ? is such a c.u.p. set – so, you can’t outperform random search if the only values you get from your oracle are found and not found.

The set of the functions of Hamming Distances to the elements of ? is of the same size as the previous set, but it isn’t c.u.p.

So, the NFLT doesn’t apply.


Quote


33
DiEb
04/11/2010
3:48 pm
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Suppose that I am given a fitness function from an unknown source and am asked to perform a search on it.

The problem is generally posed as: find the minimum of an unknown function f, knowing that f belong to a class of functions F.

Under the usual assumptions – i.e., everything is finite – there are more possible classes of functions F which are not c.u.p., than those which are c.u.p – so, generally it does make sense to look for an algorithm which works better than random search.

Date: 2010/04/12 03:46:12, Link
Author: DiEb
Just to document some amusing thoughts:
Quote
A usually, I'm not glad with the way the word information is used, and I don't think that the definition of active information is very helpful, as it only looks at the size of an underlying set &Omega; but not on the functions - which are generally in the focus of the NFLT.:

We have seen that the char. functions of one certain element and the Hamming distances to a certain element both form classes of functions of size |&Omega;|

Have a look at a third set of functions of size |&Omega;| which I will call eben's spoilers: Enumerate the N^L elements of  &Omega; and define the function set of functions es(&omega;,&phi;) by

es(&omega;,&omega;) = 0,

es(&omega;,&phi;) = #&omega; if &omega; &ne; &phi;

So, es(&omega;,...) tells you either: you found the value or you didn't find the value, but it is... .

A "search" on this set of functions can be completed in one step - I suppose that's the optimal set of functions when you make a search.

Obviously, this set of functions isn't c.u.p. (a minimal c.u.p. set of functions including the es(&omega;,...) would have (N^L)^2 elements - not that many in comparison with all functions on &Omega; taking values 0..N^L)

Date: 2010/05/02 04:10:21, Link
Author: DiEb
From Bio-Diversity's Author Guidelines:

Quote
To facilitate review, manuscripts should be prepared as MS Word documents (in Times or Times New Roman 12 pt with 1.5 line spacing) with numbered pages, complete with all elements (figures, tables, equations, etc.) that should be present in the final published PDF file.


They don't expect many mathematicians to publish there, I suppose...

Date: 2010/05/02 04:36:51, Link
Author: DiEb
Quote (MichaelJ @ May 02 2010,04:33)
Quote (DiEb @ May 02 2010,19:10)
From Bio-Diversity's Author Guidelines:

 
Quote
To facilitate review, manuscripts should be prepared as MS Word documents (in Times or Times New Roman 12 pt with 1.5 line spacing) with numbered pages, complete with all elements (figures, tables, equations, etc.) that should be present in the final published PDF file.


They don't expect many mathematicians to publish there, I suppose...

What do mathematicians normally do?

LaTeX/TeX (it really depends on their age, I presume)

It isn't easy to generate mathematical formulas in Word - and they look like crap.

Date: 2010/05/03 00:15:53, Link
Author: DiEb
Sooner Emeritus's take on the new peer-reviewed journal is a must-read:  
Quote
The conveniently redefined “innovative” peer-review process of BIO-Complexity is much less stringent than is the norm in scientific journals.
Quote
In short, this is a slap-dash process of getting articles posted on a website for debate. There is no requirement that the editor act as advised by the reviewers. At the same time, the editor does not take personal responsibility for the quality of an accepted article.

Well done!

Date: 2010/05/26 05:07:09, Link
Author: DiEb
I just inserted my 0.02€ into the moderation queue for the article Signature of Controversy: New Book Responds to Stephen Meyer’s Critics
Quote

DiEb
05/26/2010
4:48 am
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Was it really necessary to name the third part of the book Attack of the Pygmies? In the announcement of the discussion with Stephen Meyer at Biola university on May 14, 2010, the pygmy Steve Matheson is described as belonging to a powerful group of credentialed critics of Meyer’s “Intelligent Design” position!

Date: 2010/05/27 07:49:01, Link
Author: DiEb
My comments usually pop out of the moderation queue just in front of  some of kf's magna opera - so no one ever reads them. But - nevertheless - here is a new one, waiting to get ignored:
Quote
I'm just listening to Casey Luskin's podcast (Steve Matheson's Spell-Checking Gotcha Game) on his article in the book (Gotcha! On Checking Stephen Meyer's Spelling & Other Weighty Criticisms of "Signature in the Cell"). At 1'20'', he states:
Quote
Is there a reason why evolutionists so often increase the ad hominem attacks when their case is weak?

Perhaps it is the same reason why Luskin's article is printed in the section The Attack of the Pygmies: it seems to be human nature...

Date: 2010/05/28 07:38:44, Link
Author: DiEb
To honor Martin Gardner, bornagain presents us with some excellent examples of biblical nuttery: Calculating pi and e by using kabbalistic methods. My answer to his example:
 
Quote
@b77:

This is really silly: The author uses an ad-hoc method to derive a very big number  of which the leading six digits are the leading six digits of pi when expressed in decimal notation . Shouldn't the Bible use base 60? Or even better,  a representation independent of a base?

I'm sure that I can use similar methods to derive the value of pi from the works of JRR Tolkien.

Date: 2010/05/28 08:05:01, Link
Author: DiEb
Quote
b77 @ 50:
not only does the author of this piece rely on decimal fractions - which didn't arrive in Europe before 800 A.D., he uses the versification of the Bible, too: an human invention of the 7th-11th century (Old Testament) resp. 16th century (New Testament). This would have been a field day for M. Gardner!

Date: 2010/05/28 16:58:57, Link
Author: DiEb
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ May 28 2010,16:50)
Batshit77 says it all in a single paragraph
   
Quote
DiEb,

You have no basis in your objection. If you don’t like the implications of pi and e being found in Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1, in the ancient Hebrew and Greek, I really don’t care I will not justify your trivial nitpicking and unfounded bias against scripture.

Duh.

My (eventually) upcoming answer:
Quote
bornagain77:

1. To find this kind of numerology in a thread which is a tribute to the memory of Martin Gardner is highly ironic.

2. Do you have any idea why &pi; was encoded in a way that it was impossible to find it before 800 A.D.? Wasn't Europe ripe to handle this approximation?

3. You have no basis in your objection. Oh yes, I have. It's 10.

Date: 2010/05/30 05:07:40, Link
Author: DiEb
Wow, bornagain really is crazy. I like his tactic: you don't believe the biblical pi, wait, I've some more absurd speculations!

warehuff is doing a great job in debunking bornagain's claims - no wonder he gets insulted. Warehuff's main point:
  • Apply one formula to many instances, and you get a nice result somewhere, or
  • Apply many formulas to one instance, and something interesting should be found

I suppose that the author of www.biblemath.com used an hybrid approach: he applied a couple of formulas to a couple of verses :-)

BTW, my currently moderated comment:  
Quote
@bornagain:
1. There are more than 30,000 verses in the bible. This should be enough to construct any number up to four significant digits, especially as the author of www.biblemath.com is only interested in the mantissa.
2. Could you please explain to me why decimal fractions are used? No author prior to the 10th century would have thought of describing &pi; as  &pi; &asymp; 3 + 1/10 + 4/100 + 1/1000.
3. The author didn't explain why he uses his particular method: why not adding the values of the letters, and sum the products of the letters in the words? Why multiplying the numbers with the number of letters resp. the number of words instead of taking the average? There are many different ways to works with the letters - how many did he try before getting interesting results?

Date: 2010/05/30 07:52:32, Link
Author: DiEb
Quote (dvunkannon @ May 30 2010,05:41)
Quote (didymos @ May 29 2010,23:35)
batshit actually got in trouble:
 
Quote
bornagain77,

Don’t call other commenters insane.


Not banned though because, well, he's on the ID team.

Joe G went into moderation for about the same reason, and couldn't handle it. Perhaps BA^77 will suffer the same fate. I have no evidence that CLive actually likes the way BA tries to dominate the blog with all of his off topic videos and massive quotemines.

bornagain isn't in moderation - I can read his comment just one minute after it was inserted, while my own comment is still awaiting moderation.

His apology must have convinced everyone.

Date: 2010/05/30 10:07:46, Link
Author: DiEb
Quote (Quack @ May 30 2010,09:37)
What would UD be without him?

The same?
Now, I've got four comments in the moderation queue for the article on Martin Gardner (who used to eat the likes of bornagain alive)
 
Quote
72
DiEb
05/30/2010
4:57 am

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

@bornagain:
1. There are more than 30,000 verses in the bible. This should be enough to construct any number up to four significant digits, especially as the author of http://www.biblemaths.com is only interested in the mantissa.
2. Could you please explain to me why decimal fractions are used? No author prior to the 10th century would have thought of describing ? as ? ? 3 + 1/10 + 4/100 + 1/1000.
3. The author didn’t explain why he uses his particular method: why not adding the values of the letters, and sum the products of the letters in the words? Why multiplying the numbers with the number of letters resp. the number of words instead of taking the average? There are many different ways to works with the letters – how many did he try before getting interesting results?

 
Quote
77
DiEb
05/30/2010
7:52 am

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

bornagain77,
I’m always standing in awe when seeing how much explanation is needed to read the Bible literally!

 
Quote
81
DiEb
05/30/2010
8:44 am

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

? in Kings 7:23
There are many explanations for the apparent difference in measuring the diameter and the circumference of the sea, and some are quite plausible.

But the one given in the video ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikI6Bn-ZutQ ) was particularly ridiculous. BTW, bornagain, I would prefer to read text, and don’t have to sit through these videos…

 
Quote
82
DiEb
05/30/2010
9:00 am

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

@kairofocus
Reading hyperskeptically to find debater’s objection points is not the frame of mind that is likely to cause one to coherently understand.

I’m sorry, I don’t understand your comment. Do you think that the findings of http://www.biblemaths.com re the appearance of in Gen 1.1 and John 1.1 have any merit?

Date: 2010/05/30 10:32:58, Link
Author: DiEb
working for the queue:
Quote
@bornagain & http://www.apocalipsis.org/difficulties/pi.htm

While we know about the Babylonian (25/8)  and the Egyptian (256/81) approximations as they wrote about it and used it in calculations, is their any instance where the "Solomonic" approximation (333/106) is used - before this ratio was (re?)discovered by Adrian Athonisz in the 16th century?

Date: 2010/07/24 18:36:40, Link
Author: DiEb
Quote (midwifetoad @ July 24 2010,16:57)
Quote
Meanwhile Casey Luskin is trying to ride a horse


Thermodynamics equations always balance.

Every time evolution makes an advance, a creationist gets dumber.

:)

Date: 2010/08/07 00:20:38, Link
Author: DiEb
Fun for the weekend: The British are notoriously weak in mathematics

Andrew Schlafly (son of Phyllis Schlafly, creator of <a href="www.conservapedia.com" target="_blank">Conservapaedia</a> - the young-earth-christian, complex-number-abhoring answer to <a href="en.wikipedia.org" target="_blank">wikipedia</a>) shows that the British are notoriously weak in mathematics and that The relative weakness of Britain in mathematics is an objective fact.,  - a fun thing to share with colleagues in the U.K.

Above this, you'll find a textbook example of selection bias...

Date: 2010/08/07 00:24:33, Link
Author: DiEb
Fun for the weekend: The British are notoriously weak in mathematics

Andrew Schlafly (son of Phyllis Schlafly, creator of Conservapedia - the young-earth-christian, complex-number-abhoring answer to wikipedia) shows that the British are notoriously weak in mathematics and that the relative weakness of Britain in mathematics is an objective fact  - a fun thing to share with colleagues in the U.K.

Above this, you'll find a textbook example of selection bias...

Date: 2010/08/07 02:27:18, Link
Author: DiEb
Quote (didymos @ Aug. 07 2010,01:52)
 
Quote (DiEb @ Aug. 06 2010,22:24)
Fun for the weekend: The British are notoriously weak in mathematics

Ah, yes.  This is clearly true. Just consider, oh, say...Hardy, Russel, Turing, De Morgan, Newton, Boole, Lord Kelvin, Babbage, Stokes, Venn, etc.   Bunch of fucking amateurs.  Footnotes in mathematical history at best.

Andrew Schlafly can answer this:
 
Quote
Hamilton was Irish, for example, and Newton was pre-modern and pre-Britain.


 
Quote
Brits, we're talking about mathematicians in this thread. Do you know what a mathematician is? That's not a physicist (Penrose), a computer geek (Lovelace, Babbage, Turing), or a political hack (Russell).


More to come, I'm sure :-)

Date: 2010/08/30 02:20:44, Link
Author: DiEb
W. Dembski announces that the Search for a Search is finally out. (Nothing about it being the coffin nail to Darwinism, though). As comments are turned off, I added my two cents at one of O'Leary's coffee threads's moderation queue:
Quote
@W. Dembski and R. Marks
Congrats for getting the paper out - and thanks for the kind acknowledgment!

I'm afraid that I have still a problem with the paper (which I mentioned in an email to R. Marks and on which I elaborated here), but I hope that this will be resolved by more careful reading :-)

Date: 2010/08/30 04:38:09, Link
Author: DiEb
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Aug. 30 2010,04:04)
 
Quote (DiEb @ Aug. 30 2010,02:20)
(snip) - and thanks for the kind acknowledgment!

I thought you were joking until I checked the paper. So they want to secure your help for future projects - and you give it for free, too.

Perhaps I should have chosen anonymity - as this C.J. guy did :-)
   
Quote
Quote
I'm afraid that I have still a problem with the paper (which I mentioned in an email to R. Marks and on which I elaborated here), but I hope that this will be resolved by more careful reading :-)
Will the link survive?

Will the comment appear in a timely manner is the more pressing question...

Date: 2010/08/30 06:05:26, Link
Author: DiEb
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Aug. 30 2010,05:39)
Never mind "search for a search", the saga that could use some telling is the "search for a publisher". JACIII comes in second from last in this ranking of journals and conferences.

It comes second from last only due to the alphabet :-)
It's a joined last place with the other to unranked publications...

Date: 2010/08/30 08:38:39, Link
Author: DiEb
There are two possible ways to argue with cargo cultists: the first is to dismiss the whole cult ( It's one big "Duh"), the second is to show problems within the practice. In this venue, I try to show to them that they got their signals wrong....

Date: 2010/08/30 09:50:01, Link
Author: DiEb
Quote (dvunkannon @ Aug. 30 2010,09:22)
 
Quote (BillB @ Aug. 30 2010,07:49)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Aug. 30 2010,11:39)
Most of its citations will likely be from themselves taking "search for a search" as if it were established in future papers.

and most of the citations in this are to their own earlier work

Is this the first cite for Dr^2's own 1990 paper on Uniform Probability?

No.

Date: 2010/08/30 23:46:19, Link
Author: DiEb
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Aug. 30 2010,18:35)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Aug. 30 2010,06:09)
I took some notes during Dembski's lecture at UCSD back on 2001/04/25. Dembski ran through his "search for a search" idea there.

     
Quote


     
Quote


So what about the Darwinian mechanism?
Dembski at this point mentioned NFL, and asserted that DM suffers from a "displacement problem".

If we are told that a buried treasure exists on an island, how do we find it?  Blind search doesn't work; can't dig up every spadeful of an island to find the treasure.

So, the DM is equivalent to finding the tresure map that leads to the treasure.  But you have to pick the *right* treasure map out of the collection of treasure maps.  This search is even more intractable than the original search.




I think Dembski is way off base here.  The "treasure map" is Dembski's analogy to a fitness function for a problem.  In biology, there is no "search" for the fitness function; it is inherent in the configuration of the environment.  For a GA solving a TSP, for example, a fitness function is provided, not searched for, and the biology shows no such "search" process as Dembski discusses.



That's from an email I sent out on 26 Apr 2001.

And that's still the case, so far as I can tell, with the current work. Dembski and Marks go to a great deal of trouble to tell us that environments have information, and that algorithms exploit that information in order to find solutions relevant to that environment. If one doesn't provide an algorithm with the fitness function that is the stand-in for an environment, the algorithm can't find a solution. It's one big "Duh".

   
Quote (DiEb @ Aug. 30 2010,08:38)
There are two possible ways to argue with cargo cultists: the first is to dismiss the whole cult ( It's one big "Duh"), the second is to show problems within the practice. In this venue, I try to show to them that they got their signals wrong....


English may not be your native tongue, so some distinctions in colloquial English may be appropriate.

A dismissal is consistently bereft of supporting argument. One often dismisses a position as an effort-saving measure, where one doesn't actually produce an argument as to why that position is not worth considering, but trusts that one's audience will agree as to the worthlessness of the position in question.

An assessment, on the other hand, is a summary of the effect of previously-given argumentation.

I've quoted my post that you took the quote from. The post does not support terming "It's one big 'Duh'," as a dismissal. The context argues that it is, in fact, an assessment.

I'll note that you don't have to agree with an argument to recognize that one has been given.

I'm sorry if I got this wrong. In fact, I totally agree with you.

Date: 2010/08/31 02:01:59, Link
Author: DiEb
As I didn't get an answer to my last mail to R. Marks, I wrote again:
 
Quote
Hi Bob,
I still can't get my mind around the proof of the HNFL theorem. I thought of a simple example: a shell game with three shells {1,2,3}, the original target being {1},  and a search of two guesses. Then the augmented space is Omega_2={(1,2),(1,3),(2,1),(2,3),(3,1),(3,2)} and the "augmented" target is {(1,2),(1,3),(2,1),(2,3)}. Let psi be the measure induced by the random search without repetition.

Now, in the proof of the HNFL a partition of the (augmented) space is introduced. How can a non-trivial partition of Omega_2 be given? If I set T_1 = {(1,2),(1,3),(2,1),(2,3)}, I get T_2 = {(2,3),(3,2)}. And though T_2 is measurable due to psi, this measure doesn't make any sense in terms of a search in the original, non-augmented space...

I would be glad if you could help me to get this straight.

Yours
Di… Eb…

Nota bene: I don't think that the "HNFL theorem" is wrong per se, in fact - in the discrete case - it looks like a reformulation of the NFL theorem with fitness functions taking values in {0,1}...

Date: 2010/08/31 09:12:53, Link
Author: DiEb
Just for archiving: I added this comment to B. Arrington's post..
Quote
Just for something completely different: The thread on the new paper of R. Marks II and W. Dembski <i>A Search for the Search</i> doesn't allow for commenting. I suppose that there is quite an interest in discussing this paper here at Uncommon Descent. Can't the thread be opened for comments? Or can another post be created for the discussion? Thanks!

Date: 2010/08/31 11:59:14, Link
Author: DiEb
Another take on the Horizontal No Free Lunch Theorem. R0b made I comment along these lines, I think...

Date: 2010/09/01 00:59:39, Link
Author: DiEb
Just two question for W. Dembski (perhaps appearing sometimes here):
Quote
Nice idea! Of course, there will be some quibbling about the details...

For something completely different: Congrats to you and R. Marks for the publication of <i>The search for a Search</i> - and thanks for naming me in the acknowledgements. Just two questions concerning the <i>active information</i> as defined in eq. (10) in section 3.1 - I have a little bit trouble with the concept:

1. Generally, the measures &psi; and &phi; when induced by a search will depend on the target T. So, what is the meaning of  I+(&phi;|&psi)(T') = lb(&phi;(T')) - lb(&psi;(T')), if T' isn't the target T? (elaboration)

2. In (2.1), you showed how to construct the augmented search space &Omega;_Q when confronted with a search for a T &sube; &Omega; existing from Q queries. This leads to looking for an <i>augmented</i> target T_Q in &Omega;_Q. But for Q > 1, there is no partition of &Omega;_Q into sets T_Q representing targets in &Omega;. So, what's the meaning of +(&phi;|&psi)(T') = lb(&phi;(T')) - lb(&psi;(T')), if T' isn't a feasible target? (elaboration)

Date: 2010/09/21 07:30:43, Link
Author: DiEb
Pythagoras famously drowned the fellow who discovered that Sqrt(2) was neither even nor odd.

Nope.

Date: 2010/10/07 16:55:05, Link
Author: DiEb
Without much fanfare, Dembski and Marks published there paper The Search for a Search a couple of weeks ago.

While it is better than there draft, it just does not work. Rob (I assume, it is R0b) wrote an interesting critique (here his pdf), and I planned to write a letter to the publisher (but I haven't followed through yet).

At least, I updated thoughts on this for RationalWiki. The article need much polishing, and I haven't included everything I wanted yet, but I would rather enjoy some feedback! So, please do have a look at:

The Search for a Search - Measuring the  Information Cost of Higher Level Search

Date: 2010/10/07 17:02:46, Link
Author: DiEb
there -> their

Date: 2010/10/11 02:01:53, Link
Author: DiEb
Meanwhile, at Michael Shermer vs. William Dembski streamed debate tonight, 7:00pm CST, the following comment is awaiting moderation:
 
Quote

The audio was atrocious - so, I had to stop listening after a couple of minutes: I would like to read a transcript sometimes! Did they discuss Dr. Dembski's latest publication, i.e., The Search for a Search? I've still some problems with this paper, and here is a simple example highlightening one of those:

Bernoulli vs. Clark Kent

When discussing the consequences of their Horizontal No Free Lunch theorem, the authors W. Dembski and R. Marks state:
Quote
Because the active entropy is strictly negative, any uninformed assisted search will on average perform worse than the baseline search.
Here, the baseline search is the blind search. But what is an assisted search? As an example, the authors have introduced the perfect search
Quote
an assisted search guaranteed to succeed
Let's look at an example: a shell game - three shells, one pea. The operator is a fair man, who will hide the pea with probability 1/3 under any of the three shells.

The players are Bernoulli and Clark Kent. Knowing the paper of W. Dembski and R. Marks on the HNFLT, Bernoulli makes a guess at random, using a uniform distribution on the shells.

Clark Kent just picks the shell which hides the pea (remember - Clark Kent is Superman...), thereby performing a perfect search.

Who fares better? According to W. Dembski and R. Marks, both do equally well: observing the picking pattern of Clark Kent, they conclude that Clark Kent uses a uniform measure on the search space - as Bernoulli does. Putting these numbers into the the HNFLT, they see that Clark Kent's method  doesn't add any active information on average: unfortunately, the mathematics of their paper has no way to deal with a strategy which is influenced by the position of the target (as any assisted search would be.)

Date: 2010/10/23 01:35:00, Link
Author: DiEb
It isn't only about an old Earth - so here my comment for the moderation queue:
Quote
Dear Dr. Dembski,

thank you for clarifying your positions: so, you think that the best interpretation of Genesis in light of the scientific evidence is that the world is old and that a global flood has happened?

Date: 2010/10/23 01:59:41, Link
Author: DiEb
And just another thought for Dr. Dembski:
Quote

15
DiEb
10/23/2010
1:54 am

Your comment is awaiting moderation

I might add that my views on Christian theology should be just as irrelevant for evaluating the scientific evidence I present for intelligent design as Richard Dawkins’ views on atheism are irrelevant for evaluating the scientific evidence he presents for Darwinism.

Indeed, well said! I assume that in the future we won't see any articles on Darwin's views on these matters here at Uncommon Descent?

IMO, the way a scientists incorporates the geological evidence into a framework of a global flood says a lot about his approach to science in general.

Date: 2010/10/28 04:27:00, Link
Author: DiEb
It’s Amazing What Evolution Can Do!
or
The usual pattern, again...

1. A puffed-up press-release for an upcoming article in a scientific magazine is found. The journalist's hyperbole is even inflated:
 
Quote
This article here recounts the now documented ability of bees to solve the “traveling salesman problem” faster than computers.


2. Other editors advice for a more careful approach to the article, not the usual it is so complicated, ergo God did it.

3. Of course, these editors are ridiculed :
 
Quote
If the problem was so simple, then why do the scientists say that it would take a computer days to figure out the right optimization?


4. ba77 spouts nonsense.

5. And - of course - the critical editors were right:

 
Quote

DiEb
10/27/2010
8:02 am

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

I can’t read the article, but here is the abstract:
 
Quote
[...] We analyzed bee flight movements in an array of four artificial flowers maximizing interfloral distances. Starting from a single patch, we sequentially added three new patches so that if bees visited them in the order in which they originally encountered flowers, they would follow a long (suboptimal) route. Bees’ tendency to visit patches in their discovery order decreased with experience. Instead, they optimized their flight distances by rearranging flower visitation sequences. This resulted in the development of a primary route (trapline) and two or three less frequently used secondary routes. Bees consistently used these routes after overnight breaks while occasionally exploring novel possibilities[...]

So, they are solving the TSP for four nodes: there are six possible ways to visit the nodes, three when you neglect the orientation. What the text is saying is that the bees have an brutal force approach to the problem (This resulted in the development of a primary route (trapline) and two or three less frequently used secondary routes.), but are generally able to memorize they shortest way found.

BTW, in their paper Trapline foraging by bumble bees: IV. Optimization of route geometry in the absence of competition (Behavioral Ecology, September 29, 2006) the authors Kazuharu Ohashi, James D. Thomson,  and Daniel D’Souza used 10 artificial flowers and showed that bees generally don’t follow the optimal path, but seem to be able to memorize earlier traplines.


5. And as this editor was right, it will take ages for his comment to appear (one day and counting...)

Date: 2010/10/28 08:22:13, Link
Author: DiEb
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 28 2010,06:16)
I see that the abstract also notes that the bees engage in scouting behavior, like my earlier comment here mentioned.

An n of four? Yeah, that's quite some hyperbole they got going in the publicity for the paper.

The hyperbolic school of counting:
 
Quote
one, two, many, infinite


Your earlier comment was spot-on: The paper hasn't much to do with the TSP as mathematics or computer scientists understand it - it is more about the ability of the bees to remember a short path they used before...

Date: 2010/10/30 02:41:51, Link
Author: DiEb
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 29 2010,05:28)
DiEb, your comment finally appeared on the bee TSP thread.

Indeed, it is! Does anybody know how this whole moderation thing works? Who moderates? The author of the thread? PaV clearly lost interest in his article when it became clear that his Gottesbeweis was based on the irreducible complexity of finding the shortest way on a square...

So, he hasn't any incentive to moderate my comments through ..
Quote
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

PaV: By just doing something over and over again, with little changes accumulating, a ‘computer,’ better than any we have, somehow comes into existence.

Abstract: We analyzed bee flight movements in an array of four artificial flowers maximizing interfloral distances.

This shows again how careful one should be when reading an blog entry on an article in a newspaper which was itself based on the press release on the actual scientific research (which was most probably not written by the scientists themselves, but by the press office of their institute): it is like a play of grapevine where each player is a little bit more sensationalist than the previous one.

Date: 2010/11/02 01:58:52, Link
Author: DiEb
Just for the record...
 
Quote
4
DiEb
11/02/2010
1:51 am

PaV
 
Quote
This makes me wonder why you have chosen to select such “simple situations” such as 4 different flower locations?

Again, here is an excerpt of the abstract (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/657042)  of the paper Travel Optimization by Foraging Bumblebees through Readjustments of Traplines after Discovery of New Feeding Locations (Mathieu Lihoreau,Lars Chittka and Nigel E. Raine) the press-release was based on. Haven't you read it?

"[..]We analyzed bee flight movements in an array of four artificial flowers maximizing interfloral distances. Starting from a single patch, we sequentially added three new patches so that if bees visited them in the order in which they originally encountered flowers, they would follow a long (suboptimal) route. [..]"

 
Quote
Are you trying to stack the deck? Or are you trying to search for the truth?

You could have answered these slightly slanderous questions by yourself just by reading the abstract...

Date: 2010/11/04 11:43:35, Link
Author: DiEb
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 04 2010,10:44)
PaV:
   
Quote
DiEb: I’ve looked at the paper; it’s available online. Indeed, it was only four artificial flowers. In one of the popular reports I had read that they used ten artificial flowers, and that was the reason for the above calculation and and inferences. And, I must add, if it is only four flower locations, then, yes, indeed, this is somewhat on the trivial side since brute force techniques could solve it.

But the other PaV:
   
Quote
Now the experiment included only four locations, but the implication is this: are bees that are out in the open, who perhaps are sampling dozens of locations on a particular day, able to solve that problem? It would appear they can. If this is true in nature, and there is reason to believe this is true, then how do bees out in nature solve a problem that would take a supercomputer days to solve? The question still appears to stand. And Darwinians still have to explain it.

ID research: Don't like the facts? Make up your own. Then demand that Darwinists explain them.

It's amusing: PaV sees micro-optimization (four flowers), and therefore thinks that macro-optimization (thousands of flowers) happens...

Unfortunately, bees generally fail to optimize their path even with ten flowers (the comment is in the moderation queue...)

Date: 2010/11/05 07:27:14, Link
Author: DiEb
Wow, congrats: this vibrant magazine is now on the market for six months! Check it out for its new thought-provoking articles... Even the The Evolutionary Informatics Lab  (www.evoinfo.org)  has an article under submission there. It hasn't been published yet - most probably the peers are to busy reading all the other papers coming in...

Date: 2010/11/25 04:15:58, Link
Author: DiEb
In the comments to Glasgow Humanists  Unable To Mount Successful Argument Against Behe AussieID selectively quotes from the Dover Trial to create the impression that Behe's books were peer reviewed.

My answer - as usually awaiting moderation patiently:  
Quote
Later in the same Q-and-A section of the Dover trial, a text of Dr. Michael Atchison is quoted. Atchison was identified by Dr. Behe as one of the five peer reviewers. Atchison describes his involvement in his article Mustard Seeds (a text where he stresses the importance "for us to share our faith and to identify ourselves as Christians")
Quote
The editor shared his concerns with his wife. His wife was a student in my class. She advised her husband to give me a call. So, unaware of all this, I received a phone call from the publisher in New York. We spent approximately 10 minutes on the phone. After hearing a description of the work, I suggested that the editor should seriously consider publishing the manuscript. I told him that the origin of life issue was still up in the air. It sounded like this Behe fellow might have some good ideas, although I could not be certain since I had never seen the manuscript. We hung up and I never thought about it again. At least until two years later.
I had never seen the manuscript....? Indeed, this can’t be compared to journal peer review.

Date: 2010/12/03 15:01:53, Link
Author: DiEb
vjtorley defends the Manhattan Declaration in the article Taking Manhattan out of the Apple? He is surprised that someone could think that this declaration is condescending or hurtful. And to show how harmless the declaration is, he uses one of the favourite tools of the godly men: quote-mining. I bolded the passage of the text he actually quotes - and in normal font, you find (part of) the text he indicates by three little dots. He uses 100 words of five paragraphs with over 1000 words!
 
Quote
We acknowledge that there are those who are disposed towards homosexual and polyamorous conduct and relationships, just as there are those who are disposed towards other forms of immoral conduct. We have compassion for those so disposed; we respect them as human beings possessing profound, inherent, and equal dignity; and we pay tribute to the men and women who strive, often with little assistance, to resist the temptation to yield to desires that they, no less than we, regard as wayward. We stand with them, even when they falter. We, no less than they, are sinners who have fallen short of God's intention for our lives. We, no less than they, are in constant need of God's patience, love and forgiveness. We call on the entire Christian community to resist sexual immorality, and at the same time refrain from disdainful condemnation of those who yield to it. Our rejection of sin, though resolute, must never become the rejection of sinners. For every sinner, regardless of the sin, is loved by God, who seeks not our destruction but rather the conversion of our hearts. Jesus calls all who wander from the path of virtue to "a more excellent way." As his disciples we will reach out in love to assist all who hear the call and wish to answer it. -- two further paragraphs of 703 words omitted --
And so it is out of love (not "animus") and prudent concern for the common good (not "prejudice"), that we pledge to labor ceaselessly to preserve the legal definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman and to rebuild the marriage culture. How could we, as Christians, do otherwise?


Now, he asks  
Quote
Some readers may disagree with these sentiments­; but there’s no condescens­ion here. Notice the wording: “We, no less than they, are sinners.


A short answer - by no means complete:
  • We have compassion for those so disposed is condescending
  • Comparing relationships between consenting adults with other forms of immoral conduct isn't nice, either
  • wayward?
  • And then there is the whole dichotomy we Christian sinners - those sinners.


just ranting...

Date: 2010/12/04 17:38:51, Link
Author: DiEb
I've to comments awaiting moderation on this thread:
Quote
4
DiEb
12/03/2010
3:21 pm
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

We acknowledge that there are those who are disposed towards homosexual and polyamorous conduct and relationships, just as there are those who are disposed towards other forms of immoral conduct. We have compassion for those so disposed;

….there’s no condescens­ion here?
Quote
34
DiEb
12/04/2010
6:07 pm
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

I’ve to agree with markf. And for our society, it is not important whether some acts are regarded as immoral by some religious groups, but whether these acts are performed by consenting adults: therefore, homosexual acts and pedophile acts aren’t equivalent – a minor can’t consent in a meaningful way!
Frankly, I've not much hope that comment no. 4 will ever appear....

Date: 2011/01/21 02:18:23, Link
Author: DiEb
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 20 2011,22:15)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Jan. 20 2011,21:58)
chunky old buddy old pal?

   
Quote
How can you live with yourself? Why aren't you bitching about Panda's Thumb moderating, censoring, and banning??


he said without fear of being moderated, censored, or banned.  what a maroon


Really? Then why is this in the lower right corner of every post here?

"Report this post to a moderator"

Ever heard of spam?

Date: 2011/02/05 00:45:02, Link
Author: DiEb
For the first time in ages, a comment of mine didn't make it out of the moderation queue, but seems to be thrown out altogether. Sigh, I will never be trusted enough to be able to comment without moderation.

But here it is, for posterity :-)

On Denise O'Leary's Coffee: Atheism as a major cause of obesity thread, I tried to respond with:

Quote
@Denise,
I looked into the ramblings of Conservative at Conservapedia. As you say that he is your friend, shouldn't you help him - not by encouraging his obsessive behavior and making him the laughing stock of the web by advertising his ideas, but by vetting his half-baked theories? You are an accomplished writer, can't you at least do something with regard to his stile?

Date: 2011/02/08 10:19:20, Link
Author: DiEb
Nature of Nature is the book to get … right now! - O'Leary
Quote
If Bill, and senior editor Bruce Gordon,  had just been willing to swallow the Darwinade ladled out to them, they could be pontificating today from some secure chair.

... and not to loose another job, Bill swallowed Noah's flood.

Date: 2011/10/06 06:15:52, Link
Author: DiEb
The spelling errors in Prof. Dr? Schirrmacher aren't very promising: it should be Schirrmacher studierte Theologie an der STH Basel. Er promovierte jeweils an den Univeritäten Kampen, NL...
  • STH Basel is the Staatsunabhängige Theologische Hochschule Basel, i.e., the state-independent theological university at Basel, Switzerland.
  • there are/were two protestant/evangelical universities in Kampen (not Kampten!): The Theologische Universiteit Kampen (Oudestraat) and the Theologische Universiteit Kampen (Broederweg). The first is recognized by the Protestantse Kerk in Nederland, the biggest protestant church in the Netherlands with 1,900,000 members, the latter recognized by the Gereformeerde Kerken vrijgemaakt ("liberated reformed church") with its 124,000 members. We have to guess which institute gave  Dr? Schirrmacher his first doctor...

Date: 2011/10/06 06:17:15, Link
Author: DiEb
That's odd: in the preview, I could see  my superscript 4 after the Dr, now it's a quotation mark - equally fitting, I'm afraid...

Date: 2011/10/06 06:32:16, Link
Author: DiEb
And the oddest thing: his legitimate doctorate from the university of Bonn isn't mentioned at all...

Date: 2011/12/26 08:08:48, Link
Author: DiEb
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Dec. 26 2011,05:50)
Quote (Woodbine @ Dec. 26 2011,04:59)
It gets better/worse.

Best New Conservative Words

It has to be a Poe. It has to be.

:(

You don't think "user Jwc" pulled Conservapedia's interesting statistics about the rise and thriumph of conservative words - complete with graph, no less - out of ... thin air?

Best New Conservative Words is a brain(?)child of Andrew Schlafly. Some interesting exchanges are in the archives of the talk page, like:

http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Es....ed_Test

http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Es....CENTURY

http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Es....be_True

http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Es....aphs...

Andrew Schlafly is the perfect example of a self-righteous YEC. For laughs, read the following pages (and have a look at the talk-pages, where generation after generation of blocked editor tries to talk some sense into him):

http://conservapedia.com/Counter....d_Earth

http://conservapedia.com/Counter....ativity

http://conservapedia.com/Counter....olution

Date: 2012/01/18 23:29:28, Link
Author: DiEb
Quote (sparc @ Jan. 18 2012,22:58)
Quote (J-Dog @ Jan. 18 2012,17:56)
Quote (Freddie @ Jan. 18 2012,16:23)
 
Quote (Bob O'H @ Jan. 18 2012,15:20)
Oh poo - UD seems to be down
   
Quote
The most likely causes are the server is down for maintenance, there may be a network problem, or the site may be experiencing excessive load.

Excessive load?

They're blocking the UD site for a while to demonstrate their displeasure at SOPA/PIPA.

They don't think it goes far enough.

Dembski's explanation: Evil Darwinists, or Saint Hitchens.

UD never had problems with other people's copyright. However, IIRC Dembski considered their material and even the content of comments posted by his opponents as something special. Didn't he even threaten to sue ATBC because of alleged copyright infringement.?

http://www.uncommondescent.com/legal....ngement

Date: 2012/02/18 05:47:56, Link
Author: DiEb
Have I missed something? What happened to the nested comments? Did they get rid of this annoying feature?

Date: 2012/02/19 04:38:03, Link
Author: DiEb
I'm not banned at the moment, but my comments over there tend to stay in the moderation queue for two or more days. Amusingly, this period is often shortened when I repost my comments here - so please bear with me.

Bill Dembski on the Evolutionary Informatics Lab – the one a Baylor dean tried to shut down

Quote
DiEb
February 19, 2012 at 4:26 am
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Robert Marks III is a renowned scientists who is used to publish his research in peer-reviewed journals where it will be discussed properly, too.

Unfortunately that doesn't hold for his collaborations with William Dembski: AFAIK there has been no discussion of these papers in peer-reviewed journals - it's all but ignored. Frankly I think that most mathematicians believe it is to much on the fringe to be taken seriously.

That leaves places like ScienceBlog and RationalWiki the only venues where Dembski & Marks's work is addressed. But Dembski & Marks chose not to answer to critics over there (although they may incorporate some of the points made there in their work.)

Summary: Dembski & Marks don't get the attention they want in the journals, and they ignore unwanted attention (as Robert Marks wrote once: "<i>I have a policy not to engage in correspondence with anyone publically critical of me or my work.</i>")

What's left is an eerie silence...

Date: 2012/02/25 01:43:58, Link
Author: DiEb
Do Materialists Believe Rape is Wrong?

Short answer: yes, rape is wrong.

Long answer: Barry, you disgusting prick, rape is wrong.

Date: 2012/02/27 04:01:30, Link
Author: DiEb
Quote

DiEb
February 27, 2012 at 3:40 am
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

It looks like the Darwinists other than ThoughtSpark have been struck dumb.

I don’t think so – I assume that most of us believe that the question is just a provocation, and utterly malformed. But nevertheless, I will answer the question:

Materialists generally believe that rape is wrong.

Certainly there are various lines of reasoning to argue why materialists believe that rape is wrong, but there is no doubt that they believe it: there is no movement to promote rape in secular countries, rapists are despised and condemned in agnostic societies, etc.

Date: 2012/02/27 04:56:57, Link
Author: DiEb
Quote (Bob O'H @ Feb. 27 2012,04:48)
Quote (CeilingCat @ Feb. 26 2012,23:36)
Quote (sparc @ Feb. 26 2012,23:27)
Is anybody aware of the upcoming Marks, Behe, Dembski, Sandford book Biological Information: New Perspectives.

I wonder what drove Springer to publish it. Maybe because the title of the conference was simolar to those organized by the Novartis Foundation New Perspective series.
You may want to reserve an online book review copy.

$179.00!!

It will be a cold day in Hell...

Yeah, Springer do tend to be expensive.

The site is under maintenance at the moment, so once it's working again, I'm going to ask them why they are publishing a book about biology under "engineering".

Quote
In the spring of 2011, a diverse group of scientists gathered at Cornell University to discuss their research into the nature and origin of biological information. This symposium brought together experts in information theory, computer science, numerical simulation, thermodynamics, evolutionary theory, whole organism biology, developmental biology, molecular biology, genetics, physics, biophysics, mathematics, and linguistics. This volume presents new research by those invited to speak at the conference.


Is there any coverage of this symposion?

Date: 2012/02/27 10:42:45, Link
Author: DiEb
That's the only description of the Cornell Symposium which I could find:

http://www.soulcare.org/gsinew_....ce.html

Date: 2012/02/27 11:16:18, Link
Author: DiEb
FYI:
Quote

DiEb
February 27, 2012 at 10:30 am
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

     
Quote
That’s the spirit Died! Good for you.

Thanks, Darry!

     
Quote
Sadly, you are arguing at cross purposes with yourself. You assert Kant’s categorical imperative (in the original German no less; that certainly makes it sound more impressive). Then you advance a utilitarian consequentialist argument. The problem with this approach is that Kant developed the categorical imperative precisely in opposition to consquentialist arguments.  


Kant chided the utilitarians for being subjective, he had no problem with a consequentialist argument – as you may find out when you read the whole wiki-article.

     
Quote
So your utilitarian argument (i.e., it threatens society) fails to establish any sort of grounding for morality. Certainly it does not explain why we treat humans differently from apes. Finally, it assumes its conclusion. When you say rape “threatens” society that is just another way of saying rape is wrong, which is the very question to be determined in the first place.


Following the Categorical Imperative allows us to build a complex society, based on devision of labor. Acting against it is wrong.

     
Quote
This ,[i.e. the Categorical Imperative] is not quite the same as the Golden Rule, but it is pretty much the same concept. Certainly I agree that it is an excellent rule for moral behavior. Yet you have given me absolutely no reason, on materialist grounds, to follow it. Why should I follow the Golden Rule instead of the rule that says take whatever you want when you want it?


Indeed, the Golden Rule is only a part of the Categorical Imperative. Imagine the world in which everyone follows the rule take whatever you want when you want it. Would you like to live in it? I don’t think that you’ll find central heating in such a world, let alone message boards and blogs. So such a rule should not become a universal law.

     
Quote
And grounding us once again in the OP, you have not yet addressed the question of why a human should consider himself bound by the Golden Rule when we expect no such thing of a chimp. Please, please tell me Died; why does the 2% difference in genes make any moral difference at all, much less all the difference in the world?


That seems to be obvious: a chimp doesn’t understand the concepts mentioned above – like a small child (which has no difference in genes!). But a child may (and should be) educated to learn the consequences of its behavior. Would you argue that a six year old child which kills a man while playing with a shotgun should be treated like an adult?

Date: 2012/02/27 11:22:10, Link
Author: DiEb
Joe G: insults aside - I don't see how the passage defines biological information or even biological specification. Could you give us a short definition (perhaps in your own words)? It should include
  • for which entities this information can be calculated - at least a few examples
  • how it can be calculated

If it is not possible to calculate biological information exactly (not unlike Kolmogorov complexity), perhaps the concept can at least be explained in more detail.

Date: 2012/02/27 13:00:01, Link
Author: DiEb
@Joe G
 
Quote
Biological specification always refers to function. An organism is a functional system comprising many functional subsystems. In virtue of their function, these systems embody patterns that are objectively given and can be identified independently of the systems that embody them.


So, biological information (=specification) is not a function of the DNA,  but can be calculated for  functional (sub)systems.

So, how does the biological information of performing photosynthesis differ from digesting nylon ? Can they be calculated?

Date: 2012/02/28 09:20:58, Link
Author: DiEb
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 28 2012,08:15)
that sounds like the lamest conference EVAR.  casey and sal making out to an empty room while three or four sunday school teacher stuffed suits shout down echoes

i bet craigslist was OFF THE HOOK that week!

Sal? as in Scordova? What happened to him? Does he still exist?

Date: 2012/02/29 00:46:22, Link
Author: DiEb
Barry overwrote a part of my comment with his question:  
Quote
UD Editor: Nope, not until you answer mine.
. His question:  
Quote
Why on materialist grounds are human women privileged to rule their own bodies and not chimp females? After all, materialists insist they are 98% the same; what in that 2% makes the difference?
I answered:  
Quote


 
Quote
Barry, perhaps you could answer my question:

UD Editor: Nope, not until you answer mine.


Did you read the part which you overwrote with your Tannoy message? It was an answer to your question (phrased as a question itself).

We don't judge a toddler the same way we judge his parents, though the DNA is very similar - even more similar than the DNA of a chimp compared with some human being.

We judge behaviour and capabilities.

Somehow this comment went missing, so I reposted it - it's now in the moderation queue.

Date: 2012/02/29 01:12:09, Link
Author: DiEb
I may have entered the file of the silently banned - as my comment can't be seen as in moderation. But perhaps I'm just instantaneously moderated...

Date: 2012/02/29 11:30:09, Link
Author: DiEb
Quote
DiEb
February 29,
2012 at 11:24 am
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Barry, I tried to answer your question, but my comment keeps disappearing! So, here it is again:

Quote
Barry, perhaps you could answer my question:

UD Editor: Nope, not until you answer mine.

Why on materialist grounds are human women privileged to rule their own bodies and not chimp females? After all, materialists insist they are 98% the same; what in that 2% makes the difference?



Quote
Did you read the part which you overwrote with your Tannoy message? It was an answer to your question (phrased as a question itself).

We don't judge a toddler the same way we judge his parents, though the DNA is very similar - even more similar than the DNA of a chimp compared with some human being.

We judge behaviour and capabilities.


What problem do you have with my comment?

Date: 2012/02/29 11:34:51, Link
Author: DiEb
Wow, my comment appeared, even promptly - though in a quite edited version!

Date: 2012/03/01 08:30:02, Link
Author: DiEb
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 01 2012,08:16)
Drat! I thought I had copied the whole thing, but I'm missing about three paragraphs and some edits of what I've got here. Here's hoping they post the whole thing.

Your comment is up - and it seems to be complete! Thanks for the link!

Date: 2012/03/01 08:41:15, Link
Author: DiEb
Just an idea for Marks, Dembski, etc. :  You wanted to create the impression that the symposium was held by the Cornell University - that's why you used the carefully crafted abstract:  
Quote
In the spring of 2011, a diverse group of scientists gathered at Cornell University to discuss their research into the nature and origin of biological information. This symposium brought together experts in information theory, computer science, numerical simulation, thermodynamics, evolutionary theory, whole organism biology, developmental biology, molecular biology, genetics, physics, biophysics, mathematics, and linguistics. This volume presents new research by those invited to speak at the conference.
Perhaps it is enough to create the impression that Springer Verlage  published the proceedings? You could try to get the interest of the Axel Springer Verlag - perhaps a short article in the Bild-Zeitung? Then you could still claim that you were published by Springer, and that's what this is all about....

Date: 2012/03/05 02:30:57, Link
Author: DiEb

testing - testing - testing  :D

Date: 2012/03/05 02:45:20, Link
Author: DiEb
Quote (DiEb @ Mar. 05 2012,02:30)

testing - testing - testing  :D

2nd try

Date: 2012/03/05 08:21:57, Link
Author: DiEb
My favorite: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?....he:http

Sid  Galloway (Just an OLD sheepdog of the GOOD SHEPHERD) describes his attendance of the symposium:
 
Quote
Biological Information -  New Perspectives Symposium


© Sid Galloway BS, M.Div

The following Bio-Info conference was an inspiring example of truly critical, logikos thinking in the scientific community. The symposium was not sponsored by Cornell, though Dr. John Sanford, Cornell geneticist and inventor of the Gene Gun was a principle coordinator.

(Sanford is the inventor of the Biolistic Gene Gun  for genetic engineering, Cornell professor for 30 years, 80 scientific papers,  30 patents, and author of GENETIC  ENTROPY: The Mystery of the Genome.



Thank you to all who prayed for this  event,  and  who helped reduce my expenses.

It was a privilege  being invited to attend the BI-NP Symposium at
Cornell University last summer.   Twenty-three scientists from around the world, representing various  fields of science presented to attendees  from many countries, including Korea, China, Germany, Canada, United Kingdom,  Russia, and the United States.  Among  those attending, 50% were PhD’s, 25% were PhD candidates, and the rest were an  assortment of diverse individuals - the least among them - me.

The BINPS at Cornell University was a purely scientific conference,  with no public elements of religion in the presentations or discussion.  However, there was a great deal of fruitful private dialogue involving philosophical, theological, and teleological  implications among presenters and attendees during our free time. The coordinators’  decision to eliminate any public religious content was understandable  given their sincere commitment as a group to trace only the "science"  evidence to its best and most logical conclusion (IBE – Inference to the Best  Explanation.

(read the rest under the link to the google cache...)

Date: 2012/03/06 00:54:03, Link
Author: DiEb
At the site of <a href="www.bobmarks.org/" target="_blank">Robert Marks II</a>, you can find a short description of the conference, as seen by his wife:
Quote
Cornell University: Next we drove to Cornell University where Bob was part of a conference called Biological Information – New Perspectives. Bob was a coorganizer along with famous ID people like William Dembski (The Design Inference and No Free Lunch), Michael Behe (Darwin's Black Box and The Edge of Evolution), John Sanford (Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome) and Bruce Gordon (The Nature of Nature). The proceedings of the conference will be published in 2012. Bob thought the conference was a grand success. Bob’s Ph.D. advisor, John Walkup, also came. John and his wife Pat are full time with Campus Crusade’s professor ministry in the Bay Area focusing on Stanford, Berkeley and San Jose State. Two of Bob’s graduate students, Winston Ewert and George Montañez, were also there so we got a wonderful three generation picture.

Date: 2012/03/06 01:33:40, Link
Author: DiEb
Quote (MichaelJ @ Mar. 02 2012,22:05)
On the death of UD. I've been watching the date and time of the first and last of the recent comments and it currently takes around 24 hours for the site to generate 30 comments. Just after the purge it was about 6 hours. Also at least half of the comments are from BA77.

Also in the 'daily popular' there used to be threads that were in the thousands now they all seem to average around the 700s

Quote (iconofid @ Mar. 06 2012,00:12)
I think it's the right time for everyone who hasn't been banned to stop posting at U.D.

It would be nice watching the "broad church" members arguing amongst themselves, which would be the inevitable result. It would also be nice to see DeNews O'Leary denied a platform with any significant traffic, and to see how she reacts.

Also, this would help shift the discussion to Elizabeth's ban free blog, which allows both I.D.ists and their opponents to start threads.

Let's kill U.D.

The fun side of this thread could still be had on a "Skeptical Zone" peanut gallery.

I was intrigued by this comments, and to see how dead UD is, I counted the comments which are still accessible. The result can be found at RationalWiki, but here are some excerpts:

In number of comments, 2011 was the most successful year at UncommonDescent:

One reason for this is seems to be that the number of threads started at UD exploded (the author News is an invention of 2011) - though many of those have the character of mere announcements:


The other was what I like to call the Liddle effect: She (and ''Mathgrrl" before her) surely stirred things up:


(all pictures CC-SA 3.0 and GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2)

Date: 2012/03/06 02:33:24, Link
Author: DiEb
Quote (MichaelJ @ Mar. 06 2012,02:02)
Cool graphs. So if they maintain 30 comments per day then the total for March would be 930 which would make it the lowest month since 2008.

Thanks.

Quote (MichaelJ @ Mar. 06 2012,02:02)
I've just checked the recent comment list and again it seems to be almost exactly 24 hours for 30 comments. Am I missing something obvious?

The only thing I can think of are the comments which are in moderation: if the period of moderation is longer than these 24 hour, they don't appear in the list of the recent comments.

Date: 2012/03/07 16:16:31, Link
Author: DiEb
Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 06 2012,09:09)
They woulda got away with it if they hadn't bragged before publication. Premature jubilation.

I beg to differ: they have kept exceptionally quite about the whole thing, only the (automatically generated?) announcement by Springer derailed their plan.

Look how their modus operandi has changed over the last years: Marks's and Dembski's  paper "Conservation of Information in Search - Measuring the Cost of Success" was available as a preprint on Marks's homepage, it was announced a couple of times at UncommonDescent, and after years of struggle it appeared in some unrelated journal.

This disadvantage is obvious: public criticism. And boy, they didn't like it.

Nowadays, they try to sneak in their articles in a kind of peer-reviewed journal first. Then they will ignore any critique which isn't itself in form of a peer-reviewed paper. And no one bothers to do so, their math is generally debunked some levels below, in  blogs, wikis, etc.

What does this mean if you find an error in their publications? They don't bother! And if you try to correct them via email, you get an answer (if any!)  like  
Quote
I have a policy not to engage in correspondence with anyone publically critical of me or my work.

Date: 2012/03/08 02:14:32, Link
Author: DiEb
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 07 2012,21:57)
[...]The IDC advocates seem to shift between including and excluding critics. I don't know that we can identify any trend in this from this latest scam.

I see, I inferred a trend because my window of observation was to small. But in reality they are switching between two strategies which both don't work...

Date: 2012/03/08 07:28:36, Link
Author: DiEb
Quote

DiEb
March 8, 2012 at 7:18 am
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
I've to admit that I fail to see the significance (or even the humor) in this observation.

But it's nice that you are back, Sal! I fondly remember our exchange at the gambler's ruin thread - nearly four years ago. I assume that you have now mastered the craft: may I congratulate you to your doctorate?

Date: 2012/03/09 17:31:52, Link
Author: DiEb
Why do we need to find our origin in something howling naked in the trees?

At first I thought they were talking about Adam and Eve, before the annoying kerfuffle involving a snake....

Date: 2012/03/10 15:17:29, Link
Author: DiEb
[quote=Woodbine,Mar. 10 2012,12:28]Let's see how UD is doing, eh?

From the front page....(no links, for links are temptation)
           
Quote
So the Evolutionary Informatics Lab has been “debunked” … by no one worth listening to?

0 Comments

       
Quote
Programming of Life Video now available for free on the net
[...]

Excellent work, girls and boys!


Here you find the number of edits per thread per month as a boxplot: .25, .5 and .75- quantiles, min and max. The scale is logarithmic.

So, in Feb. 2012, at least 50% of the comments induced three or less replies,  at least 25% one or less. Less that 25% had more than 12 comments, the maximum number of comments was somewhere between 200 and 300.

Date: 2012/03/13 16:19:43, Link
Author: DiEb
I just took another go on Dembski's and Marks's Horizontal No Free Lunch Theorem, as KairosFocus referred to it at UncommonDescent:

On a Wrong Remark in a Paper of Robert J. Marks II and William A Dembski

 
Quote
Abstract: In their 2010 paper The Search for a Search - Measuring the Information Cost of Higher Level Search, the authors William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II present as one of two results their so-called Horizontal No Free Lunch Theorem. One of the consequences of this theorem is their remark: If no information about a search exists, so that the underlying measure is uniform, then, on average, any other assumed measure will result in negative active information, thereby rendering the search performance worse than random search. This is quite surprising, as one would expect in the tradition of the No Free Lunch theorem that the performances are equally good (or bad). Using only very basic elements of probability theory, this essay shows that their remark is wrong - as is their theorem.

The whole essay can be found here.

Date: 2012/03/14 03:16:11, Link
Author: DiEb
Mirroring the moderation queue:
 
Quote
DiEb
March 13, 2012 at 2:56 pm
Your comment is awaiting moderation.    
Quote
Now, the yardstick algor is a random walk search, and given that more effective search algors depend on being matched to the specific space in view, it is indeed reasonable for M & D to have concluded that on average, if there is no intelligent matching, a random pick of search algor from the space of possible algors makes the odds typically worse than just going for a random search. The wrong algor could actually lead you away from targets!

@KairosFocus: I assume that you mean the remark to the Horizontal No Free Lunch Theorem in the paper "The Search for a Search: Measuring the Information Cost of Higher Level Search". Needless to say that this theorem isn't seen as valid by many - you can see my quite recent and very elementary take here. BTW: there is a difference between a random walk search and the random search as described by Marks, Dembski et al.

@WinstonEwert: I hope I can interest you in the paper-style pdf as linked above. I'd like to get your input - or the input of your colleagues.

Date: 2012/03/15 02:08:59, Link
Author: DiEb
Sigh. Another moderation queue. Yesterday I made my first comment (as DiEb), now I'm waiting for it to appear at Creating CSI with NS. Unfortunately, there isn't even a notice (your comment is awaiting moderation), so I don't know whether commenting worked at all...

Date: 2012/03/15 05:14:22, Link
Author: DiEb
Quote (Febble @ Mar. 15 2012,10:19)
I can't see your comment either - must have failed to upload I think.

There's nothing in the moderation queue, nor the spam filter.

Can you try again?

I'm sorry the software is glitchy.  Unfortunately I don't have the expertise to optimise it.  I'll gradually try and fix the glitches, but each new fix seems to come with another downside.

ETA: I have now switched you as unmoderated at the back end, so you should be able to post straight away.

Quote
ETA: I have now switched you as unmoderated at the back end, so you should be able to post straight away.
Thanks, and thanks for looking! It's absolutely possible that I botched it...

Quote
Can you try again?
I haven't saved my comment. What a pity: it was the one last edit to end all editing, the one comment which made all further comments superfluous. But let bygones be bygones - I'll mumble on in my usual manner :-)

Date: 2012/03/16 02:58:22, Link
Author: DiEb
At So the Evolutionary Informatics Lab has been “debunked” … by no one worth listening to?, Winston Ewert (listed at Dembski's evolutionlab.com as a  Research Assistant with a BS in Computer Science, but I think he is a MS) engaged critics directly, and encouraged them to present their objections:  
Quote
But if you have a thought-out written response or critique, feel free to send it to me at evoinfo AT winstonewert DOT com. I can’t promise anything in terms of a response, but I will read and consider anything sent.
 
Quote
For typographical errors and minor mathematical mistakes, please just contact me by email directly and we’ll post corrections giving you credit. For more major critiques, I’d suggest writing them up as blog posts or paper-style pdfs. Let me know where they are, and I’ll read them.
Now he seems to be dragged  back on the party line:  
Quote
This is a poor venue, and we look forward to seeing formal published articles critiquing our work. It is strange to us that we haven’t seen formal published responses. There are various responses in the literature to Dembski’s previous books such as No Free Lunch. Somehow our published articles have not provoked the same response.

Well, they won't. As I wrote in my mail in which I provided Winston Ewert with a basic example of something wrong in their papers:
Quote
Why won't it appear even at archive.org? For a couple of reason:
  • the math of the essay is to obvious, boring and simple - enough perhaps for a "letter to the editor".
  • there isn't enough interest in "Active Information" outside of a couple of blogs and message boards.
Well, Winston Ewert has promised me to look at my paper-style pdf when he finds the time...

Date: 2012/03/23 02:49:59, Link
Author: DiEb
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 21 2012,16:52)
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Mar. 21 2012,10:33)
We've just released our new teaser trailer and web site for the film. Check it out: http://www.hellboundthemovie.com/press-r....release

 
Quote
Kevin always dreamed of being in the movie business but never actually believed he’d get there.


http://www.hellboundthemovie.com/the-cre....he-crew

You ain't there yet buddy.

When I see the pictures of the crew I ask myself how much of a coincident is it that they are all male? Are women indeed intellectually superior beings? Or are Miller and his friends just misogynistic  twats?



Date: 2012/03/28 14:01:01, Link
Author: DiEb
In an update to the Coppedge trial on Mar 28, 2012 at "Evolution News", David Klinghoffer writes about Coppedge's ECAP (Employee Contribution Assessment and Planning), "a yearly report card on job performance":    
Quote
Going back to 2003 when he first started receiving ECAP reviews, 14-year-veteran Coppedge had been "truly appreciated" for his "great job" and "special service," his "appropriate verbal and written communication skills," establishing "effective working relationships." Now another supervisor, Clark Burgess, had collected and reproduced in dense, small type a series of wounding critiques from co-workers, named and unnamed.
Klinghoffer calls this "enviable reviews". I don't know much about the American system of such assessment, but I assume that we in Europe have modeled our way after it. And here, such a review would be faint praise, not enviable but at best satisfactory: especially the phrase "appropriate verbal and written communication skills" would indicate that he is lacking in this regard, while "effective working relationships" would imply that he is a little bit autistic. Am I missing something?

Date: 2012/04/02 02:44:18, Link
Author: DiEb

Date: 2012/04/02 09:00:47, Link
Author: DiEb
Quote (utidjian @ April 02 2012,13:23)
The month of April 2008 was covered here:
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....t=29970
From about page 884 to 918 (about 34 pages!)

Your assignment is to slog through it and tell us what happened at UD back then.

-DU-

April 18, 2008: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is released in the U.S.

Date: 2012/04/02 11:54:22, Link
Author: DiEb
Quote (utidjian @ April 02 2012,17:34)
Quote (DiEb @ April 02 2012,09:00)
 
Quote (utidjian @ April 02 2012,13:23)
The month of April 2008 was covered here:
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....t=29970
From about page 884 to 918 (about 34 pages!)

Your assignment is to slog through it and tell us what happened at UD back then.

-DU-

April 18, 2008: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is released in the U.S.

And that is what killed comment frequency on UD? Interesting. All we need now is Expelled II: The Slowening.

-DU-

1. No, I answered another question. That's what created the bump in April 2008

2. Wasn't there much blocking going on in late 2008?

Date: 2012/04/02 14:07:17, Link
Author: DiEb
Quote (Cubist @ April 02 2012,19:44)

How did you make that graph, DiEb? Just wondering how easy it would be to add the "new posts" data RTH inquired about...

I got the data by looking up the ~9,000 threads and could so get all comments currently on display.

Are you looking for something like this? Thread == posts, I think.

Date: 2012/04/02 14:14:52, Link
Author: DiEb

Date: 2012/04/02 14:33:48, Link
Author: DiEb
Quote (midwifetoad @ April 02 2012,20:12)
If you have the data could you graph comments per thread?

Something like this?

Date: 2012/04/23 07:46:00, Link
Author: DiEb
Some statistics for UncommonDescent can be found here at my blog.

Date: 2012/04/24 06:37:52, Link
Author: DiEb
Quote (midwifetoad @ April 23 2012,16:05)
It seems like the activity follows a pattern created by occasional relaxation of the banhammer.

At least until now: the banhammer is very relaxed at the moment, but there is no influx of people who want to be annoyed by the regulars....



Date: 2012/04/26 04:18:37, Link
Author: DiEb
Quote (CeilingCat @ April 26 2012,06:43)
Paragwinn:          
Quote
Barry really has no IDEA of the irony? Club me like a baby seal!

And why the jab at GR? Did he ban discussion of that too?

Well, as Andrew Schlafly’s Conservapedia, ("The Trustworthy Encyclopedia") notes, "The theory of relativity has been repeatedly contradicted by experiments, such as precise measurements of the advance of the perihelion of Mercury that show a shift greater than predicted by Relativity, well beyond the margin of error. Criticism of the theory, however, caused physicist Robert Dicke to be denied the Nobel Prize, and it is unlikely tenure or a Ph.D would be awarded to any critic of the theory."

So you see, it's all part of The Conspiracy to Defeat Jesus Christ and Pollute Our Precious Bodily Fluids as General Jack D. Ripper clearly explained in Dr. Strangelove or How I Learned to Stop Fearing The Bomb and Put My Faith in Jesus.

I think Barry's on to something.

Or on something.

Details here.  Hat tip to Ed Brayton.

I think I've to defend Barry on this one: he seems to think of the general theory of relativity as a valid theory which is examined by scientists and doesn't need a propaganda campaign...

Andrew Schlafly is a bigger nut: He has a beef even with the special theory of relativity as he relies on  insights, not on  facts. For your amusement have a look at "E=mc² is liberal claptrap". The discussion about this insight shows how his mind works...



Date: 2012/05/15 02:49:51, Link
Author: DiEb
Quote (REC @ May 14 2012,20:20)
SCheesman sticks his neck out on Barry's 9000th post celebration:

 
Quote
I wish I could celebrate, but I fear 9000 is a reflection of a vast inflation in the number rate of postings in the last year or two, with a corresponding decline in comments.

I owe a good deal of what I know today about ID from UD, both from a scientific and theological perspective, and used to enjoy the long threads and back-and-forth between proponents and opponents.

But now, many, if not most posts get nary a comment, and the ones engendering some debate often are lost in the crowd. Since the recent purge of participants who failed to pass what amounted to a purity test, it’s been pretty quiet here. The most lively recent discussion featured a debate between OEC’s and YEC’s. Now I enjoy that sort of thing (like on Sal Cordova’s old “Young Cosmos” blog), but it’s hardly what UD used to be known for.

Maybe the new format gets more visitors than it used to, but I’d be interested in seeing the stats, including comments per post, posts per month, unique visitors etc. over the last few years.

I miss the old days. I expect a lot of us do.


Please, Barry, celebrate this milestone with a Loudspeaker/ Bannination.

Here are some of the stats in which SCheesman is interested.

Date: 2012/05/24 03:13:56, Link
Author: DiEb
Quote (DiEb @ Mar. 13 2012,22:19)
I just took another go on Dembski's and Marks's Horizontal No Free Lunch Theorem, as KairosFocus referred to it at UncommonDescent:

On a Wrong Remark in a Paper of Robert J. Marks II and William A Dembski

   
Quote
Abstract: In their 2010 paper The Search for a Search - Measuring the Information Cost of Higher Level Search, the authors William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II present as one of two results their so-called Horizontal No Free Lunch Theorem. One of the consequences of this theorem is their remark: If no information about a search exists, so that the underlying measure is uniform, then, on average, any other assumed measure will result in negative active information, thereby rendering the search performance worse than random search. This is quite surprising, as one would expect in the tradition of the No Free Lunch theorem that the performances are equally good (or bad). Using only very basic elements of probability theory, this essay shows that their remark is wrong - as is their theorem.

The whole essay can be found here.

I was just informed by Winston Ewert that there is a new erratum at the paper A Search for a Search which should address (some of) my points. Here is my first reaction. And does the Journal of Advanced Computational Intelligence and Intelligent Informatics know?

Date: 2012/05/24 08:12:29, Link
Author: DiEb
Quote (The whole truth @ May 24 2012,10:35)
Quote (DiEb @ May 24 2012,01:13)
 
Quote (DiEb @ Mar. 13 2012,22:19)
I just took another go on Dembski's and Marks's Horizontal No Free Lunch Theorem, as KairosFocus referred to it at UncommonDescent:

On a Wrong Remark in a Paper of Robert J. Marks II and William A Dembski

       
Quote
Abstract: In their 2010 paper The Search for a Search - Measuring the Information Cost of Higher Level Search, the authors William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II present as one of two results their so-called Horizontal No Free Lunch Theorem. One of the consequences of this theorem is their remark: If no information about a search exists, so that the underlying measure is uniform, then, on average, any other assumed measure will result in negative active information, thereby rendering the search performance worse than random search. This is quite surprising, as one would expect in the tradition of the No Free Lunch theorem that the performances are equally good (or bad). Using only very basic elements of probability theory, this essay shows that their remark is wrong - as is their theorem.

The whole essay can be found here.

I was just informed by Winston Ewert that there is a new erratum at the paper A Search for a Search which should address (some of) my points. Here is my first reaction. And does the Journal of Advanced Computational Intelligence and Intelligent Informatics know?

Regarding ear stoppers, it wouldn't surprise me if one of these days that IDiots are found to have evolved a flap inside their ears that automatically and quickly closes at the first sign of any sort of reality trying to get in. Of course if such a flap were found the IDiots would claim that it's the result of intelligent design by their designer/creator, who did it so that they won't be plagued with hearing realistic challenges to their unsupported beliefs and assertions.  :)

I exchanged emails on this subject with Bob Marks back in 2010! Even before the paper was published in the first place, I had pointed out this problem - in private and in public. In Sep 2010, Bob Marks informed me that has a policy not to engage in correspondence with anyone publically critical of him or his work, as independent of the validity or invalidity of the details of the exchange, these things are best discussed thoroughly before any public pronouncements. So he willfully  chose to ignore every unpleasant critic, on his own peril.

Date: 2012/05/24 09:33:45, Link
Author: DiEb
I commented at Uncommon Descent to the post Evolutionary Informatics Lab- a look inside … - though I doubt that my contribution will ever appear:

 
Quote
DiEb
May 24, 2012 at 8:24 am
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Today I was informed that the paper "The Search for a Search" was appended by an errata section. I see that this has had an instantaneous effect on the home-page of the Evolutionary Informatics Lab: the link to the sub-page errata disappeared during the last few days (I still found it in the google-cache of May 19 2012!).


For more on this: see our thread on Evolutionary Computation....



Date: 2012/05/28 03:37:18, Link
Author: DiEb
At Evolutionary Informatics Lab- a look inside …:
Quote
DiEb
May 28, 2012 at 2:10 am
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
I just wrote an email to the lab:  
Quote
Sir,

until at least May 19, 2012 there was a sub-page "errata" ("This area is for all corrections and post-publication additions to our published work") to which the home-page linked. And this page was there for years -  (see e.g., http://web.archive.org/web............ttp )

On May 24, 2012 I was informed by Winston Ewert of an erratum at W. Dembski's and R. Marks's paper "A Search for a Search". The paper itself has been appended, but suddenly, the sub-page "errata" is missing - and the link from the home-page is gone, too.

Even if this was just a coincidence, it doesn't create the impression that the Evolutionary Informatics Lab's handling of its mistakes is honest - or at least straightforward. Please correct this impression.

Thanks,
Di... Eb...

Date: 2012/05/28 08:43:16, Link
Author: DiEb
Quote (Nils Ruhr @ May 28 2012,12:43)
[...]
What exactly is your problem? The erratum is in their paper!

What's my problem? The very moment, my humble efforts have (somewhat) succeeded in driving one of my points home, they abandon the section on their home-page where they would have to announce them. It's understandable that they don't want to stress their mistakes: if you look at the list of their main publications, errata have been added to four out of eight articles. IMO a sign that the other four articles haven't been scrutinized closely enough....

Date: 2012/07/20 04:59:42, Link
Author: DiEb
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 17 2012,22:18)
 
Quote (Freddie @ July 17 2012,16:05)
For crying out loud - someone get her a science book, or a maths book.  No wonder she thinks the world is only 6,000 years old.  Does she think 'm' is short for millenia?

Twice in the past week.  What an embarrassment.


PotW

 
Quote

14
DiEb
July 19, 2012 at 12:30 am

If you are not able to use the simplest terms (mya: million years ago, not millenia – or myllenia?) correctly, why should someone trust your interpretation of the more complex ones?

 
Quote
17
Joe
July 19, 2012 at 8:37 am

m is for millenia ;)

Date: 2012/08/08 10:29:38, Link
Author: DiEb
Joe's reply to Bartax sums up the culture of discourse at Uncommon Descent:
Quote
fartmax- YOU are the one throwing insults around.

Date: 2012/08/31 16:59:17, Link
Author: DiEb
Does anyone know how to contact Dr. Dr. Dembski? I wanted to alert him to an entry on my blog (Could you please correct your miscalculation, Dr. Dembski? ), but his former address (wdembski [at] swbts [dot] edu) - which is still listed at evoinfo.org - doesn't work any longer.

His new institution - Southern Evangelical Seminary & Bible College - welcomes him on its front page as the new Philip E. Johnson Research Professor in Culture & Science, but it seems to have a strange policy for emails: I can't find any email-address on their pages, only telephone numbers!

Date: 2012/08/31 17:39:10, Link
Author: DiEb
Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 31 2012,23:32)
Quote (DiEb @ Aug. 31 2012,16:59)
Does anyone know how to contact Dr. Dr. Dembski? I wanted to alert him to an entry on my blog (Could you please correct your miscalculation, Dr. Dembski? ), but his former address (wdembski [at] swbts [dot] edu) - which is still listed at evoinfo.org - doesn't work any longer.

His new institution - Southern Evangelical Seminary & Bible College - welcomes him on its front page as the new Philip E. Johnson Research Professor in Culture & Science, but it seems to have a strange policy for emails: I can't find any email-address on their pages, only telephone numbers!

I've dumped a present on your blog. I'd appreciate a review. If I hosed it you could spare me some public embarassment by deleting it.

Thanks for your model! It works indeed as intended!

Date: 2012/09/03 01:33:02, Link
Author: DiEb
The thread “Conservation of Information Made Simple” at ENV was quite amusing - I'm still having two comments in moderation over there (now for two days and counting - they can be read here: Some Annotations to the Previous Post )

Joe has indeed changed his position over time and KairosFocus has provided us with what must be the shortest version of his strawman-theme:  
Quote
F/N: this is evidently yet another case of a red herring distractor led off to a strawman side issue. Notice, just how little of the above actually addresses the main point. KF
(yes, that's the whole comment! Amazing!)

Date: 2012/09/16 09:52:13, Link
Author: DiEb
We all know that Dr. Dr. Dembski is now the ''Philip E. Johnson Research Professor in Culture & Science'' at the Southern Evangelical Seminary & Bible College. He will fit right in, as he fits their profile: he is male...

They provide a  catalog where I couldn't help to take a closer look at the faculty:
  • Graduate Faculty (Full-Time): 8 male (6 bearded), 0 female
  • Graduate Faculty (Part-Time): 7 male (3 bearded), 0 female
  • Undergraduate Faculty (Part-Time): 5 male (1 bearded), 1 female (hurray!)
  • Adjunct Faculty: 10 male (3 bearded), 0 female
  • Visiting Lecturers: 4 male (1 bearded), 0 female

Obviously this heavy thinking stuff isn't for the ladies...

Date: 2012/10/22 07:37:57, Link
Author: DiEb
Quote (Robin @ Oct. 22 2012,02:02)
Got a statistics problem for anyone feeling bored:

(1+mi)*(1+mi+1)*(1+mi+2)*...(1+mn)=(1+X)^n

Suppose each value of M has a standard deviation associated with it. What is the standard deviation of X? Is it a simpler calculation if the standard deviation of each M is the same?

This is from my wife's friend. It's been over 25 years since I've done statistics so I'm rusty and trying to brush up. Any help would be appreciated.

Oh...and the notation is the way it is because I've not figured out how to get series fonts to work.

Let me clarify:

1) You have  a number of random variables M_1 .... M_n and you form the product R= (1+M_1)(1+M_2)...(1+M_n). Those M_i are real valued, independent, and are following an identical distribution.

2) Are asking whether there is a random variable X such that the product R equals (1+X)^n ?

Obviously if n is even and those M are following the Gaussian law then such an X doesn't exist - the right hand side is always positive, while the probability for the left hand to be negative is positive :-)

Date: 2012/10/23 03:27:30, Link
Author: DiEb
Quote (Robin @ Oct. 22 2012,17:17)
Quote (DiEb @ Oct. 22 2012,07:37)
 
Quote (Robin @ Oct. 22 2012,02:02)
Got a statistics problem for anyone feeling bored:

(1+mi)*(1+mi+1)*(1+mi+2)*...(1+mn)=(1+X)^n

Suppose each value of M has a standard deviation associated with it. What is the standard deviation of X? Is it a simpler calculation if the standard deviation of each M is the same?

This is from my wife's friend. It's been over 25 years since I've done statistics so I'm rusty and trying to brush up. Any help would be appreciated.

Oh...and the notation is the way it is because I've not figured out how to get series fonts to work.

Let me clarify:

1) You have  a number of random variables M_1 .... M_n and you form the product R= (1+M_1)(1+M_2)...(1+M_n). Those M_i are real valued, independent, and are following an identical distribution.

2) Are asking whether there is a random variable X such that the product R equals (1+X)^n ?

Obviously if n is even and those M are following the Gaussian law then such an X doesn't exist - the right hand side is always positive, while the probability for the left hand to be negative is positive :-)

Dieb -

1) I confess I'm confused on this point as well, but your summary is my take as well.

2) No, I don't think so. I think the friend is asking what the standard deviation of X would be given a standard deviation of Mi. On top of that, she wants to know whether the calculation is easier if the standard deviation of Mi is the same throughout the series. Seems to me that the calculation has the exact same difficulty either way as "calculation difficulty" seems somewhat subjective once you are dealing with standard deviations, but perhaps she's asking whether the notation of the calculation requires more variables if the standard deviation of Mi is not the same.

Your note on the Gaussian law gave me a chuckle. I don't think that my wife's friend was thinking in terms of physics when she posted the problem (but then, I don't actually know that) and I doubt it applies to any inverse square type calculation, but then that's a bit out of my area of knowledge anyway. I'm tempted to note the X likely can't exist for that reason though just to see her response. :-)

If this is a  textbook exercise I'd assume that all the M_i are Bernoulli experiments and that the reference to ''standard deviation'' was misleading. In this case, the product equals 2^X, where X is following a binomial distribution B(n,p).

Date: 2012/12/16 03:03:20, Link
Author: DiEb
Quote (CeilingCat @ Dec. 16 2012,05:39)
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Dec. 15 2012,10:36)
Ian Juby posting!!!111eleven!...

pimping one of his YouTube videos.


UD has definitely become the carnival of YECs.

Wow!  That loon is MADE for Uncommon Descent!  I hope he spends a lot of time there.

I wonder why Dembski washed his hands of UD.  Bet he doesn't mention it on his resume.

By the way, has anybody seen Denyse lately?  She rushed off to co-write Dembski's book and has scarcely been seen since.

Denyse can be found at http://www.thebestschools.org/bestsch....olsblog

Shouldn't the book have been published quite a while ago - like Nov 2011?

Date: 2013/01/08 01:16:14, Link
Author: DiEb
William J. Murray asks Is Atheism Rationally Justifiable?

To answer this question, he defines a god:
Quote
Definition of God (for the purpose of this thread): First cause, prime mover, root of being, objective source of human purpose (final cause) and resulting morality, source of free will, mind, consciousness; omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent inasmuch as principles of logic allow; an interventionist as necessary to facilitate movement towards final cause and also inasmuch as logical principles are not violated; source of logic — “reason itself.” (I am not talking in particular about any specifically defined religious interpretation of god, such as the Chrstian or Islamic God.)


I had to ask:
Quote
Quick question: Why is the God of your definition bound by the principles of logic?

Unfortunately but not surprisingly this question will never be answered: My comment with the number 20 is still in moderation while the total number of comments is nearing 100, including the usual tirades of bornagain and kairosfocus....

Date: 2013/01/10 18:45:34, Link
Author: DiEb
It took my last comment only 2 - 3 days to get moderated, so I tried it again: At the comment-thread for the article "Wiki’s F – - on ID, 5: Subtly distorting the truth on Discovery Institute’s policy on Education in public schools, multiplied by a failure of due disclosure on judge Jones’ Kitzmiller/ Dover ruling" I wrote:
 
Quote

The structure of "Wiki’s F – - on ID, 5: Subtly distorting the truth on Discovery Institute’s policy on Education in public schools, multiplied by a failure of due disclosure on judge Jones’ Kitzmiller/ Dover ruling" isn't well designed: Whom do you expect to read this?
 
Quote

1 ->
2 ->
3 ->
4 ->
5 ->
 20->
   1.
   2.
   3.
   4.
   5.
 21 ->
6 ->
7 ->
8 ->
 a]
 b]
 c]
 d]
 e]
 f]
9 ->
10 ->
11 ->
PS.




Date: 2013/01/24 05:18:26, Link
Author: DiEb
Quote (sparc @ Jan. 24 2013,04:08)
Quote (MichaelJ @ Jan. 23 2013,16:02)
   
Quote (rossum @ Jan. 23 2013,21:07)
     
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 22 2013,18:50)
UD is celebrating their 10,000th post.

Not strictly true.  Their 10,000th post was some time ago.  It is their 10,000th undeleted post.

Is it 10000 post of 10000 comment?
Although given the number of comment free posts then the total number of comments would not be that great.

It's threads. DiEB summarized the data here, here and here. You'll find more of this herculean task on his DiEbLog here and here.

(edited to add a link to a second thread on DiEbLog)

I created a new post on my blog:
Quote
Again a proud number as a headline at Uncommon Descent: 10,000! The whole thing reads:
Quote
This is the 10,000th post at UD. We would like to thank all of our loyal readers, lurkers, commenters, writers, webmaster, contributors and all the others who have made this a wonderful run so far!
So congratulations! But I just have to pour some water in Barry Arrington's wine:[...]

Yes, the post includes pictures....

Date: 2013/01/24 08:20:36, Link
Author: DiEb
I tried to post this at UD's article "10,000":  
Quote
DiEb
January 24, 2013 at 5:20 am
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
You can find my comment (with pictures :-) ) on my blog:
Again a proud number as a headline at Uncommon Descent: 10,000!.

Date: 2013/01/25 09:28:00, Link
Author: DiEb
Quote (sparc @ Jan. 25 2013,14:36)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 24 2013,09:04)
   
Quote (CeilingCat @ Jan. 24 2013,08:24)
   
Quote (sparc @ Jan. 23 2013,23:10)
Prepare for giant TARD erruptions on all available channels within the next 24 hours.

BINGO! Noticed at 8:15AM CST Jan 24.

So, if a known intelligence used DNA to inscribe a message... that actually reduces the probability that an intelligence designed DNA originally.  

Tell, you what, if anyone finds the text of the Bible, in the original Hebrew, in a random organism's DNA, then I will count that as evidence that God exists and is the designer.

We have a second impact at EN&V.

A more current pic:

More: here

Date: 2013/01/27 14:17:52, Link
Author: DiEb
Quote (DiEb @ Jan. 24 2013,14:20)
I tried to post this at UD's article "10,000":    
Quote
DiEb
January 24, 2013 at 5:20 am
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
You can find my comment (with pictures :-) ) on my blog:
Again a proud number as a headline at Uncommon Descent: 10,000!.

This comment entered the moderation queue three days ago. It hasn't been deleted, it hasn't been processed. What's your experiences with the moderation queue these days?

Date: 2013/02/11 09:20:44, Link
Author: DiEb
Quote (Doc Bill @ Feb. 11 2013,14:32)
Yeah, that sounds Dense enough;  highly compacted bullshit.

Besides, the original interview was posted on the blog where Dense hangs out now.

Just imagine a threesome between Dumbski, Dense and Buell.

(I know, Jon or Linda - doesn't matter.)

And Denyse uses the handle "news" at UncommonDescent...

5.08$ for 74 pages Dembski? *Shudder*



Date: 2013/03/22 14:37:03, Link
Author: DiEb
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Mar. 22 2013,14:37)
Quote (CeilingCat @ Mar. 21 2013,19:03)
Honestly, people, don't let the bastards get away with this crap.

Too late in this particular case. KF has opened another thread about Right Reason™, and UDers are relieved to be able to scurry away from that nasty evolution of the eye and Nick Matzke.

By the way, KF was so inebriated by the brilliance of one of his comments that he turned it into an even more long-winded spin-off OP.

The first sentence of his new post:
G2 has made an objection at 45 in the STP 3 thread on how UD is a philosophy-theology site, and how he sees no science advances.
I'm used to Kairofocus' idiosyncratic ramblings, but even so, it took a little time to unscramble this. Kairofocus writes only for his echo-chamber, not for anyone who just happens to visit the blog...

Date: 2013/03/22 18:38:59, Link
Author: DiEb
Quote (Freddie @ Mar. 23 2013,00:29)
Quote (DiEb @ Mar. 22 2013,14:37)
 
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Mar. 22 2013,14:37)
   
Quote (CeilingCat @ Mar. 21 2013,19:03)
Honestly, people, don't let the bastards get away with this crap.

Too late in this particular case. KF has opened another thread about Right Reason™, and UDers are relieved to be able to scurry away from that nasty evolution of the eye and Nick Matzke.

By the way, KF was so inebriated by the brilliance of one of his comments that he turned it into an even more long-winded spin-off OP.

The first sentence of his new post:
G2 has made an objection at 45 in the STP 3 thread on how UD is a philosophy-theology site, and how he sees no science advances.
I'm used to Kairofocus' idiosyncratic ramblings, but even so, it took a little time to unscramble this. Kairofocus writes only for his echo-chamber, not for anyone who just happens to visit the blog...

'Nuff said ...


POTW?

Date: 2013/04/04 09:15:00, Link
Author: DiEb
Quote (Kattarina98 @ April 04 2013,15:02)
Kudos to Gordon Elliot Mullings for pimping the Nixplanatory Filter, "Signature in the Cell", and his own IOSE in one single OP!

My comment - as usual still "in moderation":
Quote
FSCO/I? IOSE? HT CR? IMHO non-standard abbr. should be explained ASAP!

Date: 2013/04/04 10:01:54, Link
Author: DiEb
And KF cites the Peano curve, again at Comprehensibility of the world.

My comment (again in moderation):
 
Quote
 
Quote
The Peano curve is important as it is continuous and a curve, i.e. it shows that points in a multi-dimansional spatial continuum have essentially the same cardinality as a line, that of the Reals.
To show that "that points in a multi-dimansional spatial continuum have essentially the same cardinality as a line" you don't need something which is "continuous and a curve" (BTW, curves are continuous), but just a bijective mapping. You could map [0;1] x [0;1] bijectively on [0;1] by sending (0.a1a2a3a4...;0.b1b2b3b3...) on 0.a1b1a2b2a3b3a4b4....

I'm afraid the only need for the Peano curve is in this context that it sounds so nice and a little bit impressive....

Date: 2013/04/04 11:19:46, Link
Author: DiEb
Quote (DiEb @ April 04 2013,15:15)
Quote (Kattarina98 @ April 04 2013,15:02)
Kudos to Gordon Elliot Mullings for pimping the Nixplanatory Filter, "Signature in the Cell", and his own IOSE in one single OP!

My comment - as usual still "in moderation":  
Quote
FSCO/I? IOSE? HT CR? IMHO non-standard abbr. should be explained ASAP!

My comment is still in moderation, but KF showed a reaction and added an "explanation":
Quote
*NB: For those new to UD, FSCO/I means: Functionally Specific Complex Organisation and/or associated Information

Date: 2013/04/05 01:28:23, Link
Author: DiEb
(Abusing atbc as a record - again :-) )
Quote
DiEb April 5, 2013 at 12:22 am
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
KF, obviously you have already read my comment above from yesterday, and probably even this one in another thread. So why are both still in moderation?

Date: 2013/04/05 02:32:20, Link
Author: DiEb
Again, William Dembski refers to his two "seminal papers"
  • "The Search for a Search: Measuring the Information Cost of Higher-Level Search," Journal of Advanced Computational Intelligence and Intelligent Informatics 14(5) (2010): 475-486
  • "Conservation of Information in Search: Measuring the Cost of Success," IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics A, Systems & Humans, 5(5) (September 2009): 1051-1061
And while he concedes  that J. Shallit had found an arithmetic error [...]  in my book No Free Lunch, he doesn't mention the flaws in the paper "The Search for a Search": There he introduces a  Horizontal No Free Lunch theorem, which is quite problematic - to say the least.

Or isn't it? For  a while, when you downloaded the paper from http://evoinfo.org/publica....ca...., it came with an erratum (I know this, because they thanked me for my attention to our work and pointing out the problem). You don't have to take my word for this - here a picture via the  wayback machine.

When I checked today, this erratum has disappeared from the text again  (quite silently  - at least I wasn't informed). So, what has happened? How often has the same error to be pointed out?



Date: 2013/04/16 10:19:19, Link
Author: DiEb
fake, but accurate? That's a surprising stance for all these good, conservative Christian boys...

Date: 2013/05/26 16:16:21, Link
Author: DiEb
Wow, in her new article Where do the world’s atheists live? You’d be surprised, Denyse takes a single data point ("According to a Gallup poll, there are 5% self-identified convinced atheists in Saudi-Arabia") and runs with it ("So, the unfreer the nation, the more atheists?")

Turns out, she obviously didn't read  the survey (2012 poll by WIN/Gallup International) she is blogging about. So, no surprise here...

edit: trying to fix link



Date: 2013/05/30 18:20:13, Link
Author: DiEb
LKN++

must be the most annoying line in C code.

Date: 2013/06/07 15:43:57, Link
Author: DiEb
To celebrate Denyse's return, I did an update for a statistic which I generated two years ago:

Date: 2013/06/07 15:49:21, Link
Author: DiEb
A Perl Script to crawl their site and R to generate to compile the data and make the pictures...

Date: 2013/06/07 16:00:51, Link
Author: DiEb
Quote (Richardthughes @ June 07 2013,21:52)
Quote (DiEb @ June 07 2013,15:49)
A Perl Script to crawl their site and R to generate to compile the data and make the pictures...

Awesome. Do you have the name of the R module? We use R a lot but haven't really utilized its display capabilities.

This was done quick and dirty with the standard functions: just a couple of colored rectangles  in a plot...

Date: 2013/06/15 00:44:30, Link
Author: DiEb
This must be one of my more inflammatory comments at UD - I put it on Download the Cornell papers free here: at June 13, 2013 at 3:12 pm and on Download Cornell papers on origin of biological information free at June 14, 2013 at 1:44 pm, and it is still in moderation:  
Quote
In the interest of discussing the data and the evidence, could we have posts on various articles of the book? I’d be quite interested in a thread on Chapter 1.1.2 “A General Theory of Information Cost Incurred by Successful Search” by William A. Dembski, Winston Ewert and Robert J. Marks II.

I hope that the authors are still reading this blog: this way, we could have a productive discussion, and perhaps some questions could be answered by the people involved!

And for the sake of a swift exchange of ideas: could someone please release me from the moderation queue?




Date: 2013/06/24 00:10:10, Link
Author: DiEb
Quote (sparc @ June 24 2013,05:16)
Looking forward to the series of reviews on the content of Biological Information: New Perspectives Tom English announced on his DiEBlog.

sorry, wrong thread, will copy it to BI:NP

wrong thread, wrong man ;-)

You'll find Tom English at Bounded Science.

I hope you will not be too disappointed by my posts....

Date: 2013/07/05 05:04:36, Link
Author: DiEb
Casey Luskin is deeply disappointed: What Science Education "Journalism" Looks Like at Nature

He was interviewed by the "highly respected" journal Nature, but the journalist Laureen Morello saw through his talking points and safely ignored all of them in her article "Evolution makes the grade". It's not fair!

Date: 2013/07/13 11:49:29, Link
Author: DiEb
At last, we have a discussion about one of the articles at Uncommon Descent: Winston Ewert reacted to some questions which I raised at my blog about William Dembski's, Winston Ewert's and Robert Marks's article "A General Theory of Information Cost Incurred by Successful Search". Any thoughts?

Date: 2013/07/16 13:17:29, Link
Author: DiEb
Quote (midwifetoad @ July 16 2013,19:07)
I think the higher functioning types, say Gil and gpuccio, just go away and sulk when the argument goes against them.

Which might also be why Behe, Dembski, Axe, etc don't participate in open forums.

Better to be silent than to have your butt kicked in public.

Tom English assumes that Dembski and Marks share Winston Ewert's account in the thread Questioning Information Cost.

I don't think so, though I'm sure that Winston Ewert fully represents the views of Marks and Dembski: though he is a kind of junior representative of the Evolutionary Informatics Lab, he seems to be last official to talk about their articles.

Date: 2013/11/20 10:19:41, Link
Author: DiEb
Quote (Learned Hand @ Nov. 20 2013,15:28)
When was the last time Dembski posted on UD himself?

Last post: Design Inference vs. Design Hypothesis (October 1, 2012)

Date: 2013/12/05 07:16:55, Link
Author: DiEb
For a couple of months I roamed free at Uncommon Descent, but my last comment put me back into the dreaded queue:
 
Quote

DiEb
December 5, 2013 at 7:13 am

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

@Barry Arrington  
Quote
Eldredge and I mean exactly the same thing — and nothing more.
To illuminate this point, could you please answer my questions (third time is a charme..):
 
Quote
Which texts or books of Niles Eldredge have you read? Have you read “The Myths of Human Evolution” (or at least some chapters) and spotted the quote – or did you get the quotation from a secondary source?


B. Arrington overwrote this comment with
Quote


[snip]

UD Editors: This was not an apology for falsely accusing Barry Arrington of quote mining DiEb. Which part of “you will remain in mod until you apologize for your false accusation” do you not understand?


Here is my answer:
Quote

@Barry Arrington,

as a lawyer you have certainly spotted that I havn't yet accused you of quote-mining. I just made the observation that if N. Matzke's interpretation of the scope of the argument is true, that then you are indeed quote-mining.

As for my questions:
Quote
Which texts or books of Niles Eldredge have you read? Have you read “The Myths of Human Evolution” (or at least some chapters) and spotted the quote – or did you get the quotation from a secondary source?
Your evasion shows me, that you are indeed a politician, too. May I assume that you have read nothing written by Niles Eldredge but a few quotes? To substantiate this suspicion, just erase my edit.




Date: 2013/12/07 20:41:15, Link
Author: DiEb
Just my  two cents at On Quote Mining  - and yes, this comment is in moderation, and probably won't appear ever....
Quote
@BA:

At The Sceptical Zone, you wrote:
Quote
You don’t engage at UD because every time you spouted your sophistry you got your ass kicked up between your shoulders. You would much rather be here in your nice safe little echo chamber with your pet lickspittles (see Mark Frank’s comment above). Your pretense that you eschew a site beneath your efforts is a convenient camouflage for your cowardice.
and then, you was surprised that someone took offense.

And here, at Uncommon Descent, you can't even stand being asked:
Quote
Just some quick questions: Which texts or books of Niles Eldredge have you read? Have you read “The Myths of Human Evolution” (or at least some chapters) and spotted the quote – or did you get the quotation from a secondary source?


No, you become a "beleidigte Leberwurst", spout accusations of perfidy and idiocy, and start to block editors left right and center.

It may seem to you that blocking editors - or putting them into your moderation queue for an infinite amount of time - and deleting edits means that you "kick ass" in a discussion. The "onlookers" may see this in a different way.

Date: 2013/12/31 05:59:22, Link
Author: DiEb
New's reading skills:

In her article Retract that, sir, or face the consequences! Er, maybe., Denyse shows again her attention to details. She writes: "Top ten retractions of 2010, courtesy The Scientist..." While the first number mentioned in the article is indeed 2010, the year about which "The Scientist" is writing is 2013 (much more topical). That's why the journal used the title "Top 10 Retractions of 2013".

I mentioned that in a comment over there which died in the moderation queue....

Date: 2014/01/01 07:40:49, Link
Author: DiEb
Quote (rossum @ Jan. 01 2014,10:25)
Quote (Bob O'H @ Dec. 31 2013,15:44)
Of course Cantor would know that.

(actually does anyone know a proof of Cantor's statement? It seems reasonable, but number theory isn't my area)

Cantor is correct.  Pi gives an infinite stream of digits with no repeating pattern.  Any finite string of digits will be found in Pi an infinite number of times.  Of course, the longer your search string the more digits if Pi you have to calculate to find it.

I'm afraid that it isn't proven yet that pi is a normal number (though most mathematicians would bet that it is one...) At the moment we cannot say that each finite number can be found in the decimal representation of pi - but every short string of numbers (birthdates, etc.) has been found :-)

Date: 2014/01/08 10:12:58, Link
Author: DiEb
I still have it, too - though I only read three chapters. Uncommon Descent started a series of posts on each chapter of the book, but stopped AFAIK with Chapter 2.4 Using Numerical Simulation to Test
the “Mutation-Count” Hypothesis
(Chapter 14 in UD's counting), giving up  halfway through the book.

I had an interest in chapter 1.1.2 (or chapter 3) "A General Theory of Information Cost Incurred by Successful Search", until I got convinced that this is a pure philosophical speculation and  not mathematics - and therefore doesn't need clear and usable definitions.

Judging from my experience it will be hard work to hunt down the little substance which is hidden in the articles....

Date: 2014/01/14 08:27:51, Link
Author: DiEb
Quote (Bob O'H @ Jan. 14 2014,12:58)
No wonder Sheldrake likes the book - this is how the blurb starts:
 
Quote
For a thing to be real, it must be able to communicate with other things

So a large inert stone isn't real. Hmm. I refute it thus.

*hobbles away*

Communicate, interact - Dembski doesn't say that a thing has to be able to spread its message, so if you hit a stone, the stone communicates with you.

Therefore stones are real, the ether is not real, the voices in my head are real.

Date: 2014/01/29 12:19:46, Link
Author: DiEb
Has anyone read BIO-Complexity's only "research article" for 2013:  Active Information in Metabiology? It was published last month...

Date: 2014/02/01 15:03:55, Link
Author: DiEb
Quote (Bob O'H @ Jan. 31 2014,09:42)

Totally off-topic but this morning as I was walking into work a police van with a tannoy attached to the roof drew up outside the maths department and counted up to five. Was this some bizarre mathematical taunt?

Wahrscheinlich im Zuge der Vorbereitungen zur Sprengung des Pädagogenturms...

Date: 2014/02/15 14:34:40, Link
Author: DiEb
Quote (Alan Fox @ Feb. 12 2014,11:17)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 11 2014,06:23)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 05 2014,10:48)
   
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 03 2014,21:38)
   
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 02 2014,23:49)
Why has KF not thanked Roy for his much need correction here upon his seat of learning? Must do better.

Editz for linkfixin.

KirosFocus, you posted this in the self same thread:

     
Quote
...Looks like, rather than acknowledge wrongdoing,accept correction and turn from what has been done, we have a silent tip-toeing away. Speaks volumes, sad but revealing volumes. KF


YOU ARE THE KING OF HYPOCRITES. Sad but revealing volumes.

Kirosfocus, may I focus your attention to this thread where you make some pointed claims then ran away when it was revealed you where indeed a quote-miner. For shame!

Hey KF, don't forget this. You semi-latching Weasel.

The hypocrisy is stunning. It'd be good if someone still unmoderated at UD could give GEM a little headsup. I mean we could be assuming the worst; perhaps he has forgotten the incident, and he's not just hoping that everyone else will.

KF answers.  
 
Quote
So at most there is a minor error of citation such as does occur, for which if so I apologise. (That will happen occasionally, even when typing from a book.)


KF, it would have been "a minor error of citation" if you hadn't made this error a cornerstone of your argument!

(edit for snark)



Date: 2014/02/25 16:22:57, Link
Author: DiEb
Quote (Driver @ Feb. 25 2014,08:05)
Quote (timothya @ Feb. 25 2014,07:37)
Is it just me or do you think it passing strange that the Carroll/Craig debate happened without acknowledgement, advertising or commentary by anyone at UD or EN&V? I may have missed their references, but what gives when one of the DI Fellows makes a big noise with a prominent cosmologist and then . . . nothing?

Craig was destroyed.

Is there any footage free available?

Date: 2014/02/25 16:26:57, Link
Author: DiEb
Quote (Bob O'H @ Feb. 25 2014,10:34)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 25 2014,00:29)
   
Quote (sparc @ Feb. 24 2014,23:19)
   
Quote
"Another thing that makes me think that maybe this work is having an impact is that after it started gaining momentum, Michigan State University, home of Pennock’s Digital Evolution Lab, received a huge $25 million NSF grant in 2010 for BEACON (Bio-computational Evolution in Action CONsortium). I suspect that at least part of the rationale for the NSF giving our tax dollars to fund this boondoggle is the threat to Darwinian evolution posed by the Evolutionary Informatics Lab."

I was not aware that megalomania is measured in Dembskis.

ETA: just learned that the unit can only be properly expressed with caps lock on.

from the interview:

   
Quote
Far better would have been to use those seven minutes to recount the record of accomplishment of intelligent design.


???

It would involve s p e a k i n g   v  e  r  y     s    l    o    w    l    y.

Think Sir Clement Freud on Just a Minute.

"He's listing again...."

I miss him...

Date: 2014/02/25 16:39:11, Link
Author: DiEb
Jack Dee does quite a good job - though I hate all these fanciful versions of M.C.: Derbyshire Huff?

Date: 2014/03/08 16:11:56, Link
Author: DiEb
I put an comment into their moderation queue:
   
Quote
   
Quote
‘PPS: The surge, of course, also documents that Sci News has credibly had significant impact.’

Call me skeptic: there are other articles  here at Uncommon Descent which have been linked to by "Scientific News", like New Age medic Deepak Chopra responds to Darwin’s man Jerry Coyne in The New Republic. Warning: Messy and To recognize design is to recognize products of a like-minded process, identifying the real probability in question, Part I. They didn't go viral - at least they didn't make the list of most popular articles.

On the other hand, reddit is well known to be able to generate quite an impact.

Date: 2014/03/09 23:22:18, Link
Author: DiEb
Another one for the moderation queue:
Quote
 
Quote
Indeed, 105,173 . . . that Sci News dot info repub had more impact than the detractors were willing to acknowledge. BTW, they seem to have been in operation since 2007.[
KF, you are kidding yourself if you think that  science-news.info (alexa-rank below 4,000,000) has such an impact on a post at uncommondescent.com (alexa-rank ca. 400,000)! The server data should show that the traffic comes to the article via reddit.com (alexa-rank ca. 80).

KairosFocus thinks that at last all the scientifically inclined minds flock to UD, while in reality, it's just a couple of teens wanting to have fun...

Date: 2014/03/16 05:19:37, Link
Author: DiEb
Quote (socle @ Mar. 16 2014,02:33)
The NY Times has published a link to what appears to be the youtube account of the MH370 pilot, Zaharie Ahmad Shah.  Zaharie's subscriptions include the channels of the Richard Dawkins Foundation and Tim Minchin and he has liked other atheism-related content.

Will Barry Arrington and KF be able to restrain themselves from speculating on the matter until the facts are known?

What are you talking about?

Date: 2014/03/16 05:21:10, Link
Author: DiEb
Quote (Learned Hand @ Mar. 15 2014,08:16)
What a coincidence, I stopped by to mention that I just got back from the first day of the REASONS conference. I heard Dembski and Meyer speak, and spoke a bit to Dembski afterwards. I probably won't have time to write it up for a couple of days, but it was interesting.

I'd love to read your essay. When and where will you publish it?

Date: 2014/03/20 11:13:00, Link
Author: DiEb
Quote (KevinB @ Mar. 19 2014,19:17)
[...]using complex numbers for impedance calculation is merely a convenient fiddle because the definition of complex arithmetic happens to right for the purpose.

no, no, no, complex numbers were designed for this purpose!

Date: 2014/04/08 15:13:51, Link
Author: DiEb
Winston Ewert wrote the first paper of 2014: Digital Irreducible Complexity: A Survey of Irreducible Complexity in Computer Simulations. I've just started to read it and I already have a problem with the last paragraph of his section on "Avida" (p. 3):
Quote
The parts in Avida are the individual steps in the process. If any of the steps in the process are missing, Avida will fail to calculate the EQU function. In this sense Pennock is correct, but we will discuss whether he is correct with respect to the other terms of Behe’s definition.

Isn't the EQU function the irreducibly complex system, and Avida just the environment in which it dwells?

Date: 2014/04/11 06:19:14, Link
Author: DiEb
Quote (Zachriel @ April 09 2014,01:22)
Quote
Ewert 2014: The largest model considered here, Avida, uses approximately fifty million digital organisms [14]. The smallest model considered, Sadedin’s geometric model, uses fifty thousand digital organisms [17]. The individual components should be improbable enough that the average guessing time exceeds these numbers. We can determine this probability by taking one over the cube root of the number of digital organisms in the model. We are taking the cube root because we are assuming the minimal number of parts to be three. The actual system may have more parts, but we are interested in the level of complexity that would make it impossible to produce any system of several parts. Making this calculation gives us minimal required levels for complexity of approximately 1/368 for Avida and 1/37 for Sadedin’s model.

If you want to know the probability of calculating the random assembly of a specific sequence of three with an alphabet of 26, it is 1/(26^3) = 1/17576.

If there is a population of random sequences of 50 million, then it is virtually certain to occur. However, if the specific sequence has a length of nineteen, then the probability is 1/(26^19) = 1/7e26, which is virtually impossible in 50 million trials, or even 50 million trials a million million times.

-
xposted from uncommon thread

Winston Ewert started a thread on his article at Sal Cordova's Creation Evolution University: Digital Irreducible Complexity - Author Thread

 

 

 

=====