AE BB DB Explorer


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


form_srcid: JLT

form_srcid: JLT

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is 23.20.20.195

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

form_author:

form_srcid: JLT

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

DB_err:

DB_result: Resource id #4

Date: 2008/03/16 11:44:26, Link
Author: JLT
DaveScot

Quote
Maybe it’s just I have a warped sense of equity but doesn’t it seem a bit odd to you that the 1st amendment bars a teacher from criticizing Charles Darwin but by the same token allows him to criticize Jesus Christ?


As I'm neither a native speaker nor an Amercian I'm lacking the qualities needed to adequately respond to this. But from my long-term study of this thread I'd say that the qualifier "TARD" wouldn't be completely inappropriate.

So, back to lurking. Keep up the good work!

JLT

Date: 2008/03/16 12:06:42, Link
Author: JLT
Quote
I took a couple of courses in Native, but could never really understand the grammar.

English is so much easier.


I'll try that the next time.

Date: 2008/04/23 18:36:13, Link
Author: JLT
The Expelled producers reply:

 
Quote
Executive Producers of EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed Statement on Lawsuit by Yoko Ono

The fair use doctrine is a well established copyright principle based on the belief that the public is entitled to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for purposes of commentary and criticism.

We are disappointed therefore that Yoko Ono and others have decided to challenge our free speech right to comment on the song Imagine in our documentary film.

Based on the fair use doctrine, news commentators and film documentarians regularly use material in the same way we do in EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed .

Premise Media acknowledges that Ms. Yoko Ono did not license the song for use in the Film. Instead, a very small portion of the song was used under the fair use doctrine.

Unbiased viewers of the film will see that the Imagine clip was used as part of a social commentary in the exercise of free speech and freedom of inquiry. Unbiased viewers of the film will also understand that the Imagine clip was used to contrast the messages in the Documentary and that the clip was not used as an endorsement within Expelled.


In short: OH NOES WE'RE BEING EXPELLED!

They should start immediately with producing a new movie.

Date: 2008/04/24 15:43:17, Link
Author: JLT
I'm a prophet! (and I didn't even know it.)
   
Quote
Yoko Ono and others have now filed lawsuits challenging the film's use and critique of John Lennon's song Imagine. One of the suits seeks to ban free speech through preliminary injunctive relief which essentially means that they are trying to expel EXPELLED as it is now being shown in theaters.

Source

Date: 2008/06/12 14:47:06, Link
Author: JLT
This must be a joke. Please.

 
Quote
The Entertainment Merchants Association (EMA) will recognize Ben Stein with its “Freedom of Expression Award” during EMA’s Home Entertainment Awards ceremony June 24. [...]
Stein, a writer, actor, filmmaker, economist and lawyer, recently starred as the host of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, a documentary on intelligent design and its contention within the scientific community. The film hits DVD Oct. 21, from Vivendi Entertainment.
[...]
“Just being a conservative in Hollywood categorizes Ben Stein as courageous,” said Bo Andersen, president of the EMA. “But more, he has fearlessly articulated, as only he can, views that would be considered provocative by many and established himself a leading conservative voice in the nation. In his latest cinematic work, Ben Stein boldly and without equivocation, embraces a free speech stance and a different world view in the discussion of intelligent design versus evolution.”

Date: 2008/08/15 16:13:38, Link
Author: JLT
Quote
Only proteins involved in protein export within the flagella assembly pathway (type III secretion system and the basal-body) have been kept in most of the endosymbionts whereas those involved in building the filament and hook of flagella have only in few instances been kept, indicating a change in the functional purpose of this pathway. In some endosymbionts, genes controlling protein-export switch and hook length have undergone functional divergence as shown through an analysis of their evolutionary dynamics. Based on our results we suggest that genes of flagellum have diverged functionally as to specialise in the export of proteins from the bacterium to the host.


Let's see. In endosymbionts parts of the irreducible complex flagellum that can't possibly have any function if you take a "part" away were "taken away", and it still has a function.
Genes which original function was lost probably didn't become pseudogenes but diverged functionally (or regained function) and even specialised on that new function. But that is of course only devolution. Somehow.

In addition, DaveScot's argument seems to be, that a house can't be build from bricks because if you tear it down you end up with a pile of  bricks. Therefore... uhm... therefore! It's just common sense, see?

I'd like to congratulate DaveScot. I'm reading Understanding ID at  the moment and it really takes some asshat stupid stuff to even raise over the background noise of constant braindead stupid that Dembski and McDowell evaporate with every single word and much more so to make me leave my normal lurker state.

Oh gods. Brains like DaveScot's can't be the result of evolution there must be a designer with a really degenerated kind of humour.

Date: 2008/09/12 13:26:26, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (Louis @ Sep. 12 2008,16:23)
Smug mode disabled. Again.

Louis

ETA: This was forwarded to me from an anonymous English contributor who wants no credit and is in no way bro^wn and or sme^lly. Put the very thought right out of your minds.

 
Quote
http://www.metanexus.net/magazine/tabid/68/id/10341/Default.aspx


leads here

http://www.srsp.net/

"The object of the project is to ensure that students in these age ranges are well informed, have a balanced view of the science and religion debate, and study both subjects with open-minded humility."

teach the controversy?

then the 'about' page gives you "The project is supported by a grant from the John Templeton Foundation."

..the last cartoon is good, though:

[URL=http://www.srsp.net/new/jokes.html

In this post from the Guardian blog it doesn't sound as if Reiss wants to teach creationism.
Guardian Blog
Another article in the Telegraph.

And a statement from the Royal Society:

Quote
UPDATE - The Royal Society has issued the following statement:

   No change in Society position on creationism

   The Royal Society is opposed to creationism being taught as science. Some media reports have misrepresented the views of Professor Michael Reiss, Director of Education at the Society expressed in a speech yesterday.

   Professor Reiss has issued the following clarification. "Some of my comments about the teaching of creationism have been misinterpreted as suggesting that creationism should be taught in science classes. Creationism has no scientific basis. However, when young people ask questions about creationism in science classes, teachers need to be able to explain to them why evolution and the Big Bang are scientific theories but they should also take the time to explain how science works and why creationism has no scientific basis. I have referred to science teachers discussing creationism as a worldview'; this is not the same as lending it any scientific credibility."

   The society remains committed to the teaching of evolution as the best explanation for the history of life on earth. This position was highlighted in the Interacademy Panel statement on the teaching of evolution issued in June 2006.


from Nature blog The Great Beyond

Date: 2008/11/04 11:04:00, Link
Author: JLT
Quote
sparc: Did WMAD temporarily shut down UD?

   
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Nov. 03 2008,17:50)
Raptured?


It just occured to me that I wouldn't realize being left behind until after work. I'd say the overwhelming majority of my colleagues are as unlikely to be raptured as I am.

Unless it's enough to be a really nice person to be raptured and prior belief isn't necessary*. In that case I'd probably loose one or two of them ;)



* Never made sense to me that it should be more important to believe in that stuff than to be a good person.**

** Of course, it makes perfect sense from a sales perspective.

Date: 2008/11/04 18:48:43, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (Ptaylor @ Nov. 04 2008,23:10)
Now on at UD - a video (YouTube link) of Richard Dawkins making perfectly reasonable comments spreading evil atheist lies.

I have a suspicion that you'd better be quick to catch it.
Any thoughts on why they are doing this?


The url of that post is www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/alfred-russel-wallace-on-why-mars-is-not-habitable and I got this in my feed reader:

         
Quote
Alfred Russel Wallace on why Mars is not habitable
von Uncommon Descent von O'Leary

Friend Malcolm Chisholm, who has a wonderful approach to information (= he reads a lot) writes to tell me of a book written by Alfred Russel Wallace (Darwin’s co-theorist) on the question of the habitability of Mars:

   It is called “Is Mars Habitable?” It was written in 1907 when Wallace was living in Broadstone, Dorset (where I went to school).

Wallace takes on Percival Lowell, a supreme icon of American astronomy. Lowell thought there were Martians and they used canals etc. Wallace blows up this theory, ending the book with the statement:

“Mars, therefore, is not only uninhabited by intelligent beings such as Mr. Lowell postulates, but is absolutely UNINHABITABLE.”

Remember that Wallace has been derided for his beliefs in ID and spiritualism. Yet he was obviously not afraid to go against the scientific speculative spirit of the age.

Indeed. The introduction to the 1907 edition, scanned online, editor Charles H. Smith notes,

   For many years one of Wallace’s least remembered books, Is Mars Habitable? is increasingly being recognized as one of the first examples of the proper application of the scientific method to the study of extraterrestrial atmospheres and geography–that is, as one of the pioneer works in the field of exobiology.

Here is Wallace’s conclusion:

   To put the whole case in the fewest possible words:

(1) All physicists are agreed that, owing to the distance of Mars from the sun, it would have a mean temperature of about -35? F. (= 456? F. abs.) even if it had an atmosphere as dense as ours.

(2) But the very low temperatures on the earth under the equator, at a height where the barometer stands at about three times as high as on Mars, proves, that from scantiness of atmosphere alone Mars cannot possibly have a temperature as high [[p. 110]] as the freezing point of water; and this proof is supported by Langley’s determination of the low maximum temperature of the full moon.

The combination of these two results must bring down the temperature of Mars to a degree wholly incompatible with the existence of animal life.

(3) The quite independent proof that water-vapour cannot exist on Mars, and that therefore, the first essential of organic life–water–is non-existent.

The conclusion from these three independent proofs, which enforce each other in the multiple ratio of their respective weights, is therefore irresistible–that animal life, especially in its higher forms, cannot exist on the planet.

Mars, therefore, is not only uninhabited by intelligent beings such as Mr. Lowell postulates, but is absolutely UNINHABITABLE.

What made Wallace so unpopular compared to Darwin is that he insisted that in science, evidence matters. Carl Sagan-style proclamations like “They’re out there! How could we be so arrogant as to think we are all alone!” do not become science just because they are proclaimed by scientists.

See also:

Boldly go, but why, exactly?

Extraterrestrials: Several million UFOs later - the state of the question


Maybe someone didn't like the juxtaposition of "in science, evidence matters" as the good thing and this

     
Quote
Carl Sagan ID-style proclamations like “They’re The designer's out there! How could we be so arrogant as to think we are all alone!” do not become science just because they are proclaimed by scientists engineers.[slightly edited]


as the bad thing.

.

Date: 2008/11/04 19:24:27, Link
Author: JLT
Forget about my last post. Either UD got hacked or someone suddenly likes Dawkins a lot. His vid replaced every single post and it's in the sidebar, too.


:D

Date: 2008/11/04 19:57:36, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (bystander @ Nov. 05 2008,01:40)
Quote (JLT @ Nov. 05 2008,07:24)
Forget about my last post. Either UD got hacked or someone suddenly likes Dawkins a lot. His vid replaced every single post and it's in the sidebar, too.


:D

So was this the new webmaster?

Whoever it was, good job.

Oh, Dawkins is gone. What a shame. I've some screenshots if someone is interested.

Date: 2008/11/07 10:08:35, Link
Author: JLT
The Disco institute links to reviews of the proposed Texas science standards. I read (well, sort of) Meyer's and Garner's reviews - now I feel sick.

A highlight from Garner's review:

   
Quote

About Section 7: Evolution
The section in the proposed TEKS dealing with biological evolution has been greatly expanded (from two expectations in the current TEKS to five in the draft), probably reflecting the influence of outside groups who are frustrated with the general public’s skepticism about the more speculative claims of the theory. Although minor degrees of evolution are strongly supported by direct evidence (e.g., antibiotic resistance), the significant amount of evidence for greater degrees of change (i.e., major changes between groups) is necessarily circumstantial in nature. Circumstantial evidence supports conclusions of “the evidence is consistent with…” rather than “the evidence demonstrates that…” These limitations should be made clear in the presentation of this subject, and indeed in any field based on circumstantial evidence. In addition, in my experience and that of many objective scientists, assumptions and speculation are more common in evolutionary biology than in perhaps any other field of science. Many published reports that mention evolution are not in fact evidence for evolution at all; rather, they simply attribute their observations to the process or interpret their data assuming it to be true. In many papers, there appears to be no need to invoke evolution to explain the results, but the authors feel obliged to make their belief in the theory evident as a kind of scientific political correctness. Much has been said about how “science classes should be limited to science, not religion,” and I entirely agree. But speculation and assumptions are not science either. At the very least, assumptions should be identified as such. I am entirely supportive of teaching more about evolution in high school biology IF what is known versus what is speculated or assumed are clearly identified as such, and if the limitations of circumstantial evidence are clearly discussed. This could be accomplished if the TEKS apply a standard requiring that the “strengths and weaknesses” be learned by students.


Meyer's is even worse. Compared to him Garner is open an honest about his intentions.

Date: 2008/11/10 08:26:45, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (Advocatus Diaboli @ Nov. 10 2008,12:41)


Is this close enough? Ricky Sternberg published about biological information:

   
Quote

DNA codes and information: formal structures and relational causes.Sternberg RV.
Biologic Institute, Redmond, WA 98052, USA. rsternberg@biologicinstitute.org

Recently the terms "codes" and "information" as used in the context of molecular biology have been the subject of much discussion. Here I propose that a variety of structural realism can assist us in rethinking the concepts of DNA codes and information apart from semantic criteria. Using the genetic code as a theoretical backdrop, a necessary distinction is made between codes qua symbolic representations and information qua structure that accords with data. Structural attractors are also shown to be entailed by the mapping relation that any DNA code is a part of (as the domain). In this framework, these attractors are higher-order informational structures that obviate any "DNA-centric" reductionism. In addition to the implications that are discussed, this approach validates the array of coding systems now recognized in molecular biology.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18465197

Biological Institute is much more active than ISCID!Thanks to the anonymous commenter in my blog for tipping me on this.

 
Quote
Is this close enough?


No.
The impact factor of the Journal is 0.881 which means that no one ever reads or cites it.
This won't get better after Sternberg's article was published.

From his "conclusions":

 
Quote
Finally, this structural realist view permits the role of DNA to be completely rethought in two radical ways. For some time now both structuralist and developmental systems-like interpretations of the gene have held that DNA encodes a protein’s primary structure but not its secondary or tertiary structures (e.g., Goodwin 2001; Kjosavik 2007). In this way, so it seems, biological form is emancipated from genomic “information.” Yet this distinction is suspect. For one thing, there is a connection between the linear sequence of amino acids (codons) and protein folding (Ofran and Margalit 2006). If this connection did not exist it would seem hardly possible to be able to predict protein higher-order foldings from amino acid strings—but this is done everyday. For another, causal links have been established between ORF signatures and protein secondary/tertiary configurations (Biro 2006; Gu et al. 2003). As mentioned, it is already known that ORFs have “multilevel optimization” for a number of codes (Bollenbach et al. 2007; Itzkovitz and Alon 2007) and a “protein-folding code” is not unlikely. But keep in mind that DNA in this framework is both less and more than the “Master Molecule” of popular myth. The mathematical structures that proteins (and RNAs!) are the result of are not “in” a gene. Instead, the DNA sequence is the material platform for the symbol strings that allow information to be accessed. In this sense, then, DNA is less than its Central Dogma interpretation because it is not ontically informational. Yet DNA enables many more code systems that commonly acknowledged and in this way is more than just a collection of codons.


Good grief.

Sounds a bit like the result of a random article generator.

Date: 2008/11/11 08:05:40, Link
Author: JLT
GilDodgen  
Quote
Whenever you hear the words ought or should, you can be sure that a moral truth is being espoused. This presents a predicament for the moral relativist, who claims that there are no absolute moral truths. Of course, this is self-refuting, because the claim that there are no moral absolutes is a truth claim about the nature of morality, which says that no moral truth claims are ultimately valid. Moral relativism is a logical consequence of atheism.


Thou shall not kill. Or is it Thou shall not murder?
 
Quote
Multiple translations exist of the sixth commandment; the Hebrew words ?? ???? are variously translated as "thou shalt not kill" or "thou shalt not murder." Older Protestant translations of the Bible, those based on the Vulgate and Roman Catholic translations usually render it as "Thou shalt not kill," whereas Jewish and newer Protestant versions tend to use "You shall not murder." There is controversy as to which translation is more faithful, and both forms are quoted in support of many opposing ethical standpoints.


Luckily for Christians, it is immediately clear what's morally allowed and what isn't, e. g. death penalty. Just look at the countries which enforce death penalties and you'll know which countries have a Christian majority and which haven't.

Christians worldwide are equally united in their opinion about embryonic stem cell research, the circumstances under which abortion is allowed, assisted suicide, when to switch of live support for comatous patients, whether and under which circumstances research on primates/animals is allowed etc.

Must be nice to have this set of unshakable and undiscussable moral truths™.

Date: 2008/11/14 17:41:09, Link
Author: JLT
Quote
nullasalus:

Now I’m just one guy, and all this is anecdotal - so take it with a grain of salt. But I predict that down the line (5 years? 10 years? More?) that naturalistic/materialistic atheism will die down in popularity, to be replaced by quasi-naturalistic deism and semi-deism(s) of varying types. Atheism of the type we see currently (materialistic, scientism-prone, fundamentalist) won’t last - it’s self-defeating, requires too much of a faith commitment, and entails various absurdities or inconsistencies.


At first I thought he was talking about ID. And what is it with these guys that they always have to predict the end of something? First darwinism, now atheism...

Is it some kind of displacement behavior because predicting the end of the world isn't socially acceptable anymore?



Date: 2008/11/14 17:50:53, Link
Author: JLT
HAHAHA, hadn't seen that before I posted!

Quote
Barry:

We live in exciting times.  The Darwinist/materialist hegemony over our culture has definitely peaked, and we are privileged to watch the initial tremors that are shaking the Darwinist house of cards.  These are only the beginning of woes for St. Charles’ disciples, and I look forward to one day watching the entire rotten edifice come crashing down.  I am persuaded that just as when the Soviet Union went seemingly overnight from “menacing colossus astride the globe” to “non-existent,” the final crash of the House of Darwin will happen with astonishing suddenness.


Waterloo.

Date: 2008/11/15 14:31:18, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (k.e.. @ Nov. 15 2008,15:30)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 15 2008,17:11)
Uncommonly Denyse at Uncommon Descent:
         
Quote
We are the 99% chimpanzee? Scratch that!
O'Leary

...Hey, if you like bananas, that’s fine, but you are still far more closely related to Ronald Reagan than to Bonzo (whatever you may think about that).

Uncommonly Denyse in The Spatula Brain:
   
Quote
...it is not the purpose of this book to argue that evolution did not occur. There is a fossil record, after all. In spite of its many defects, the record shows that evolution occurred. (p. 12)

   
Quote
But what about our nearest animal relatives, the chimpanzees and other large primates....Does the answer to human nature lie in our animal nature? In our kinship with chimpanzees? (p. 13)

   
Quote
Humans and chimpanzees are thought to have split off from a common ancestor about 5 to 7 million years ago, according to current evolutionary theory. Because chimps are the animal species closest to humans ...(sidebar, p. 14)

So, just WTF are you saying, Denyse?

I think she means Ronald was a monkey.

No, no, it means Ronald Reagan is our common ancestor.

Ick.

Date: 2008/11/15 14:36:47, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (JLT @ Nov. 15 2008,20:31)
No, no, it means Ronald Reagan is our common ancestor.

Ick.


SHE. She means. Not IT.

How many posts before I get an edit button?

Date: 2008/11/16 12:59:41, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 15 2008,21:37)
   
Quote (JLT @ Nov. 15 2008,14:36)
How many posts before I get an edit button?

Here. You can borrow mine. Just don't abuse it.


Thanks!


edited to add: Just testing...

Date: 2008/11/17 08:06:01, Link
Author: JLT
Quote
23

tribune7

11/17/2008

8:15 am

Rutherford appears to have given up

It looks like you sacred him off with logic and evidence.


Obviously. There's no other reason one could think of why Dr. Adam Rutherford, web editor for Nature, doesn't waste time answering comments at UD. None.

Quote
What labour-saving device would you like to create?

Rutherford: A 'rationality gun'. You just point it at people and it makes them instantly aware that they're talking crap. Alternative therapists of the world, be warned: we're coming for you, you big fakers!

Date: 2008/11/17 08:13:45, Link
Author: JLT
Quote
Joseph:
IOW sexual reproduction basically put a stop on evolution in the form of universal common descent.


head --> desk

Date: 2008/11/17 12:48:34, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 17 2008,18:26)
I am impressed by D'tard falling on his own (cheesy poof encrusted) sword.

What wonders may emerge? I'm voting for his own blog. Please let it be his own blog.

Louis


Great minds think alike?

 
Quote


16

FtK

11/17/2008

12:19 pm

[sobs uncontrollably]

Noooooooooo! Not Dave….

I always rather enjoyed his global warming and political posts. I also got a kick out of his dissent from Descent so to speak…made for interesting dialogue.

Maybe he’ll start his own blog?

Hopefully??

Date: 2008/11/18 17:10:15, Link
Author: JLT
[quote]If scientists being "surprised" at what they discover is ID research then I can't wait to see what ID research happens on Christmas day! All those research projects to unwrap![/i]

I read that,too.

 
Quote
DaveScot:
This science article is one those where the researchers variously describe themselves as “stunned”, “amazed”, “surprised” or something else that conveys the notion that theory didn’t predict whatever it is they found. I also watch for discoveries that are described as “unexpected” which conveys the same meaning - the underlying theory of evolution is deficient. Sound theories don’t result in unexpected observations.


Hi Dave!
You are an idiot.

Journalists try to make their stories sound interesting. Scientists try to make their research sound cutting edge. Therefore, they use language that makes their articles and their research sound more interesting. In most cases, if you read the original article, it wasn't all that surprising.

But you don't read those pesky complicated and boring original articles, do you. You skim ScienceDaily articles.

In this particular case the article actually is about a truly new find, a new class of helicases. Congrats!* But in your tiny brain you didn't realize that it has nothing whatsoever to do with the theory of evolution. Why should the ToE predict that there can't be "rewinding" helicases? Why? Is every newly discovered protein function disproof of evolution or only those that are featured in ScienceDaily articles?

I know you (and the rest of UD) don't have a clue what a scientific prediction is, that's painfully obvious**. But I give you one anyway, one that includes this new class of helicases and is based on the theory of evolution: The coding gene must have orthologs (similar sequence, similar location) in other primates. According to the ToE it can't have poofed into existence after the human lineage split from the chimpanzee lineage, for example. If no such orthologs could be found, that'd be a serious problem for the ToE.

See, that's something you IDist just don't get. Each and every single gene that's investigated in an evolutionary context is a new test for the ToE. Of course, a designer could use similar genes for similar organisms, too. But he could also include completely new genes whenever he wanted, right? As you don't make assumption about the nature of the designer let alone propose a method of his designing, you can't say anything about that. So, while the ToE makes predictions about things that we MUST find, ID predicts nothing. That's why the ToE is science and ID is not.

Just needed to get that from my chest.
Cheers,
JLT


* And I'm generous here. From the ScienceDaily article:
 
Quote
“We knew this particular protein caused this disease [a rare genetic disorder called Schimke immuno-osseous dysplasia] before we started the study,” said Kadonaga. “That’s why we investigated it. We just didn’t know what it did.”


That the funtion they discovered was a previously unknown one is surprising. But it wasn't contrary to any prior hypothesis so it wasn't unexpected in the sense that DaveScot means.

** Scroll down to "Intelligent Design is Not a Valid Theory Since it Does Not Make Predictions" and kill some brain cells.

Date: 2008/11/19 12:33:37, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (J-Dog @ Nov. 19 2008,17:03)
Quote (Leftfield @ Nov. 19 2008,09:53)
Barb:
   
Quote
The problem for Darwinists is that they state that social morals have evolved because these cooperative morals helped humans survive together. But this assumes an end (survival) for evolution, which by definition has no end since it’s a nonintelligent process.

Not a familiar name. Sock puppet, or could somebody so clueless really consider themselves qualified to comment on such a high level site as UD?  :p

Yeah... You would think any self-respecting puppet would at least quote St. Dembski or St. Davey to "prove" their point.

This one cites the Bible. Sockpuppet or not?
Quote
4

feebish
11/18/2008

12:57 am

That’s an interesting article, Mrs O’Leary. Thanks for pointing it out. I found this part particularly interesting:
“In at least some cases, these new epigenetic patterns may be passed down to future generations. Scientists are debating just how often this happens. In a paper to be published next year in The Quarterly Review of Biology, Eva Jablonski and Gal Raz of Tel Aviv University in Israel assemble a list of 101 cases in which a trait linked to an epigenetic change was passed down through three generations.”
It made me think of the 10 Commandments:
“You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me.”
Again, the 3rd generation! And the research was done by someone at Tel Aviv University. I wonder if this is another example of someone doing ID research on the sly. I wonder what made Dr Jablonksi look at the 3rd generation.


I honestly can't tell but I sure hope it's a sockpuppet.
It frightens me to think that there are people who believe that this:
epigenetic markers = god's punishment for not worshipping him
therefore
epigenetics = super-secret ID research

makes sense somehow.

Date: 2008/11/20 07:07:55, Link
Author: JLT
That's hysterical:

 
Quote
One of the few voices from the other side [the anti-evolution side] came from Paul Kramer, a Carrollton engineer, who said that more than 700 eminent scientists welcome the teaching of pros and cons about evolution. Not allowing debate over untested and unproven theories "seems out of place in a free society” and is reminiscent of book-burning in Nazi Germany, he said.


Source: Evolution proponents descend on State Board of Education

Date: 2008/11/21 12:20:57, Link
Author: JLT
Steven Novella [NeurologicaBlog] reacts to O'Leary's latest drivel:
   
Quote
O’Leary certainly represents for the ID movement on Uncommon Descent. Her writings are an excellent example of what happens when you start with an absurd and/or wrong ideological conclusion, and then try to marshal any argument you can to attack, without any regard for fact or logic, those who criticize your conclusions or who hold a more scientific opinion.

Date: 2008/11/21 12:31:48, Link
Author: JLT
Quote
StephenB:

Conversely, Darwinists never consider the possibility that they could be wrong, even though the evidence indicates that they almost certainly are. That is all part of their pathology. Science can never be sure of itself. That is why it needs both the humility not to disfranchise dissenters and the wisdom provided by a sound metaphysical foundation. (Providing, of course, that the metaphysics itself has not been corrupted through the misapplication of reason [Our current situation, by the way]

My arguments, on the other hand, are based on logical certainly. That a self-existent creator follows from the fact of existence is evident to reason. To resist that fact is tantamount to resisting the fact that 2+2=4. I have no idea whether the ID scientists or ID community in general takes this matter seriously. I only know that they should.


[my emphasis]

Date: 2008/11/21 17:44:54, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (Jkrebs @ Nov. 21 2008,23:17)
StephenB has this to say about scientists.  Just thought all you scientists out there might like to know what he thinks about you all.

   
Quote
It is the vital few scientists, the minority, that drive most of the new discoveries. The others are just dutiful little worker bees that cling to the status quo and use the power of inert institutions to justify their existence.

Even more amusing* is that he thinks Dembski and Behe are these "vital fews".
   
Quote
Meanwhile, the geniuses are persecuted for breaking away from the herd and trying to say something interesting and useful. It hasn’t been that long, after all, since the astronomers caught all kinds of hell for doing that very thing—-discovering evidence for the big bang. And who was it that gave them all that hell? Why it was the herd, of course. And what was their rationale? Well, it seems that they were fearful that [hide the kids now and pull down the shades] someone might think that God created the universe. To suggest that this same herd should now be telling innovators like Dembski and Behe how to do their business is beyond unconscionable.


Oh, and apparently methodological naturalism was invented by bureaucrats in the 1980's only to protect those pure worker bee scientists against ID. Figure that.

StephenB = pure TARD


* and also very, very sad.

Date: 2008/11/24 13:18:25, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 24 2008,18:04)
What would happen if you held a video contest and nobody entered?
http://www.youtube.com/group/academicfreedomday

How embarrassing. 1 month gone and still no entries.

1 video. From Stein. They say "students everywhere can speak out against censorship and stand up for free speech" except nobody has so far.

When will they learn....

The UD page announcing this says
     
Quote
“On Charles Darwin’s 200th birthday (Feb. 12, 2009), we want students everywhere to speak out against censorship and stand up for free speech by defending the right to debate the evidence for and against evolution”

And yet posters on the thread seem to be quoting posts that are no longer there. Censorship? I think so...
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....omments

And of course, comments are disabled. Freedom of speech, all right.

From the UD page: FAIL
   
Quote
Shouldn’t this be cross-posted to Overwhelming Evidence? Wasn’t OE created, and designed to appeal to High school and college kids?

If you put this post over there, I bet that there would be lots of responses.

I bet.

Date: 2008/11/24 20:03:50, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (bfish @ Nov. 24 2008,23:32)
Ugh.

Any idea who Baylor Bear is? New poster? Marks? Dembski?

I kind of like the cartoon. It looks like one they would try to caption for one of Trader Joe's Fearless Flyers (should you be so lucky as to live near a TJs). I even like the first line of the caption, in a non-sequitur kind of way. And the last line is hysterically funny in showing that the three girls have absolutely no understanding whatsoever of the Theory of Evolution. I assume that's why it got posted at UD, right? So everyone can have a laugh at those poor, ignorant, murderous girls.

(Sorry I don't know how to show the actual image here).

The cartoon is from Monkey Fluids. Funnily enough, they kinda quotemined it. Here's the full version:



Explains why they don't give a link to the designer.

Oh, I forget that they never identify him...

Date: 2008/11/24 20:14:19, Link
Author: JLT
Maybe Baylor Bear* found the cartoon here.

Date: 2008/11/25 16:13:25, Link
Author: JLT
Quote
Jehu:
It seems to me that it is the IDists who are the only ones attempting to lay hold of the mathematics of law and chance that would drive evolution and they are doing so in a fashion that is predictive of actual observable phenomena. The Darwinists on the other hand are still searching for the alchemists stone to make sense of it all. So who is it that is doing actual science?

Jehu demonstrates that he never read (or saw) an article in one of the Journals Evolution, TREE or Journal of Evolutionary Biology. Otherwise he couldn't possibly say anything that stupid. OTOH he can't have read anything from IDist either - there is nothing approaching math in it. Not one of those IDists has even pretended to calculate the information content or CSI* for a real live example, let alone anything "predictive of actual observable phenomena," and I predict** that they never will. It's so much easier just to point and say goddidit that's above the probability bound, therefore design. And Jehu, IDiot that he is, thinks that's science.

Bleh. Now I feel like getting drunk. Unfortunately it's both to late and to Tuesday for it.


* or what ever their sciencey word of the day is
** See? I can do this predictalizing, too.

Date: 2008/11/25 17:28:16, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 25 2008,22:18)
 
Quote (JLT @ Nov. 25 2008,17:13)
Bleh. Now I feel like getting drunk. Unfortunately it's both too late and too Tuesday for it.

Well fortunately for you, I am a helpful person. Also fortunately, I have no school until Monday.


...

<cries>


<and silently puts a couple of o in her previous post while no one is looking>

 
Quote

Therefore, by way of taking one for the team, I will make the sacrifice and get drunk for you.

No need to thank me, just being the good guy that I am.


Well, thank you all the same. I think.

Date: 2008/11/26 13:56:53, Link
Author: JLT
Quote
47

DaveTARD

11/26/2008

1:50 pm

rib

NDE doesn’t predict when or if significant changes will happen. Since you cannot seem to acknowledge that simple fact you need to move along. Don’t post any more in this thread. Other authors here may continue to entertain your obstinance but I will not.


Let's see.. hmmm. That would be an orange or even red level warning.
I think the red label needs an addition:

DT doesn't understand and/or like what you're saying.

Date: 2008/11/26 14:04:52, Link
Author: JLT
Quote
44

tribune7

11/26/2008

7:18 am

And if through torturous attempts to reason you claim Dembski’s method provides false positives how much is it due to your desire not to accept the teachings of a certain ancient book?

Tribune still didn't get the memo.

Quote
45

ribczynski

11/26/2008

2:06 pm

None. There is plenty of evidence apart from Dembski that the Bible is scientifically inaccurate.

I knew that long before I had even heard of Dembski.

Date: 2008/11/26 19:26:40, Link
Author: JLT
That's so depressing.

 
Quote
Joseph
Yeah and it used to be that chimps and humans DNA was 98.5% similar.

Now we know it is closer to 70. But for some reason that isn’t evidence against common ancestry.


Why do "we" know that? Because DO'L posted it.
Nevermind that the Nature article about the "Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome" is freely available for everyone and it's immediately obvious that the 70 % figure is complete BS.

Why do they never ever double check anything? Don't they think that a finding like that would have been publicized in each and every newspaper worldwide and not only in some obscure newspaper from the Netherlands if it had at least some merit?

Critical thinking - you are doing it wrong.

Date: 2008/11/27 03:43:33, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Nov. 27 2008,03:11)
if you want to see something really funny:

Turns out Richard Buggs who penned the original article is a YEC who the BCSE (British equivalent of NCSE) suspects got an advanced biology degree just so he could argue YEC from "authority" a la Wells. Buggs has been writing pro-YEC and pro-IDiot letters to British papers for several years now.

But... but... wouldn't he've been EXPELLED by now if he were a YEC?

Date: 2008/11/27 13:54:56, Link
Author: JLT
Do you have Firefox? Then there is an orange icon in the adress line, a dot with two bows, if the page you're looking at does have an RSS feed (maybe there is something similar in IE?). If you click on it a new page will open and ask you whether you want to get this RSS feed and gives you some options (in my case Google reader, My Yahoo and Bloglines). I use Google reader which is IMO easy to use and well arranged, but you need a Google account for it. You can open one here.

If there is an RSS icon on the page itself (on ATBC there is one at the top right) you can click on that and get the same options (if using firefox, don't know about IE). Another possibility is to right-click on it and Save link address. Than you can add this link manually to the feed reader of your choice.

If you don't want to get a Google account then another option is Wizz RSS, that's an Firefox add-on (Download). It opens in a sidebar in Firefox and adds a toolbar. I don't like the toolbar because it takes away space. You can close it with a right click on the toolbar and uncheck Wizz toolbar. Under options (where you can uncheck the toolbar) you can find a small Wizz icon and drag & drop it where ever it fits, so you can open the Wizz sidebar with a click on that icon. Wizz has a RSS feed search function and if it finds a feed you can add it simply by drag & drop. I used it for quite a while and still like it but if you read a lot of feeds than IMO Google is more convenient.

I know that you can use Thunderbird as a feedreader, too, but I've never tried it.  I think you have to add a new account for RSS feeds and than add the RSS feed addresses manually.

New posts on ATBC http://www.antievolution.org/aebbrss.php

New posts on UD http://www.uncommondescent.com/feed/

New comments on UD http://www.uncommondescent.com/wp-commentsrss2.php

I hope that helps you to get started.
Or at least didn't confuse you.

Date: 2008/11/27 15:47:32, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 27 2008,20:58)
I used RSS feeds many years ago, but I found them to be sometimes annoying. Slate, for instance, their article titles were often completely uninformative about what the article was about, and I couldn't tell if it was interesting or not. So I quit using RSS years ago and have little idea what it's like now. I do have one question, though. Is there a way to rig up RSS in such a way that every so many hours it preserves the new comments at UD in such a way that if the comment is deleted, the RSS won't go back and delete it next time it updates?

A lot of the feeds from commercial sites still just have the title and maybe a single line summary of the article. But many blogs (even UD) do have the whole post (and comments) as feed. I just delete feeds from my reader that don't give me more than the title.

Google reader doesn't have the option to save all posts from one feed but let's say you opened GR in the morning and looked at some amusing UD comments/posts and later in the day some of them are obliviated on UD, then you can still find them in your GR in most of the cases. But if you didn't look at GR in the morning than GR hasn't updated your feeds and you'd never see those comments/posts that were obliviated in the meantime*.

It may be easier with a feed reader that can work offline, like Thunderbird. I think Thunderbird actually downloads the posts/comments to make them available to you when you are offline. If you were online all the time it would download all the posts/comments as soon as they are posted and than they are stored until you delete them. But as I said earlier, I haven't used Thunderbird as a feed reader, yet, so I don't know for sure.**

* I hope that sentence makes sense, I'm not too sure about the grammar... and my computer-related vocabulary isn't that extensive. I blame Thanksgiving. If all those interwebs-savvy Americans weren't eating Turkey all day long they could answer your question probably much better than poor me...

** See above.

Date: 2008/11/27 15:58:52, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (Jkrebs @ Nov. 27 2008,21:41)
Oops - spoke too soon.  New posts are being made here and yet my RSS feed reader doesn't see them even when I update manually.  Should they be immediately available from this site?

There is a time delay between the moment the post or comment is posted and the moment it's available over feed and some sites seem to update their feed more frequent than others. AtBC is especially slow - or maybe the posters are exceptionally fast...

Date: 2008/11/27 16:25:55, Link
Author: JLT
Quote
You both imply that I concealed Coynes later views. First, Coynes later statements were not motivated by the fact that the peppered moth myth has been rehabilitated. As the story itself points out, despite all of Majerus’ efforts, it has not.


I wonder whether BarryA knows that Coyne's quote is form his review of a book form Majerus, in which Majerus critizised the peppered moth example - one could say that Coyne dismissed the peppered moth because of Majerus.

That BarryA makes it sound as if Majerus is uncritically trying to restore the peppered moth example in spite of contrary evidence is somewhat ironic.

Date: 2008/11/28 19:11:54, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 28 2008,23:29)
   
Quote (khan @ Nov. 28 2008,18:01)
Cap'n, he's gettin' ready to blow.

I don't think Barry is going to handle this for very long. He's already getting impatient and banning people. At some point he's going to get desperate, and probably turn it back over into Davetard.


Finally, one of the last big questions of humanity is unravelled. Where do DaveTards come from?

Up until now the larval stage of this bizarre beast was unknown, but through a lucky coincidence Dr. S. Story was able to capture the metamorphosis of the juvenile form, called BarryA, to its adult mature final stage, DaveTard. The metamorphosis starts with erratic and irrational behavior, occasionally accompanied by frothing in the mouth region. While banning is a rarely observed habit in the larval stage, it becomes more frequent shortly before the metamorphosis starts. It is well known that, once it's complete, DaveTards need to ban someone at least every other day to compensate for their inferiority complex, especially if they're short on cheese poofs.

Neither of the stages is aesthetically appealing, so it comes as no surprise that the metamorphosis itself looks particularly awful:

Date: 2008/11/29 05:11:40, Link
Author: JLT
Comedy gold:
 
Quote
13

ribczynski

11/28/2008

11:14 pm

Barry Arrington wrote:

   Astonishing, absolutely astonishing, the mental gyrations and contortions materialists will resort to to prop up their pet theories. Some of the commenters continue to suggest that a theory that posits INFINITY in support of itself is parsimonious.

As compared to the parsimonious and falsifiable theory that holds that an infinite Designer created the universe, and that it has the characteristics it does because the Designer wanted them that way?

Parsimony cuts both ways, Barry, and so does falsifiability.

More on this later.


15

tribune7

11/28/2008

11:20 pm

ribczynski–As compared to the parsimonious and falsifiable theory that holds that an infinite Designer created the universe, and that it has the characteristics it does because the Designer wanted them that way?

Actually, that’s not what ID says. ID says the universe can only have the characteristics it has if it were designed. No motive is attributed to the designer.

Why would you think the multiverse is a better explanation than design?

LOL. So, there is the possibility that the designer designed the universe in a way that he did not intend?

 
Quote
16

Barry Arrington

11/28/2008

11:45 pm

rib writes: “As compared to the parsimonious and falsifiable theory that holds that an infinite Designer created the universe, and that it has the characteristics it does because the Designer wanted them that way?”

Straw man, rib. As tribune 7 writes, ID does not attibute any characteristics to the designer except the ability to design. It certainly does not posit God. Keep your categories straight.

Now, if I were talking about God, I would demonstrate that God is not complex. Indeed, He is utterly simple. Omniscient, Omnipresent, and Omnipotent, but, in essence, simple.

Shorter BarryA: Ability to design != design turns out the way the designer wants it to be. Stop building strawmen.

Ribczynski is not impressed:

 
Quote
23

ribczynski

11/29/2008

3:17 am

Barry Arrington wrote:

   Some of the commenters continue to suggest that a theory that posits INFINITY in support of itself is parsimonious.

The theories in question do not posit the multiverse; they entail it after positing much less.

   I will not even attempt to counter their arguments.

A cynic might suspect that it’s because you can’t.

   ID does not attibute any characteristics to the designer except the ability to design.

And the ability to implement the design.

   It certainly does not posit God.

Besides God(s), who are the designers you have in mind who are capable of designing and implementing universes?

   Now, if I were talking about God, I would demonstrate that God is not complex. Indeed, He is utterly simple. Omniscient, Omnipresent, and Omnipotent, but, in essence, simple.

That’s an interesting double standard. In your world God gets credit for being utterly simple, despite the complexity of his creation, but materialist theories get labeled as complex, regardless of the sparseness of their assumptions, if they entail the multiverse.

Love it.

Date: 2008/11/29 05:24:06, Link
Author: JLT
Quote
4

O'Leary

11/29/2008

4:37 am

Denyse is a Roman Catholic Christian journalist based in Toronto, Canada.

JLT thinks that speaking of yourself in third person is rather strange.

Date: 2008/11/29 12:04:22, Link
Author: JLT
Quote
Allanius:
Whither the attempt by scientists to show that mind is made of matter? Surely they must know that science can never demonstrate such a connection empirically. It can speculate, using imaging and other surrogates, but science lacks the descriptive power to trace any given thought to specific brain substances and processes in even the most rudimentary fashion.

Never say never.

Quote
Brain implant allows mute man to speak

Patient with paralysis* controls speech synthesizer with his mind.

An electrode implanted into the brain of a man who is unable to move or communicate has enabled him to use a speech synthesizer to produce vowel sounds as he thinks them.

The work could one day help similar patients to produce whole sentences using signals from their brains, say the researchers.[...]Nature News


* He is affected by locked-in syndrome. I don't have access to Nature from home, otherwise I'd have quoted more of the article.

Date: 2008/11/29 15:55:10, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (khan @ Nov. 29 2008,18:48)
 
Quote (JLT @ Nov. 29 2008,13:04)
 
Quote
Allanius:
Whither the attempt by scientists to show that mind is made of matter? Surely they must know that science can never demonstrate such a connection empirically. It can speculate, using imaging and other surrogates, but science lacks the descriptive power to trace any given thought to specific brain substances and processes in even the most rudimentary fashion.

Never say never.

   
Quote
Brain implant allows mute man to speak

Patient with paralysis* controls speech synthesizer with his mind.

An electrode implanted into the brain of a man who is unable to move or communicate has enabled him to use a speech synthesizer to produce vowel sounds as he thinks them.

The work could one day help similar patients to produce whole sentences using signals from their brains, say the researchers.[...]Nature News


* He is affected by locked-in syndrome. I don't have access to Nature from home, otherwise I'd have quoted more of the article.

What a contrast.

On one hand we have applied science that can help people in terrible conditions (locked-in syndrome sounds particularly hideous).

On the other hand we have semi-literate loons opining about the 'spatula brain'.

That's what makes me angry about the ID folk.

Every scientist constantly has to read scientific articles to stay up-to-date in his/her speciality and every scientist probably wishes he could read twice as fast because there are so much more articles that he needs or wants to read.

Not so if you're an IDist. For an IDist it's enough to skim through SciAm or watch a documentary every now and then to know exactly what's going on "in science" in general. Even better, without having any background  they're able to separate the wheat from the chaff and to tell the scientist where they're wrong or what they'll never find out.

And they probably don't have the slightest clue how unbelievably, mind-stunningly arrogant and offending that is.

Date: 2008/11/29 19:26:31, Link
Author: JLT
Quote
gpuccio:
Measures are always a product of intelligent measurers: they are not inherent in nature, or given by it.

Date: 2008/11/30 07:46:39, Link
Author: JLT
Is it possible that tribune7 is a sockpuppet?

He can't be serious:

Quote
71

tribune7

11/30/2008

6:40 am

ID does not require the supernatural.

Atheism requires faith.

Attempts to deny reality — that “design” exists and has observable characteristics — is anti-science.

Date: 2008/11/30 12:42:35, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (Amadan @ Nov. 30 2008,15:48)
 
Quote (JLT @ Nov. 29 2008,15:55)
For an IDist it's enough to skim through SciAm or watch a documentary every now and then to know exactly what's going on "in science" in general. Even better, without having any background  they're able to separate the wheat from the chaff and to tell the scientist where they're wrong or what they'll never find out.

And they probably don't have the slightest clue how unbelievably, mind-stunningly arrogant and offending that is.

This is rank hypocrisy!

What gives you the right to even comment on ID as if you understood it? Your oh-so-clever PhD in Dubious Things You Can Do With a Test Tube? Your White Coat of Unimpeachable Authority?

If, and only if, you can show an advanced degree in Southern Baptist Theology, or at least sincere testimony of an uniformed credulousness, then you might be eligible to advance an opinion worthy of inclusion on UD.

I walk past a catholic cathedral twice a day. According to their standards I'm perfectly qualified to comment on ID.

But I'd stop commenting on ID if they stopped commenting on biology...

Date: 2008/12/01 05:37:02, Link
Author: JLT
@ Amadan:

Actually, I can see a church (well, its tower) from my home, although not the cathedral (I'm living in Ireland; probably everyone here can see a church from his home... ;)

Date: 2008/12/01 05:40:18, Link
Author: JLT
TARD

Don’t they see the difference?
They didn’t compare chance and cheating, they compared chance + non-random mechanism (called “playing poker”) and cheating. They knew how often you can win by relying on chance + mechanism because they knew the frequencies by which poker players win exactly - they had a massive database with statistics and just needed to look.

If they just compared the odds of winning of a machine that played completely random against real poker players, they’d ALL turn up as cheating because they win more often than pure chance allows. Hey, that’s sounds just like ID.

IDists look at the probability that something turns up by pure chance and ignore mechanism.
They’d convict every poker player in the world for cheating.

Date: 2008/12/01 09:35:19, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (J-Dog @ Dec. 01 2008,13:53)
   
Quote (Amadan @ Dec. 01 2008,07:49)
   
Quote (JLT @ Dec. 01 2008,05:37)
@ Amadan:

Actually, I can see a church (well, its tower) from my home, although not the cathedral (I'm living in Ireland; probably everyone here can see a church from his home... ;)

Oh God. Now we'll have to play that awful Two* Degrees of Separation thing that everyone in Ireland has to do.

D'ya know me cousin Ultan McClafferty in Termonfeckin?


*As opposed to six: It's a bloody small country.

What are the odds?  We'd better run it through the Nixplanatory Filter - My best friend growing up was John McLafferty - but I think he was from East Termonfeckin.


If one of you knows someone who is working with adult stem cells or is an immunologist than the odds are pretty high that I know him or her (it IS a small country). Otherwise, not so much. Can't say that I know a lot of people outside of work.
The hard life of a scientist abroad...

Date: 2008/12/02 05:19:23, Link
Author: JLT
Quote
All it proves, of course, is that God is not one to break an ancient promise made to the human race: that the progeny of the first human beings, who were endowed supernaturally with non-bodily intellectual powers, will forever after be endowed with the same non-bodily powers, from the moment of conception.

Vjtorley must have got a much more detailed bible than the ones that I've seen so far.

Date: 2008/12/03 10:55:28, Link
Author: JLT
Quote
120

tribune7

12/02/2008

5:32 pm

I just don’t see how humans designing objects have anything to do with intelligent designers designing humans.

Professor, we know design is real because as you note we humans do it. We know designed objects have certain characteristics that are exclusive to designed objects. We attempt to quantify those characteristics, which we then apply to a methodology used to determine design.

We find them successful.

We then apply such a methodology to the universe and DNA and life in general and it registers a positive.

What does that tell you?
 
Quote
142

Prof_P.Olofsson

12/03/2008

11:33 am

tribune[120],
Nothing.


I LOLed.

Date: 2008/12/04 10:10:44, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 04 2008,14:15)
A useful firefox plugin is one that "saves a web page as an image". There are several different ones if you search.

Handy for those UD threads where you, for some reason, have several snapshots of it in differing stages of evolution.

Much easier then pasting individual screenshots together.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/3408
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/1146
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US....cat=all

I'm using ScrapBook. It has a lot of options, e.g. you can save parts of a page or save the page including linked graphics/figures (useful for html versions of articles) or ALL linked content (that can take some time to archive), or simply save/archive the page at it is.

A nice feature is that you can edit the page after you archived it e. g. you can remove ads, highlight parts of it, or add notes.

Date: 2008/12/04 10:39:10, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Dec. 04 2008,15:59)
 
Quote


(5) There’s a paper Bob Marks and I just got accepted which shows that evolutionary search can never escape the CSI problem (even if, say, the flagellum was built by a selection-variation mechanism, CSI still had to be fed in).



Is there a part of their work that selection can't be the process "feeding in" CSI?

AFAIK the argument goes like this:

a) Matter can't produce new information, because we say so.
b) Also, it's obvious.

Therefore, evolutionary mechanisms can't be the origin of new information.

Date: 2008/12/04 13:21:07, Link
Author: JLT
More StephenB:
   
Quote
We know that, according to our experience, functionally complex specified information always indicates design. Not often, not once in a while, but always. Science proceeds on the assumption that we live in a rational universe and that laws, chance, and design are all part of the overall operation of the cosmos.

Given that fact, ...

Sometimes I get the feeling that in reality there're two parallel universes, one in which people like StephenB live, and ours. It's only by some glitch in the fabric of the universe that we can read UD.

Tribune7
   
Quote
If you find something not designed that has CSI, Dembski’s null hypothesis is false.

Now tell me, how would you know that something that exhibits CSI was not designed if your only proposed "method" to identify design is looking for CSI?

Enquiring minds want to know.

Date: 2008/12/04 14:45:23, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (dnmlthr @ Dec. 04 2008,19:51)
   
Quote (JLT @ Dec. 04 2008,19:21)
Sometimes I get the feeling that in reality there're two parallel universes, one in which people like StephenB live, and ours. It's only by some glitch in the fabric of the universe that we can read UD.

Do you suggest some sort of tardum tunneling phenomenon? That given enough energy, tard may tunnel through a rationality potential barrier instead of bouncing back into the UD echo chamber.

Maybe if the tard is sufficently denyse it disturbs the spacetime continuum and tardwholes open up.

Date: 2008/12/05 12:30:19, Link
Author: JLT
Quote
10

StephenB

12/05/2008

12:33 pm

—–Gil writes: “I have more important things to do than trying to convince the unconvinceable of the transparently obvious.”

Gil, our targeted audience consists of that noble throng of onlookers who are not yet impervious to reason. We want them to observe reasonable people presenting logical arguments as they interactwith intractable half wits obfuscating at every turn. A UD love fest would prove nothing.


Targeted onlooker, not yet impervious to reason*:


Reasonable person, presenting logical arguments*:


Intractable half wit, obfuscating at every turn*:



* The world as StephenB sees it. I stand by my parallel universe hypothesis.

Date: 2008/12/07 02:46:26, Link
Author: JLT
Quote
Given these statistics, it is factually incorrect to say that humans are 99% the same as chimpanzees. Yet, just last month, the Natural History Museum in London and the University of Chicago Press in the USA published a book entitled “99% Ape: How evolution adds up.” This misleading title was doubtless chosen by a marketing guru rather than the editor, who is a reputable and distinguished scientist in plant evolutionary ecology (the field in which I did my doctoral research).

Fun fact: We are 100% ape.

Date: 2008/12/07 03:13:17, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (Advocatus Diaboli @ Dec. 07 2008,08:52)
Clive Hayden to the rescue:

   
Quote

12/07/2008

3:06 am

ribczynski

I deleted your first comment on this post because of the snide tone. I’ve seen your arguments, and they are usually mostly civil, so I have no problem….But this last comment flew all over me. Do not be rude, snide, or have any condescending demeanor, or I will ban you.

rib's comment:
Quote
Denyse O’Leary wrote:
Common ancestry? Well, it’s way easier to defend if we start with the fact that humans and chimps are NOT obviously all that similar. So starting with a lower (believable) figure would be a better way to begin than starting with a higher (unbelievable) figure.
That’s all Buggs was trying to do.


Denyse,
Surely you don’t expect us to believe that Buggs was defending common ancestry, do you?
Buggs is a creationist. He published his article in a religious newspaper run by creationists. His article argues that the similarities between humans and chimps are overstated. Was he really surprised, then, that creationists took his article as evidence for creationism, just as Joseph did here at UD? Particularly when he said nothing in his article to discourage this inevitable interpretation?
Please.

Date: 2008/12/07 03:28:49, Link
Author: JLT
Khan asks:
Quote

Jerry,
do you accept the evidence that mitochondria evolved from endosymbiotic bacteria? If so, then the addition of an organelle to a primitive cell is about as clear an example of macro-evolution (by any definition) as you can get.

<a href="Jerry" target='_blank'>Jerry</a>:
Quote
I am not sure I accept endosymbiotic theory or that eukaryotic cells evolved when one prokaryote absorbed another. It is also something I do not disagree with since I know little about it. It does not, it if true. affect anything I understand about ID. If in fact eukaryotes originated this way this does not act as a general proof of macro evolution which is primarily a multi-celled hypothesis.


Aaaahahahaha!

For all of you in need of a tard fix, read all the answers. It's rich.

Date: 2008/12/07 04:56:03, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (JLT @ Dec. 07 2008,09:28)
 <a href="Jerry" target='_blank'>Jerry</a>:
 
Quote
I am not sure I accept endosymbiotic theory or that eukaryotic cells evolved when one prokaryote absorbed another. It is also something I do not disagree with since I know little about it. It does not, it if true. affect anything I understand about ID. If in fact eukaryotes originated this way this does not act as a general proof of macro evolution which is primarily a multi-celled hypothesis.

Aaaahahahaha!

For all of you in need of a tard fix, read all the answers. It's rich.

Ungh. Next time I do this preview thing.
Fixed link: Jerry

Bonus Jerry quotes:
Quote
The debate does not hinge on a single refutation of an IC system or even the possible development of a macro evolution system but it would have to be shown that this was a general trend in nature not just a fluke one time occurrence.

Quote
Endosymbiosis I believe has little implication for this debate since it irrelevant for OOL and for multi-celled macro evolution .*

* I wonder whether Jerry realizes that he just dismissed the whole bacterial flagellum story as completely irrelevant because bacteria are single-celled.

Date: 2008/12/07 05:01:16, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (Bob O'H @ Dec. 07 2008,10:49)
Clive asks a question  
Quote

I have to ask, why do people record our comments and post them on that website you linked?

Anyone?  Anyone?  Bueller?

We do it for the LULZ.

Date: 2008/12/07 14:30:36, Link
Author: JLT
Quote
Jerry:
Essentially when I am using the term macro evolution, I am using it in a sense of the formation of new complicated capabilities and in a technical sense a completely made-up definition without any scientific meaning so that in my mind the formation of a new genus or even a family [or a super-kingdom like eukaryota (or whatever its taxonomic rank is)] may not qualify as this. So I will try to find my invent a new classification scheme for evolutionary biology in order to emphasize where the dividing lines lie maintain my self-delusion.

Date: 2008/12/08 07:46:06, Link
Author: JLT
Quote
BarryA:
But with respect to people of demonstrated intelligence and good faith who, because of the “psychology of blinding obedience to a paradigm” cannot seem to grasp simple concepts, let’s try to be a little more patient and, if anything, pity those who have imprisoned themselves in self-constructed psychological towers.

 
Quote
Joseph:

   Selection is highly nonrandom.

Selection is the result of three random processes- variation, inheritance and fecundity.

So if the inputs are random what does that say about the output?

And you keep ignoring the fact that NS only provides 16% of the variation observed. And in populations over 1,000 it practically disappears altogether.

Date: 2008/12/08 11:29:07, Link
Author: JLT
Joseph gets pwned.

 
Quote
Joseph:
They ALWAYS attack the person and leave the data alone. Why is that?

If you guys could actually support your position you wouldn’t need to worry about guys like Buggs.

All you would have to do is point to the peer-reviewed articles that refute him.

So where are they?

 
Quote
Rib:
Consider a diploid wheat plant with genome A and a tetraploid variant with exactly the same genome repeated twice: AA. According to you and Buggs, their genetic similarity is only 50%, because the tetraploid variant’s second A counts as a mismatch. (In reality the number would be even less than 50%, because the genomes would be A and BB, where A and B are similar but not identical).

So by your logic, a human is genetically more similar to a chimpanzee than two varieties of wheat are to each other.

Is that the conclusion you were hoping to reach?


Unfortunately, he's so clueless about biology in general and the different methods you can use to compare genomes that he'll probably not even realize it.

Date: 2008/12/08 12:07:11, Link
Author: JLT
Quote
31

gpuccio

12/08/2008

10:59 am

Barry Arrington:

“We owe it to them to do our best.”

Absolutely. there is perhaps no more “sacred” duty than to humbly suggest and defend, without any arrogance or abusive authority, what we deeply believe to be true.

How can you post this as a comment to "The Psychology of Blinding Obedience to a Paradigm" without your head exploding?

Date: 2008/12/08 16:30:57, Link
Author: JLT
Walt

I've thought only Harun Yahya had these dreadful figures. Compare:
Harun

At least, in Yahya's version the forelegs of the dinosaur become the wings of the bird. In Walt's version the wings obviously originate from one foreleg and one hindleg of the lizard. OTOH Yahya's starfish to fish transition is so completely inane I can only assume that he got forelegs -> wings right by accident.

Date: 2008/12/08 17:01:06, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 08 2008,22:37)
 
Quote (JLT @ Dec. 08 2008,14:30)

At least, in Yahya's version the forelegs of the dinosaur become the wings of the bird. In Walt's version the wings obviously originate from one foreleg and one hindleg of the lizard. OTOH Yahya's starfish to fish transition is so completely inane I can only assume that he got forelegs -> wings right by accident.

You have to hand it to Walt though, he got this right.  There are no intermediates in which a reptilian foreleg is turning into an avian left leg, a hind leg is turning into a right leg, the other two legs are growing vestigial and the wings are sprouting, dragon-like, from the back.  Just like the man says, they're missing or fictional.

True.

Still, Harun Yahya knows his science fiction, too:

Date: 2008/12/09 09:30:09, Link
Author: JLT
Guardian:
Quote
The insights came last night in a pre-recorded interview for ABC's Nightline show. Here are some of the key quotes:

   I think evolution can - you're getting me way out of my lane here. I'm just a simple president. But it's, I think that God created the earth, created the world; I think the creation of the world is so mysterious it requires something as large as an almighty and I don't think it's incompatible with the scientific proof that there is evolution.

   No, I'm not a literalist, but I think you can learn a lot from [the Bible].

Date: 2008/12/09 14:54:39, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (Quack @ Dec. 09 2008,17:52)
 
Quote
Asked whether the Bible was literally true, Bush replied: "Probably not. No, I'm not a literalist, but I think you can learn a lot from it."

"The important lesson is 'God sent a son,'" he said.

According to my sources, we are all of us the sons of God.

I thought He sent His Sperm only.*

***


* Good grief, I've had an epiphany, just now! Of course, that explains why god must be a man, he impregnated a virgin. Never occured to me before.**

** True.

*** Googled for pictures of sperm. The first I looked at has ADAM written on the side. A sign?****

**** I'll get my coat.

Date: 2008/12/10 04:31:31, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (dmso74 @ Dec. 10 2008,03:42)
Khan is still waiting for Jerry to stop quote-mining, ad hominem-ing, changing the subject, playing dumb etc and acknowledge the simple fact that a primitive cell gaining this very obscure, irrelevant piece of trivial tissue that clearly has no CSI called a mitokondreea or something is a perfect example of that thing that he claims in every other post that there is no evidence for, macroevolution. my guess is his next post won't address it at all. now we play the waiting game.. aw, the waiting game sucks, let's play hungry hungry hippos..

uD

Jerry answers Khan.
I liked this bit:
     
Quote
On the case of the endosymbiotic origin of mitochondria, it is a non issue. Suppose it did happen. So what. It has nothing to do with the debate. If it did happen, it represents an interesting occurrence and nothing more and ID would not be upset about it because it does not invalidate the ID hypothesis. So it is not something ID is going to care a lot about. Maybe you should explain why ID should care.

Because all you guys pretend that ID is a better explanation of the diversity of life on earth than evolution theory? Just a thought.

And this bit:
     
Quote
In general ID is not as interested in single celled changes as they are in multi-celled changes. The flagellum is a particular example of interest and there may be others. What ID is interested in is how novel information can arise that governs systems of new capabilities.

We are not interested in single-celled changes.
We are particularly interested in a single cell structure, the flagellum.
Because that is a system of new capabilities while organelles are not.

Even if they were (but they aren't and we are not interested and we do not care), as gpucchio points out, the origination of  organelles is of course loss of information. Of course:
 
Quote
But, as the important point for me (and, I think, for ID) is the generation of CSI, would you agree that the model about origin of mitochondria (if it is acceptable, which I am not debating here) is not necessarily an example of generation of new CSI? After all, if I understand the essence of the model (and may be I don’t), it is essentially one of adaptation by loss of information.

Date: 2008/12/10 10:02:12, Link
Author: JLT
DO'L about altruism:
 
Quote
More generally, psychologists who are searching for an animal model are doubtless looking in the wrong direction. They should, in my view, begin by rcognizing that this type of behaviour is characteristically human and probably requires a human level of consciousness.


Current Biology (unfortunately not open access)
 
Quote
Andrew F.G. Bourke. Social Evolution: Daily Self-Sacrifice by Worker Ants. Available online 8 December 2008. [doi:10.1016]

Summary

Each evening, a few workers of a Brazilian ant doom themselves to die overnight by remaining outside the nest to seal its entrance. This striking behaviour is a novel form of worker self-sacrifice.

Main Text
According to the precepts of Stalinist society exposed so vividly by Arthur Koestler in Darkness at Noon, the definition of an individual was “a multitude of one million divided by one million”. The implication is clear that, in such a society, selfhood has dissolved in a mass of interchangeable units, each existing only to serve the collective. This social model, nightmarish to the liberal human mind, is close to the reality in some insect colonies. In many species, workers have adaptations the use of which destroys or at least handicaps their bearer, while benefiting the colony. The canonical example is the sting of the honey bee worker, deployment of which kills the stinging bee [1]. In other cases, workers of some ants become distended and immobilized within the nest through use as living food stores [2], and larvae of other species provide queens with blood meals via special organs from which queens sip their haemolymph [3].

An international team of researchers, led by Adam Tofilski of the Agricultural University of Krakow and Francis Ratnieks of the University of Sussex, has now added to the catalogue of adaptations for worker self-sacrifice by describing a novel behaviour in the Brazilian ant Forelius pusillus [4]. When external activity ends at the close of each day, a small group of workers seals the nest entrance from the outside with sand or soil. Because at night-time the external environment proves fatal to them, these workers effectively condemn themselves to death. This behaviour differs from previously-described forms of defensive self-sacrifice, like the stinging behaviour of honey bee workers, because it is not facultative: it does not arise in direct response to danger, but occurs routinely as a defence in anticipation of a possible threat. In the words of the researchers, it is pre-emptive self-sacrifice [4]. [...]

Date: 2008/12/10 12:50:14, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (J-Dog @ Dec. 10 2008,18:17)
 
Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 10 2008,11:35)
I propose an explanation. It's because Dembski is a jerk. ID people everywhere make ridiculous, comically defective and ignorant arguments, but there's something a little unseemly in laughing at a person for being stupid. But if a person is stupid and mean, the meanness makes them more acceptable for abuse. So while you can find the same absurdity at UD, TT, or EN&V, Dembski's 'petulant 13-year-old' behavior causes us to be more interested in laughing at him. And of course Dembski, being a jerk, puts another jerk in charge, Davetard, for the occasions when Dembski's not around to be a jerk in person, and so UD is extra-jerky and the UD thread here goes through the roof.

I think you are definitely on to something, you have developed an exciting hypothesis!

To develop it even further, Denyse is a jerk also, and of course most (all?) of the people that have "poster's rights" are too.

So, since they are all ass-hats, this heightens the fun, as they flail and flounder about uselessly and constantly in an attempt to bolster ID.

The icing on the cake, to me anyway, is their non-stop effort to insist that ID is not religious, even as they quote scripture to support their views.  

Keep working on developing this theme, and I sense a PhD thesis, maybe even a "Buy My Book" in your future!

Apropos "Buy my book". For me that's an additional factor. They earn their money by spreading their idiocy, possibly infecting innocent people with it. That's at least involuntary brainslaughter if not premeditated.

Date: 2008/12/10 13:07:05, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 10 2008,18:25)
The slime mold Dictyostelium discoideum spends a portion of its life cycle in a single-celled feeding stage, after which the individual cells aggregate to form a slug composed of approximately 100,000 cells. As this occurs, some cells differentiate into nonreproductive stalk cells that support the reproductively active fruiting body, thereby surrendering their opportunity to reproduce.

Denyse will state that's probably because they're conscious. And have detachable ghosts.

Sadly, that wouldn't be more ridiculous than a lot of the other stuff she writes.

Date: 2008/12/10 17:27:14, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (Zachriel @ Dec. 10 2008,21:32)
   
Quote
Andrew Sibley: NHM - 99% Ape - press release

Sotto Voce: I agree that the title of the book is misleading. Humans are, in fact, 100% ape.

Slapping forehead...

   
Quote
Mark Frank: How dumb of me to think ape = chimp.

It's an easy mistake to make due to behavioral similarities.

Post is gone. They should read more AtBC instead of creationists like Buggs.

 
Quote (JLT @ Dec. 07 2008,08:46)
       
Quote
Given these statistics, it is factually incorrect to say that humans are 99% the same as chimpanzees. Yet, just last month, the Natural History Museum in London and the University of Chicago Press in the USA published a book entitled “99% Ape: How evolution adds up.” This misleading title was doubtless chosen by a marketing guru rather than the editor, who is a reputable and distinguished scientist in plant evolutionary ecology (the field in which I did my doctoral research).

Fun fact: We are 100% ape.

Date: 2008/12/11 14:02:48, Link
Author: JLT
This week in evolution made a nice find.
 
Quote
The advocates of "intelligent design" claim there is enough scientific evidence for their theory that it should be taught in science classes. In support of this claim, they list a grand total of nine articles published in peer-reviewed journals over the entire history of intelligent design. This is fewer papers than evolutionary biologists publish every week, but every new field needs to start somewhere, I guess. The most-recent paper was published in 2006, however, which makes intelligent design look a bit moribund. Now it turns out that peer-review at the journal that published that paper, Chaos, Solitons, and Fractals, is suspect.
Nature reports that the editor, who apparently uses the journal mainly to publish his own papers and those that cite him,
   "is not, as he claims on his website, a distinguished fellow of the Institute of Physics at the Johann Wolfgang Goethe University in Frankfurt, Germany, says Walter Greiner, a former director of the institute. Greiner also says El Naschie has ignored his requests to remove his name from the list of members of the journal's honorary editorial board."

"Suspect" is, of course, quite an understatement. The editor in chief of CS&F, El Naschie, used this Journal to publish his own articles.
 
Quote
El Naschie is editor in chief of the journal Chaos, Solitons and Fractals.  This journal is published by Elsevier, one of the biggest players in the science publishing business.

But here’s where things get interesting: this journal also lists 322 papers with El Naschie as an author!

The n-Category Café, John Baez

The Nature article was triggered by El Naschie's "retirement" from his post as editor.
 
Quote
According to the Elsevier spokesperson, El Naschie is retiring to spend more time with his sockpuppets.

The last sentence up there was just a joke, okay?  Just a joke!  Whenever some guy gets booted out of a job, it seems a ‘spokesman’ says he wants to ‘spend more time with his family’.  But El Naschie prefers to take over blogs with crowds of imaginary commenters who trumpet the virtues of his theories or — lately, at a Telegraph article about Garrett Lisi — attack John Baez, the internet blog thug.  If he stops editing Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, he’ll have even more time for this.

Here’s what the Elsevier spokesperson actually said: “as a former editor El Naschie will no longer be involved in editorial decision making for the journal”.

John Baez (some quotes from the Nature article at this link)

That Elsevier allowed someone like El Naschie to be an editor of a Journal and selled his crankery to libraries as part of the Elsevier journal bundle is depressing.
 
Quote
And these aren’t just ordinary papers.   Just this month, El Naschie published a paper in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals called Fuzzy multi-instanton knots in the fabric of spacetime and Dirac’s vacuum fluctuation. In this paper, he finds an “incredible correlation” between particle physics and the results of “ingeniously simple” experiments with knotted lengths of rope!


Isn't that the perfect journal for an ID article?

Date: 2008/12/11 16:11:54, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (Bob O'H @ Dec. 11 2008,20:52)
Quote
Isn't that the perfect journal for an ID article?

[K]Not really.  It sounds like the journal publishes experiments.

Well, I thought... with the editor being a crank... and all...
<hangs head>
You're right, of course.

Date: 2008/12/11 16:39:09, Link
Author: JLT
Quote
Mapou:
@Denyse O’Leary,

Congratulations! This is no doubt due to your tireless efforts in the face of constant and virulent attacks. Your enemies (and I’m sure they are as the sand of the sea) must be seething with envy and rage. It’s hard for me to refrain from laughing out loud.

I agree. After this bit of self-promotion
     
Quote
Note: If you like this and other related posts archived at Colliding Universes, you can vote for Colliding Unverses at the Canadian Blogger Awards, sci-tech division. Vote early, vote often, and vote for me, of course.

(and I'm sure she posted that on her other blogs as well) she was able to get 31 votes. Now we know exactly how many people read DO'L's posts and like them.

Truly laughable.

Oh, correction: The blog which got the 31 votes is Post-Darwinist. Colliding Universes didn't even make it into the best five (only 17 blogs were nominated, three of which belonged to DO'L...).

Date: 2008/12/12 04:03:55, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (Amadan @ Dec. 12 2008,07:52)
   
Quote (CeilingCat @ Dec. 12 2008,00:37)
According to Nature, a subscription to Chaos, Solitons and Fractals costs a stunning US $4,520 a year!

I'm looking forward to retirement in a couple of years and I was thinking of supplementing my meager retirement income by selling photoshopped nudie pictures of Sarah Palin to unsuspecting Rethuglicans.  

But now, I'm wondering if setting up a mildly weird scientific journal might not pay much better.

Count me in! In fact, most of the usual suspects here would be useful to have on board.

Lemmesee . . . a title: How about Teleological Archive of Rejected Digests? That would attract all those ID papers that were so unfairly suppressed by the mainstream science media.

It will be essential to have a raging controversy on the Letters page which will hopefully run and run, provoking bitterness, partisan sniping, and ruined careers. Perhaps Arden (or his mother) would like to serve as the focus of this?

Scientific standards are, of course, central to the reputation and integrity of any journal, so we must fake them convincingly. The easiest way to demonstrate that we don't accept any old rubbish is to publish rejection letters in the body of the magazine, thereby (a) reducing the number of crap articles we have to solicit for publication and (b) saving the price of a stamp on PFO letters.

Further suggestions, anyone?

Date: 2008/12/12 06:18:17, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (Amadan @ Dec. 12 2008,10:20)
JLT: cool avatar.

Randomly assembled from unsorted spare pixels, I presume?

Thanks! A bout of creativity hit me unexpectedly (and randomly, I'm sure).

BTW&OT, ZooBorns where I found the photo I used has photos from a [URL=http://www.zooborns.com/zooborns/2008/12/its-a-gorilla-san-fransisco-zoo-receives-early-holiday-gift-with-the-birth-of-baby-boy.htm

l]new-born gorilla[/URL]. Unbelievably cute.

Date: 2008/12/12 06:20:15, Link
Author: JLT
ARGH. [URL=http://www.zooborns.com/zooborns/2008/12/its-a-gorilla-san-fransisco-zoo-receives-early-holiday-gift-with-the-birth-of-baby-boy.htm

l]New-born gorilla[/URL]

Date: 2008/12/12 06:21:50, Link
Author: JLT
That is not my fault, I swear. Preview looked fine both times.

Date: 2008/12/13 04:31:56, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (keiths @ Dec. 13 2008,09:01)
Ray Martinez:
 
Quote
2

R. Martinez

12/12/2008

2:47 pm
Barry Arrington:

“Today you may have noticed that UD went out of commission a couple of times. We are experiencing technical difficulties resulting from a significant upswing in site usage. Obviously, the more visitors we have the more we fulfill our mission of serving the ID community and promoting a vigorous debate….”

Hi Barry:

I am well acquainted with the ID-Darwinism debate, but I am a newbie here at UD. Based on my newbie status I believe I am in a unique position to offer a few observations in the context of your quote pasted above.

1. It is safe to assume that a large portion of these visitors are potential ID supporters seeking basic information.

2. When negotiating the site they instantly discover a group of veterans well acquainted with the ID-Darwinism debate, unlike themselves.

3. Sites controlled by Darwinists rountinely ban and censor any and all IDists who they view as a threat to the health of their theory, and their ID misrepresentation agenda.

Based on all of the above facts I suggest that UD create some type of “Question Forum” for our visitors so they can feel welcome and have instant access to answers. Only trusted IDists should be allowed to answer these questions. Darwinists who post rhetorical questions and points should be removed. I believe this is a good way to serve the rank and file ID community and counter the Atheism-Materialism-Darwinism agenda.

Ray

That is so wrong on so many levels...

BTW is it possible that this Ray is the same Ray Martinez who posted to t.o a couple of years back?

Point 3 sounds decidedly t.o.-Martinezque.

Date: 2008/12/13 04:42:38, Link
Author: JLT
In the moment I don't have access to any post on UD written after the 8th December and the comment feed isn't working either. Is this just me or does anyone else have the same problem?

Date: 2008/12/13 06:05:49, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (Bob O'H @ Dec. 13 2008,11:23)
I'm seeing it fine, including the latest comments.  Alas.

Now it works again (even for me). Still no feed, though.

Date: 2008/12/13 09:09:32, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (JonF @ Dec. 13 2008,13:47)
   
Quote (JLT @ Dec. 13 2008,05:31)
BTW is it possible that this Ray is the same Ray Martinez who posted to t.o a couple of years back?

Point 3 sounds decidedly t.o.-Martinezque.

It's the same Ray, and he's still posting to t.o.

I stopped reading t.o. a while ago so I wasn't sure whether he is still posting there. He IS persistent.

What a great catch for UD. That's going to be fun.

Date: 2008/12/13 11:36:46, Link
Author: JLT
Quote
DO'L:
Current research models are looking for something that probably never happened and never could have happened:



A current research model, looking for something impossible that probably never happened.

Date: 2008/12/13 12:23:49, Link
Author: JLT
Quote
Peter:
I think religious motivation is definitely one reason why Darwinists stick to a theory that science shows to be nonsense.


Exactly! That's why the majority of scientists accept evolution theory.

Date: 2008/12/13 14:34:35, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (George @ Dec. 13 2008,19:46)
Borne said:    
Quote
Bio-informatics, semantic biology, systems biology…
These are all sounding the death knell of Darwinism.

What is this?  The biology of making meaningless shit up?

LOL

Date: 2008/12/14 04:55:52, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Dec. 14 2008,01:08)
Here's another case where the evidence confirms some of my predictions:                
Quote
CELL BIOLOGY: Hidden Change
Helen Pickersgill

Biological systems are buffered against variation by proteins termed phenotypic capacitors, of which heat shock protein 90 (Hsp90) is the founding member. This protein chaperone reveals diverse phenotypic variation when its level falls, exposing previously silenced genotypes. Given that species advancement requires genetic diversity and phenotypic change, phenotypic capacitors have been suggested to support evolution; the reduction of Hsp90, which occurs under stressful conditions, would release phenotypes that can be acted on by natural selection to drive evolution. Whether other cellular proteins harbor capacitor function is unclear. Levy and Siegel used high-throughput morphological phenotyping and found that more than 5% of yeast genes act as capacitors by buffering environmental variation and suppressing phenotypic diversity. These capacitors were found to control cellular processes, such as cell cycle regulation and stress responses. Beyond a role in natural selection, phenotypic capacitors may also support the evolution of cancer cells, which are notoriously resilient to many environmental stresses and exhibit widespread genetic instability. Hsp90 is thought to buffer these tumorigenic properties and promote survival, and Hsp90 inhibitors may have potential as cancer chemotherapeutics. -- HP*

PLoS Biol. 6, e264 (2008).

*Helen Pickersgill is a locum editor in Science's editorial department.


IOW, evolution by pre-existing but unexpressed coding.

Specific predictions:        
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Nov. 21 2008,17:12)

* When confronted with environmental changes, organisms will adapt using pre-existing but unexpressed features or, they will become extinct.  No new features will evolve.

* Embedded and overlapping coding will be found to be more prevalent than previously thought.

* Careful examination of genomes will find preparatory and adaptive codes “waiting in the wings” ready to be utilized in case of environmental changes - many just a frame shift away.

   
And in a more general sense:        
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Nov. 12 2008,13:29)

2) God fitted these cells with 'universal' genomes which contained information for their differentiation (evolution) into the basic biological forms and beyond.

3) This differentiation proceeded in a similar vein to the cellular differentiation that occurs in ontogeny; non-randomly, via preexisting mechanisms designed to respond to both internal and external stimulus.

4) This differentiation, when it happened, was saltational and widespread - happening to many individuals simultaneously.

Do you know what a chaperone does? It assists in correct protein folding. HSP90 is involved in correct folding of signal transduction enzymes during development.

What is said here is, that mutations can occur in signal transduction proteins which are "silenced" by HSP90 - with the help of HSP 90 they still fold correctly. But if the level of HSP 90 drops (e. g. because its affected by a mutation itself or because of a change in temperature) the real effect of these mutations/the underlying variation is seen.

   
Quote
I will begin by briefly summarizing Rutherford and Lindquist’s (1998) study of the heat shock protein known as Hsp90, “one of the most abundant cytosolic proteins in eukaryotes” (Sangster et al. 2004: 349). Rutherford and Lindquist reduced Hsp90 production in Drosophila by three means: 1) pharmacologically, in the laboratory (they fed the fruit flies food which contained a potent, specific inhibitor of Hsp90), 2) by breeding mutants that are heterozygous at the Hsp83 locus3 (homozygous mutants do not survive), and 3) by exposing them to high temperatures. They found that lowering Hsp90 production led to a wide variety of developmental abnormalities, including “body-part transformations, disrupted abdominal patterning, bristle duplications, deformed eyes or legs and changes in wing shape or venation” (Rutherford and Lindquist 1998: 336).


From here: "Hsp90-Induced Evolution: Adaptationist, Neutralist, and Developmentalist Scenarios" (*.pdf)

For the majority of individuals a drop in HSP90 levels means a bad thing because deleterious mutations can't be balanced anymore. Of course, some mutations can also turn out to be beneficial.
In a way you are right of course:
When confronted with environmental changes, organisms will adapt using pre-existing features.
That is was evolutionary theory says - mutations are undirected. They do not suddenly turn up because the environment changes. They are already present and some of them may be beneficial in the altered environment. E. g. the old example of antibiotic resistance shows exactly that. Bacteria do not develop antibiotic resistance in response to the presence of antibiotics. There are bacteria present in the population which already have a slight resistance to antibiotics which will survive better than the rest of the population if confronted with antibiotics.
That mutations arise in the absence of selection instead as an response to it was established 65 years ago by Luria and Delbrück in a famous experiment (Fluctuation test).

Date: 2008/12/15 10:57:24, Link
Author: JLT
Me thinks RoyK might have a secret death bannination wish.

 
Quote
4

RoyK

12/15/2008

10:57 am

Denyse:

   For example, recently, a freelancer in the Middle East was found to have been doctoring photos for Reuters. The editor, not a photo expert, probably didn’t notice.

Recently a writer at UD was discovered to have falsely attributed a quote. Of course the critics at UD were the ones who discovered that. What New Media giveth, New Media taketh away.

A little while earlier, a whole bunch of so-called Photoshop experts were sure that Barack Obama’s birth certificate wasn’t real, though it’s been affirmed by every legitimate authority. New Media sleuths went all the way down the rabbit hole on that one.

Date: 2009/01/30 16:36:17, Link
Author: JLT
Quote
The Deadline
Entries must be submitted to the YouTube Group “Academic Freedom Day Video Contest” at http://www.youtube.com/group/academicfreedomday, by the end of business on January 30, 2009.


I'm sure you're all very interested in the DI's Academic Freedom Day Video Contest and you've already looked at all the amazing entries.
Still, there might be a lurker out there who doesn't know about this important proof of the youth's widespread support of ID, DI, CSI, FCSI, some other letters with CSI, IC, WmAD, and Academic Freedom™.

So, as a public service to this one lurker, I viewed ALL of the entries. Yes, all three of them.

# 1:
Summary: According to this video, quantum gravity and the theory of relativity are both taught in public schools and students decide whether they accept them*. Clearly, they should be allowed to decide whether they accept ID or the theory of evolution, too.
ID is science, of course, because
observation: a designer produces CSI,
hypothesis: designed stuff should have high levels of CSI,
experiment: if you disassemble something and it looses its function it's IC and therefore CSI and therefore,
conclusion: it had a designer.**  
Although ID isn't proven it should be thaught until it is disproven. Just like the theory of evolution. They still haven't found the missing link, don't you know.

My opinion: This girl is promising. Can't be bothered with fact checking, sounds science-y while talking BS, no problems with making completely illogical statements, can count to four, AND uses the old "There are no missing links" canard.


# 2:
Summary: Starts with nice pictures: "Can that be the result of random processes?"
Earth has the perfect atmosphere for us humans to breath. Also, the flagellum.
"This country was founded on a set of principles that included freedom of speech and freedom of inquiry. What right does the scientific community have to throw that all away." (Didn't make that up: starts at 3:09)

My opinion: The perfect ID proponent. Can mindlessly repeat all the talking points and even accuses all scientists to Destroy Everything the USA Stands For without blushing.


# 3
Summary: Someone gave an oral presentation about ID as a PhD student and still got his PhD. That just goes to show how science is suppressed and hindered.
Gonzales didn't get tenure.
A professor wrote an article saying that "Yes, creationism is discriminated against, but this is precisely as it should be. It is the responsibility of teachers and school officials to discriminate against incompetently conceived subject matter and also to discriminate against anyone who advocates that such materials be given positive cover in science classes." This is obviously unfair suppression of ID because if we had found a computer on Mars before we invented computers ourselves we would have had concluded that it must have had a designer.***

My opinion: Rising star. Will likely produce Expelled II: Still not intelligent. Unless he keeps equating ID with creationism.


The tard flow for the next decades seems to be secured.


* Amazing. I did not know that.

** Brilliant thinking right there!

*** Or something like that. In the likely case that I mangled every grammar rule in existence in that one sentence: I did that on purpose, to underline the absurdity of his argument. Naturally.

Date: 2009/01/31 03:41:22, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (Bueller_007 @ Jan. 31 2009,02:22)
Quote (JLT @ Jan. 30 2009,15:36)
# 1:
Summary: According to this video, quantum gravity and the theory of relativity are both taught in public schools and students decide whether they accept them*. Clearly, they should be allowed to decide whether they accept ID or the theory of evolution, too.
ID is science, of course, because
observation: a designer produces CSI,
hypothesis: designed stuff should have high levels of CSI,
experiment: if you disassemble something and it looses its function it's IC and therefore CSI and therefore,
conclusion: it had a designer.**  
Although ID isn't proven it should be thaught until it is disproven. Just like the theory of evolution. They still haven't found the missing link, don't you know.

My opinion: This girl is promising. Can't be bothered with fact checking, sounds science-y while talking BS, no problems with making completely illogical statements, can count to four, AND uses the old "There are no missing links" canard.

She says that Kitzmiller v. Dover was a Supreme Court trial.  If only...

And you know you're daft when you can't even put together an argument from design.  She sounds like she's drunk.  She can barely spit out the word "irreducible".

Does the supposed Darwin quote “A fair result can only be obtained by balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question” actually exist outside of creationist literature?

The Darwin quote is from the introduction of The Origin of Species:

Quote
This Abstract, which I now publish, must necessarily be imperfect. I cannot here give references and authorities for my several statements; and I must trust to the reader reposing some confidence in my accuracy. No doubt errors will have crept in, though I hope I have always been cautious in trusting to good authorities alone. I can here give only the general conclusions at which I have arrived, with a few facts in illustration, but which, I hope, in most cases will suffice. No one can feel more sensible than I do of the necessity of hereafter publishing in detail all the facts, with references, on which my conclusions have been grounded; and I hope in a future work to do this. For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived. A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question; and this cannot possibly be here done.


All of Darwin's work is available online, here.

It's kind of ironic that she quotes this passage in the same video in which she states that no missing link was found, ever. Creationists in general aren't really known for stating and balancing all the facts on both sides.

Date: 2009/01/31 04:38:32, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (Ptaylor @ Jan. 31 2009,05:59)
   
Quote (JLT @ Jan. 30 2009,16:36)
              # 3
Summary: Someone gave an oral presentation about ID as a PhD student and still got his PhD. That just goes to show how science is suppressed and hindered.
Gonzales didn't get tenure.
A professor wrote an article saying that "Yes, creationism is discriminated against, but this is precisely as it should be. It is the responsibility of teachers and school officials to discriminate against incompetently conceived subject matter and also to discriminate against anyone who advocates that such materials be given positive cover in science classes." This is obviously unfair suppression of ID because if we had found a computer on Mars before we invented computers ourselves we would have had concluded that it must have had a designer.***
<snip>
*** Or something like that. In the likely case that I mangled every grammar rule in existence in that one sentence: I did that on purpose, to underline the absurdity of his argument. Naturally.

No, you got it right the first time; that's pretty much what he said. [snip]

Thanks for the feedback.
Hmmm. Now I'm not too sure whether it's really an achievement to be able to correctly reproduce creationist arguments even if it's in a foreign language.

Date: 2009/02/01 14:57:07, Link
Author: JLT
Jerry
   
Quote
Just in case people want to say that they do not know what use functional complex specified information is then here is a brief explanation. It is

information that is complex such as DNA that specifies something else such as RNA or a protein and this RNA or protein has a function. Another example is the alphabet and words which form the average sentence that is complex information that communicates (the specification) some thing, action or quality and this communication of a series of inter-related concepts has a function to inform others. Another is a computer code that is also complex information that specifies a series of actions by the computer that has a function such as printing.


What always puzzles me is how they can say that any given DNA sequence has a function per se. IMO, the function of any given DNA sequence is purely context-dependent. In humans e.g. insulin has an important function and therefore you probably could say that the DNA sequence of the insulin gene provides functional complex specified information*. But the same sequence in e. g. yeast wouldn't have a function. Maybe it would be even detrimental for the yeast to express insulin. Of course, they could argue that it still has a function (coding for insulin) and therefore CSI, regardless of its usefulness for the organism.
But if they use that kind of reasoning, you need to be omnipotent to know whether a DNA sequence has CSI or not. Let's say a loss-of-function mutation happens in the human insulin gene. According to IDists it has lost its information. But how do they know? The mutated insulin gene still could have a function, which doesn't need to be related at all to its function in humans (e. g. work as a storage protein), in some other organism. This organism doesn't even need to exist (yet) - the DNA sequence just has to have a potential use.

They used this kind of reasoning e.g. when they argued against the Bridgham et al. article (Nick Matzke's PT article about it). Bridgham et al. looked at different modern receptors for aldosterone and cortisol. From that they reconstructed a likely ancestral receptor and the evolutionary pathway that could've led to these modern receptors (duplication followed by point mutations). The ancestral receptor they reconstructed recognised both aldosterone and cortisol in their experiments, even though aldosterone wasn't present in the animals with this ancestral receptor type and evolved at a later time point.
Behe wrote in his response to this article:      
Quote
Nothing new was produced in the experiment; rather, the pre-existing ability of the protein to bind several molecules was simply weakened.

Here Behe states that the function - binding to aldosterone - was present even though the receptor didn't actually bind to aldosterone in the animals with this ancestral receptor (aldosterone didn't exist at that time). We wouldn’t know about  this function if that was the present state. Or, applied to my example, you simply cannot know whether the mutated insulin gene will have a biological function in some future descendants of humans.

OTOH, Behe wrote in the same response:
   
Quote
Although in nature the receptor and ligand are part of a larger system that does have a biological function, the piece of that larger system they pick out does not do anything by itself. In other words, the isolated components they work on are not irreducibly complex.

Here Behe argues that the receptor alone doesn't have a function without a context.

So, according to Behe function is context-independent unless he wants it to be context-dependent.

If they can’t even decide what exactly “function” entails how do they want to calculate  functional complex specified information content? You either have to be omnipotent to know whether there is a possible context in which a given DNA sequence could be functional (if function is defined as context-independent) or any calculation based on the sequence alone is nonsense because the function is context-dependent and you’d need to include that in your calculation somehow e. g. look at fitness rather than function.

They definitely don’t want to do that, of course, because then one and the same gene without any mutation could suddenly “gain” CSI just by an altered environment. Bacteria which can digest a food source other bacteria can’t digest only have an advantage if that food source is actually present. That sounds trivial but with regard to an attempted calculation of (context-dependent) CSI it is not.

As an example think of nylon-eating bacteria. I think even IDist would agree that in a nylon-containing environment mutations that enable bacteria to digest nylon (or rather by-products of nylon manufacture) provide a higher fitness and should count as a gain in CSI. But if bacteria had had the same mutations before we started to manufacture nylon it wouldn’t have been a gain in (context-dependent) CSI because it wouldn’t have provided a gain of fitness**. Add nylon to the environment and the same bacteria suddenly do have a higher fitness than their “normal” counterparts.
So, in this scenario the gain in CSI is not dependent on the occurrence of the mutations that enable the bacteria to digest nylon by-products but rather on the presence or absence of nylon by-products in the environment.

It’s even more complicated than that. IIRC in the Lenski article the citrate-digesting bacteria grew slower than the “normal” glucose-only bacteria as long as both citrate and glucose were present and only after the glucose in the growth medium was used up they started to out compete the “normal” bacteria.
So, what is it? Gain or loss of function? Gain or loss of CSI? Does the environment play a role? Why or why not?***

I’ve yet to read an IDist answer questions like that – or ask question like that, which would be even better, I guess, because it would show that they themselves make an effort to refine their definitions.

I don’t hold my breath that that’ll happen anytime soon, though.

[Edited to add] Oups.  I sincerely apologise for the lenght of this post.

tl;dr: CSI is a poorly defined concept and Jerry goes on my nerves. [/edit]

* If you want to sound like a moron, that is.

** BTW, we wouldn’t have been able to identify these mutations as providing a new (context-independent) function, either.

*** Of course, all of that doesn’t matter anyway because they’d still have to show that whatever CSI content they calculated couldn’t possibly have originated through naturalistic processes alone.

Date: 2009/02/01 15:09:29, Link
Author: JLT
Hi ERV,

Great avatar - I saw the video. My hypothesis is that the dog is hypnotising himself.

{~~~I don't see/smell cakes~~~there's nothing but a wide empty field~~~no cakes~~shit, it doesn't work~cakes~cakes~cakes~}

Then they stopped taping.

Date: 2009/02/02 13:08:18, Link
Author: JLT
Quote
246

Prof_P.Olofsson

02/02/2009

1:11 pm

DaveScot[231],

   You say we can never rule out all chance hypotheses. That is true but, happily, we don’t need to.

Nevertheless, it is what the explanatory filter requires.


I love that guy.

Date: 2009/02/03 06:14:52, Link
Author: JLT
Quote
Dembski: That’s right, for questioning Darwin and pointing out the racist implications of his theory (implications that Darwin himself drew in his DESCENT OF MAN) making an ass out of himself, Ben Stein is now an affront to science.

Hint:
Quote
<a href=""http://boingboing.net/2008/05/01/ben-stein-science-le.html" target="_blank">Stein</a>: …Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people.

Date: 2009/02/03 06:44:05, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (Ptaylor @ Feb. 03 2009,06:00)
 
Quote (olegt @ Feb. 02 2009,20:54)
Borne waxed philosophical about the fate of ID:                
Quote
ID (or some other form of it) cannot fail.

The truth always comes out in the end.

All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

-Arthur Schopenhauer

We’re still in phase 2.

ID started at phase 3 (way back in the beginning), then men invented materialism.

Like antimatter, creationism moves backwards in time.  And your watch is late, Borne.  ID is already well into phase 1.

Great, they're back on the "first they ignore you,...then you win" theme. Poe or not, when someone like alaninnont says            
Quote
"Greater than the tread of mighty armies is an idea whose time is come."

Victor Hugo

...I have to marvel at the irony and the lack of self awareness these bozos have. They think ID is the struggling hero in the equation, when the whole of the rational world sees that it is not; it is one of the last dying remnants of a worldview that the theory of evolution has overturned. (Yes, it is taking a mighty long time, but I stand by this.) The ToE is perhaps the best example of the Hugo quote. If it wasn't Darwin, Wallace would have presented it. If not Wallace, history shows us that that any number of other individuals (or teams) would have led us to the modern evolutionary synthesis of today.
They are on the exact opposite side that they think they are on.

Actually, in most of the world they're in phase 0. ID is not even ignored - outside of the USA, the overwhelming majority never has heard of ID.

I set up a Google alert for intelligent design/intelligentes design mentioned on German web sites a couple of years ago. Most of the alerts I get are about cars, lawn mowers, and vacuum cleaners that are supposedly intelligently designed. The rest is from articles about creationism. The only creationistic German blog (Evolution und Schöpfung) I'm aware of that mentioned ID favourably every now and then has dropped ID as a topic almost completely. IIRC the blog owner (there are several authors) himself even wrote a post saying that ID in its current form is not science and he weren't convinced by the whole concept.

Date: 2009/02/03 11:12:37, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (tsig @ Feb. 03 2009,05:39)
   
Quote (JLT @ Feb. 02 2009,13:08)
     
Quote
246

Prof_P.Olofsson

02/02/2009

1:11 pm

DaveScot[231],

   You say we can never rule out all chance hypotheses. That is true but, happily, we don’t need to.

Nevertheless, it is what the explanatory filter requires.


I love that guy.

How long can it last?

edit:added nothing

   
Quote
4

Barry Arrington

02/03/2009

12:08 am

A new thread will be started. Kirk is working on the opening.


My prediction:
1) Kirk starts a new thread with even more obfuscation.
2) Prof_O will ask some more unconvenient questions that will never be answered.
3) Kirk will flounce (have to go... lot of work to do, you know... interesting discussion, tho).
4) Prof_O is silently banned.*
5) ...
6) PROFIT.

My love, of course, is eternal.


* optional

Date: 2009/02/03 11:15:48, Link
Author: JLT
The new Kirk thread

Date: 2009/02/03 11:47:11, Link
Author: JLT
Quote
But after 150 years of the hard sell, why is it that so many people haven’t bought into the Darwin myth I wonder? Perhaps because that is how they perceive it - as a myth - some real evidence, instead of the empty rhetoric might help their cause. It is true that most people haven’t studied science in depth, but they do know when someone is trying to sell them a dodgy motor.
Link

But of course. They clearly can tell reality from myth just by their instincts. That's why between 20 and 40 % of all people believe in ghosts, aliens visiting earth, astrology, witches, and that it's possible to talk with dead people (Gallup).

Date: 2009/02/03 13:33:04, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (Bob O'H @ Feb. 03 2009,18:20)
A promise from gpuccio
   
Quote


10

gpuccio

02/03/2009

7:06 am

B L Harville:

“Please give a demonstration of how to quantify CSI as part of your FAQ.”

It is coming. And you may notice that I have given you a specific indication about that in another thread.

You can't wait, can you?

In the glossary they provide an example of a CSI calculation. They calculate whether the genome of a deck of cards can evolve to have a string of 13 spades, hearts, diamonds, or clubs in one try in a population of 1. The answer is yes, no design is necessary.

I didn't know that they finally have started to determine the CSI of real biological systems.  I may have to rethink my stance on ID.

 
Quote
     (iv) In the current formulation, as at 2005, his metric for CSI, ? (chi), is:

? = – log2[10^120 ·?S(T)·P(T|H)]

P(T|H) is the probability of being in a given target zone in a search space, on a relevant chance hypothesis, (E.g. Probability of a hand of 13 spades form a shuffled standard deck of cards)

?S(T) is a multiplier based on the number of similarly simply and independently specifiable targets (e.g. having hands that are all Hearts, all Diamonds, all Clubs or all Spades)

10^120 is the Seth Lloyd estimate for the maximum number of elementary bit-based operations possible in our observed universe, serving as a reasonable upper limit on the number of search operations.

– log2 [ . . . ] converts the modified probability into a measure of information in binary digits, i.e. specified bits. When this value is at least + 1, then we may reasonably infer to the presence of design from the evidence of CSI alone. (For the example being discussed, ? = -361, i.e. The odds of 1 in 635 billions are insufficient to confidently infer to design, on the gamut of the universe as a whole. But, on the gamut of a card game here on Earth, that would be a very different story.)

Date: 2009/02/03 18:04:47, Link
Author: JLT
Good grief.
Two new entries to the Academic Freedom Day contest. They should rename it to "Who can make the stupidiest creationist video contest".

The first one provides a list of "clear" evolutionary evidence that was proven wrong.
# 1: giraffes got their long neck by stretching. (He doesn't mention that that was Lamarck).
#2: Haeckel's embryo drawings (which are still in text books today...).
#3: Nebraska man.

Now, isn't that surprising.

The second one is .. is .. well, I think he might try to do irony.

{shudders}

I think he makes the "evolution is just a theory" argument around 1:30 but my brain kind of shut down after the first minute AND I WON'T WATCH IT AGAIN!!!!!!!!

{laughs hysterically}
{takes a deep breath}

Both videos use Darwin's "A fair result can be obtained only etc.*. So, from five entries three use this quote.
Coincidence? Or intelligent design.


* and the guy from the second video can't even get the quote right.

Date: 2009/02/04 03:46:36, Link
Author: JLT
Quote
5

alaninnont

02/03/2009

4:30 pm

I think that the reasons that scientists who can be so meticulous in their experimentation in their own fields choose not to look objectively at the arguments against evolution are twofold. 1) They don’t want to consider the alternative. It would mean that they can’t do whatever they want but must consider what a creator expects of them. 2) They have the Aristotle Syndrome (my name). They want to believe that humans remain at the center of the universe, that we pulled ourselves up by our evolutionary socks out of the primal ooze and made ourselves what we are today. They don’t want to consider that someone else could have done it.

*SPLOINK*

There goes my irony meter.
People who feel affronted by the idea that they share a common ancestor with apes (not to mention fruit flys and nematodes), who believe that they were created in the image of god assume that scientists don't look at the evidence objectively because they want to remain at the center of the universe. That makes perfect sense.

Date: 2009/02/04 07:27:37, Link
Author: JLT
Surprise: Casey Luskin thinks Ben Stein was EXPELLED by the University of Vermont.
 
Quote
Again, Fogel’s denial that this bears upon academic freedom has a huge credibility gap: Fogel claims this isn’t about freedom of expression, but it seems clear that scholars aren’t free to express support for intelligent design or they are charged with “ignor[ing] the basics of scientific inquiry.”

Obviously, my academic freedom is restricted by my university (and every other university). Never got a honorary degree. QED.

Date: 2009/02/04 10:59:43, Link
Author: JLT
What's the leading scientific journal of the UK?

According to Andrew Halloway, it's the New Scientist.  
     
Quote
I’m astonished that the BBC still included this [material about the Tree of Life], and what’s more made it the title of the programme, considering that only last month the country’s leading scientific journal, New Scientist, carried a major article called “Why Darwin was wrong about the Tree of Life” (21 January).

Bad luck, Nature. All this fancy articles publishing original research after an intensive peer-review process and one of the highest impact factors of all scientific journals - still only no. 2 after the New Scientist.

*facepalm*

Date: 2009/02/05 13:42:22, Link
Author: JLT
Welcome to our latest edition of "Did you know...?" with Casey Luskin. This week:
Did you know that constitutionality is a strenght of science supplementary textbooks?
     
Quote
Leave it to a Darwinist biologist to spin constitutionality — a strength — into a defect.


Luskin seems to be a bit agitated about Brian Metscher's review of Explore Evolution which is freely available here.*

If you don't know how an ad hominem argument looks like you should read Luskin's post.
Because Metscher cites  Lenny Flank's take on EE and Lenny Flank had said some things about creationists Luskin didn't like (Luskin doesn't provide a link to Metscher's article or Lenny Flank's treatment of EE, instead he links to two comments Flank left at the Panda's Thumb two years ago) none of Metscher's critic points merit any consideration.
   
Quote
Demonstrating that the paranoid style** isn’t just limited to American politics, Austrian biologist Brian Metscher has adopted Lenny Flank’s advice on avoiding discussing the science and painting his intellectual opponents as extremists who are conspiring to skirt the law. I suspect that Metscher’s outlandish rhetoric in his attack on EE would make Lenny Flank proud. Let’s just hope that Metscher doesn’t decide to adopt Flank’s militant recommendations for defending evolution.


I also liked this bit:
   
Quote
Metscher doesn’t specify precisely what those [creationist] “talking points” are, but if EE is so wrong, surely Metscher can give us a scholarly refutation of the book.


But of course. No problem there. Surely everyone can refute an entire book in a single article.


* If that link doesn't work,  try this one and scroll down to the book review section. The article is called: "Postcards from The Wedge: review and commentary on Explore Evolution: The Arguments For and Against Neo-Darwinism by Steven C. Meyer et al.". Metscher B., Evolution and Development Volume 11, Issue 1, Pages 124-125

** Obviously, a link to an article from 1964 about "The Paranoid Style in American Politics" is more important than a link to the review that is "discussed".

Date: 2009/02/05 15:06:18, Link
Author: JLT
<looks around>
Oups, seems I'm a little late to the party. But how could I've known you're all hiding in the bathroom of all places.

Anyway, congratulations! All the best to you and your wife. I'm all for the propagation of academics as long as I don't have to do it ;)

Date: 2009/02/05 15:13:10, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (JLT @ Feb. 05 2009,21:06)
<looks around>
Oups, seems I'm a little late to the party. But how could I've known you're all hiding in the bathroom of all places.

Anyway, congratulations -->Louis<--! All the best to you and your wife. I'm all for the propagation of academics as long as I don't have to do it ;)

I need an edit button. Seriously.

Date: 2009/02/05 15:39:46, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (Lou FCD @ Feb. 05 2009,20:58)
Y'know, if I had the time and a (free) copy, I'd give a review of the book from the point of view of a first year Biology student. Somehow, I doubt Casey would care for what I had to say, however.

That's a safe bet, I'd say.
I liked John Timmer's review of the book. He actually addressed some examples from EE in more detail.

Neither Casey Luskin nor Paul Nelson really appreciated his effort, though.

Date: 2009/02/06 11:28:41, Link
Author: JLT
Quote
Timaeus:
In a university biology program run by theistic evolutionists, many fundamentalist Christian students would feel most unwelcome; in one run by ID proponents, they would feel just as comfortable in the class as the agnostic sitting next to them. It is ID, not TE, which makes it possible for a twelve-year old conservative Christian to contemplate a career as a biologist.

That is so WRONG.

What kind of world do these guys want to live in? Where you don't get told things that make you (or your parents) feel uncomfortable?
What's with geology? Should they teach flood geology because this whole old earth thing makes some people uncomfortable?

I'm sure there're some things about e.g. the history of christianity that people don't want to hear either. Just stop teaching that.

Idiot.

Date: 2009/02/06 11:44:41, Link
Author: JLT
Quote
StephenB:
—-Lutepisc: “The nice, strong start (”Yes, they do.”) needs to be supported straightaway with examples. Instead, it looks to me like you’re still answering FAQ #1: “Is ID science?”

You have a point. When we list the names, the critics simply answer by saying that they are not real scientists because “ID is not science,” which was, indeed, the topic of question #1

Let’s begin with Guillermo Gonzalez, whose groundbreaking work, “The Privileged Planet,” sent shock waves throught the Iowa State lecture halls.

We will continue with Michael Behe, biochemist, trailblazer, and author of the “Edge of Evolution.”

Moving right along, we can discuss Professor Robert Marks, of Baylor fame.

If everyone can agree that these men are “real” scientists, in spite of their institutional heresy, we can be off and running.


NEWS: Dr. Dr. Dembski not regarded as a "real" scientist by ID proponents.

<snicker>

Date: 2009/02/07 05:36:20, Link
Author: JLT
Argh. In response to an article which mentions Denmark and Iceland as the two countries with the highest support of the theory of evolution:
 
Quote
DO'L: The United States is the world’s science leader, Iceland is on life support, and Denmark?

One sentence = serious brain hurts.

- that Iceland's economy is down has one main reason:
 
Quote
Historically, the US has been one of Iceland´s most important trading partners. In 2006, the exports and imports to and from Iceland and the US accounted for 8,4% and 9,3% respectively of total exports/imports. US investment in Iceland has been growing steadily and amounted in 2004 to 31,4% of total foreign investment.
Linky
Their economy is/was dependent on the US economy.

- either one compares scientific output of two countries OR their economies (both of which would be meaningless without correction regarding to different population size etc.)

- talking about scientific leadership, what again is the stance over evolution the National Academy of Sciences and the AAAS both take?

Thanks for trying.

[edited to fix link]

[ME GOTS EDIT BUTTON! THANKS!]

Date: 2009/02/08 06:24:17, Link
Author: JLT
Fuller is even more deluded than I previously thought:

Quote

My own view on Young Earth Creationism is relatively relaxed. Assuming that YEC accepts the broad ordering of the species represented in the fossil record, I am happy to let it stand as an empirical matter whether the ordering happened over 6000 or 6 billion years. If we found out tomorrow that we need to knock many zeros off the 6 billion figure, I doubt much in the world would change except that Darwinists would be forced to admit defeat because natural selection can’t work its magic without an excessively long timeframe.
And that may turn out to be Darwin’s Achilles Heel. After all, the evidence for an old earth comes from inferences drawn from radiometric methods, which may over time be contested, as happens to all methods in science. There is no law that says that the more palaeontology we learn, the older the earth must get. Some scientifically inclined YEC people already try to punch holes in the radiometric methods, and more of them should try – as long as they are willing to subject their claims to the normal mechanisms of peer evaluation.
Of course, there is little incentive to engage in this activity because Darwinism requires an old earth to be true. However, ID is open-minded on this point and so should encourage the translation of YEC into a scientific research programme, at least in the spirit of ‘my enemy’s enemy is my friend’. But perhaps also we need to admit openly that YEC and ID are not mutually exclusive positions. Many people can hold both, whereas one cannot be a Darwinist and a YEC.

Date: 2009/02/08 12:54:13, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (mitschlag @ Feb. 08 2009,14:14)
 
Quote (JLT @ Feb. 08 2009,06:24)
Fuller is even more deluded than I previously thought:
         
Quote

My own view on Young Earth Creationism is relatively relaxed.

Not entirely deluded.  Foundationally ignorant.  (The whole thread is a delightful exercise in cognitive dissonance.)

Well, I didn't want to imply he's a YEC.
You are right, complete ignorance might very well be sufficient to explain why he doesn't realize that much of physics need to be overturned to make a young earth possible or that there are other things (e. g. plate tectonics, how long it took for some sedimentary layers to be laid down, reefs on top of forrests on top of reefs ...) beside radiometric dating that all point to an earth substantially older than 6000 years.

But IMO you really have to be deluded to believe that YECs could carry out a scientific research programme. Hasn't he heard about RATE?

Date: 2009/02/08 16:53:17, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (afarensis @ Feb. 08 2009,19:56)
In case any one is interested, I have fisked Luskin's post on his visit to Lucy  :)

Ah, I like me my combination of Luskin bashing and actually learning something. Thanks!

Date: 2009/02/08 17:12:42, Link
Author: JLT
StephenB doesn't like the competition:
     
Quote
Not only does their [theistic evolutionist's] duplicity betray the public trust, it retards scientific progress. More to the point, these disingenuous hacks harm the ID movement 100 times more than Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens could ever hope to. There is just enough sugar in their confection to make young Christians swallow the poison whole and join the ranks of the anti-ID militants. Although I am a Catholic Christian myself, I do, nevertheless, find the radical atheists easier to bear. Spare me from the soul selling, split-the-difference, have-it-both-ways Christians.


All science so far.

Date: 2009/02/08 18:22:05, Link
Author: JLT
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Lou FCD]

Quote (Amadan @ Feb. 08 2009,23:56)
Just think of the waste: all that paper, equipment, time and money squandered in pursuit of the uncompromising diktat of the tyrant Darwin, as inscribed on every textbook and paper infected by his insidious thoughts: "The Foundation of My Evil Theory of Evolution is Abiogenesis!" True, you have to get the basement light to reflect off the foil on your head at just the right angle to see it properly, but it's* there.

You're lucky that the EAC* doesn't really exist. Otherwise the black helicopters would be arriving at your house any minute now to punish you, your family, your dogs, cats, and neighbours, and their dogs and cats, for your betrayal of EAC secrets.**


* Evil abiogenesist conspiracy
** <whispers> RUN!!!!

Date: 2009/02/09 13:43:36, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 09 2009,16:53)
Kirk has been taking coward lessons from Patrick!

     
Quote
Hello all. Due to my involvement in this discussion, I have placed myself in an awkward position, the details of which I would like to keep confidential. To avoid further complications, I have decided to withdraw from contributing further. I do apologize for this. Again, I think it best to keep the details confidential.


What a surprise!


But Kirk is not a coward, he is being suppressed!

 
Quote
78

DaveScot

02/09/2009

12:40 pm

The DNEA (Darwinian Narrative Enforcement Agency) appears to gotten through to Kirk. It was only a matter of time…


That's so... so... pathetic.


[edit: now with linky]

Date: 2009/02/09 14:00:41, Link
Author: JLT
Quote
Fuller:
vjtorley said that it will take 200 years to overturn whatever atheist/naturalist/Darwinist orthodoxy exists today.

This is much too pessimistic. Maybe 500 years ago it was appropriate to measure large-scale intellectual change in terms of centuries. This is no longer the case. I point to several factors:
[SNIP]
(4) Natural science itself is increasingly forced to justify itself in cost-benefit terms, both practically and theoretically. It is thus becoming more respectable for people to demand a science that is relevant to their lives and at least does not alienate them.


And that's supposed to be a good thing??????*
That's the complete opposite of academic freedom, you hypocritical twit.



*I know, I know: multiple punctuation marks = you're wearing your underwear on your head. But sometimes you just have to do it (the punctuation marks. NOT the underwear. I swear.)

Date: 2009/02/09 15:07:36, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 09 2009,17:48)
DaveScot
 
Quote
The DNEA (Darwinian Narrative Enforcement Agency) appears to gotten through to Kirk. It was only a matter of time…

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-304138
Yep, I'm sure that's what it was...

Oups.

But you found it only 2 hours earlier than I.

Date: 2009/02/09 15:14:58, Link
Author: JLT
Not Exactly Rocket Science has a series of posts on evolutionary research. Nice reads so far.

Date: 2009/02/09 15:48:20, Link
Author: JLT
Notpology explained*:



* via here

Date: 2009/02/10 11:46:46, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (csadams @ Feb. 04 2009,03:35)
Check out Collapse of a Texas Quote Mine.

Jeremy Mohn has put together extensive documentation showing how Texas SBOE chairman Don McLeroy grossly distorted the authors' intents, that McLeroy probably didn't read the sources he'd claimed to have read, and how McLeroy plagiarized a creationist website for some of his erroneous information.

(right, I understand this bit of news is on the order of dog bites man . . .)

On ID the future they've got McLeroy's performance as a podcast.
The title?
   
Quote
Texas Board Chair Gives a Science Lesson
Last week, the Texas State Board of Education met to consider a draft of their new science standards. At the meeting, the Board’s Chair, Dr. Don McLeroy did a remarkable thing – he gave the rest of the Board a science lesson, which began when McLeroy proposed a new standard regarding evolution. Listen in to this episode of ID the Future as Dr. McLeroy lays out a compelling case for the existence of scientific controversies over evolution.


[edited to add:]
A science lesson by someone who probably copied some of his quotes from a creationist site, including errors:

Quote
Incidentally, this citation error appears to have originated in a  book review published in 2004 by someone named Don Moeller. All of the quotes above can also be found within that review, along with the citation error. That means, assuming that the above evidence isn't just an amazing coincidence, Dr. McLeroy actually plagiarized a list of quotes that were transcribed by someone else who was reading some other guy's review of the book that McLeroy claimed to have read.

Did you follow all of that?

Good.

So why does any of this matter? Why should you care about poor scholarship and an apparent lack of academic integrity on the part of the Chairman of the Texas Board of Education?

Date: 2009/02/10 13:36:01, Link
Author: JLT
Quote

b) Lack of stratospheric ozone is not a problem because UV radiation is not only destructive. It is also positively useful. Many “complex” molecules exist in space (in conditions of vastly greater UV radiation), not only that but UV can promote certain reactions. For example the formose reaction is positively aided by UV radiation.


Isn't UV also absorped by water?
I always thought that the shorter the wavelenght, the more water the light can pass through before it's filtered out. I tried to find out how deep that is for UV light and I found this list (German) with absorption coefficents for different wavelenght and the layer thickness* after which the intensity is reduced to 1/1000 of the original:

Lambda(nm)     k(1/m)      x(0,001)(m)
=======================================
200           ca. 7            1
250           ca. 1            7
300           ca. 0,2         35
350           ca. 0,2         35
400           ca. 0,06       110
450           ca. 0,02       350
500           ca. 0,025      280
550           ca. 0,05       140
600           ca. 0,2         35
650           ca. 0,32        22
700           ca. 0,65        11
750           ca. 2,6          2,7
800           ca. 2,0          3,5
1000            37            0,19

So, the shorter the wavelength, the deeper the light can reach seems to be true only for the visible light. According to this list UV light can't reach as deep as e.g. blue light.

Does anyone know whether that is true?
Unfortunately, the author of that list states that he found several vastly different absorption coefficents for UV light in the literature and he would provide only a "best guess".


* This isn't exactly a topic I discuss on a daily basis, so I'm not sure whether I use the correct terms. I hope it's still clear what I mean....

Date: 2009/02/10 13:50:14, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (Kristine @ Feb. 10 2009,19:10)
This is how they show that "Ms. Forrest has tied herself into linguistic knots." :)
   
Quote
Agency, on the other hand, is a non-natural – but not necessarily “supernatural” cause. Any particular agent may be a human agent; a superhuman but non-divine agent; or a divine agent, and only this last category would be “supernatural.”

*Holds head* Bwa ha HA! Well, two can play at that game.

Agency can also be an animal cause. Anyone heard of sexual selection?

As a matter of fact, I think it would be instructive to start distinguishing the behavior at UD according to these criteria: :p
1. male to male combat (esp. over their FAUQ pages, plus Gil's ongoing battle with himself, and Dave spitting into the wind)
2. mate choice (who dallies with YEC, who dallies with denying common descent, and who shilly-shallies with bets and bottles of single-malt, etc. - maybe call that malt choice instead, I don't know)
3. textual conflict (Sorry, Louis):
  a) interlocus - "big tent" versus picking on theistic evolutionists, "we are scientists" versus "science is bad," etc.
  b) intralocus - the point at which a thread, having obtained optimum hard questions, is abruptly closed or taken offline. ;)

LOL.

If an "AtBC's Guide to Understanding WTF Is Going On at Uncommon Descent" existed, this definitely would have to be included.

Date: 2009/02/10 16:38:19, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 10 2009,19:57)
       
Quote (JLT @ Feb. 10 2009,19:36)
   
Isn't UV also absorped by water?
[snip]
So, the shorter the wavelength, the deeper the light can reach seems to be true only for the visible light. According to this list UV light can't reach as deep as e.g. blue light.

Does anyone know whether that is true?
Unfortunately, the author of that list states that he found several vastly different absorption coefficents for UV light in the literature and he would provide only a "best guess".

Yes water does absorb UV to some extent.

As for how deep different wavelengths of EM radiation can penetrate into bodies of water, I honestly don't know off the top of my head. I'm also not sure about the correlation between wavelength and depth of penetration. A couple of things spring to mind though:

a) Gamma rays, X rays, cosmic radiation etc pass through water. They have very short wavelengths compared to blue light for example.

b) Different materials have different absorption spectra, so there isn't necessarily a linear relationship between wavelength and depth of penetration.

I could be wrong however, I'll nip off and have a read!

Louis

Thank you!
Re. a) That fits with what I'd thought before I found this list.

Re. b) That's obviously true (otherwise we wouldn't see different colours), but it didn't occur to me that it applies to water, too. Thanks for reminding me.

I've read a bit more myself and found out that I've forgotten A LOT since I had physics classes during my study.... I'm sure that we learned about the Beer-Lambert law and I seem to remember that we used an experimental setting like this

to calculate concentrations but most of it I eradicated quite successfully from my memory...

Date: 2009/02/10 18:22:35, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 10 2009,22:54)
*Senility, I has it.

You mean this:
   
Quote
I've read a bit more myself and found out that I've forgotten A LOT since I had physics classes during my study....

is a sign of early-onset senility?

Date: 2009/02/12 05:40:26, Link
Author: JLT
Quote
9

DaveScot

02/11/2009

11:53 am

KRiS

If the weaknesses of general relativity are taught will the defenders of scientific dogma bring out the lawyers to stop it?

10

Domoman

02/11/2009

12:18 pm

DaveScot,

I’m pretty sure they won’t bring out lawyers. Real theories don’t get in legal trouble. :P

11

Domoman

02/11/2009

12:20 pm

Actually, let me re-phrase that. Real theories that don’t challenge neo-Darwinism, don’t get in legal trouble.

Linky

I LOLed.

Date: 2009/02/12 08:03:51, Link
Author: JLT
It's all about the science:
Quote
I would add that when Darwinists claim that their theory is overwhelmingly confirmed, what they mean is that it must be true because otherwise atheist materialism (or liberal Christianity?) would not be true. Can’t help that, I am afraid.
I also suspect that they would dump it in a minute if they could think of an alternative satisfactory to atheist materialism or liberal Christianity.

Date: 2009/02/12 08:30:50, Link
Author: JLT
Quote
Egnor: Science and religion don’t address entirely separate aspects of human experience. There is one truth about the world. The truth about the natural world is obviously a part of metaphysical truth. Science addresses the truth about the natural world, and religion addresses the deeper metaphysical truth. There are no separate magesteria, despite Stephen J. Gould’s spin. If God made the world, then intelligent design is true, assuming that the artifacts of His designing intelligence can be recognized as such. If there is no God, and the world just came to be, then Darwinism is true, because ID and Darwinism are just the affirmative and the negative answer to the same question: is there evidence for design in biology?

This is clear: metaphysical truth determines scientific truth. If there is a designer (metaphysical truth), then intelligent design is true (scientific truth). If there is no designer (metaphysical truth), then Darwinism is true (scientific truth).


Good grief. Egnor really is losing it. He rambles on like this for another six paragraphs, repeating the same point. It's exactly as he puts it: for him and his buddies their preconceived metaphysical "truth" determines scientific truth. No need to actually DO science or look at the evidence - you just know it.

Date: 2009/02/13 08:13:40, Link
Author: JLT
Quote
         
Quote
Second, who are these scientists who are turning to ID?


The smart ones, who wish to remain anonymous.


You have to love it.

Artist's impression of Anonymous Smart Scientists Turning to ID:



I especially like how the ID they're turning to is invisible (but probably pink and unicorn-shaped).

Date: 2009/02/13 09:13:35, Link
Author: JLT
Oups. Quote is from here.

Date: 2009/02/13 09:31:25, Link
Author: JLT
Jerry:
 
Quote
How does one teach the evolution part of biology. First by saying there is no theory that explains the long term evolution as seen in the fossil record. Second small changes such as fur color, beak sizes or microbe changes can be explained by Darwin’s theory. The textbook and class room should expand on the second issue and ignore the first issue except to describe the fossil record and that there is no theory that works that can explain it.

No need for strengths and weaknesses unless one wants to say what a theory can predict is its strengths. There should be no mention of Darwin in connection to long term species change and discussion of the origin of life should say there is no hypothesis that has any backing for how it started.

The instructor could then move on to discuss what is known and important instead of wasting time on a bogus theory. Evolution would then take maybe one or two lessons and the student would be better off by not having to dodge bad science.

Shorter Jerry: How does one teach the evolution part of biology? By not mentioning it.

Date: 2009/02/13 10:11:57, Link
Author: JLT
Quote
Darwin's Bracelet has been inspired by parts of the human / hominina evolution: Australopithecus, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Homo neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens. The skulls are handmade from porcelain and metal.



from here

I don't wear jewellery but that IS tempting.

Date: 2009/02/13 15:14:00, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (GCT @ Feb. 13 2009,20:43)
She's a witch!

She's obviously used some beguiling magic to lure these poor men into her trap because she secretly hates Xians and wants to kill indiscriminately because she believes in evilution and doesn't want to follow god's rules.  She probably even showed them a little bit of ankle.  This is why we need burquas!

Impeccable logic.
You did miss one important fact, though. Fixed it for you.

Date: 2009/02/13 17:25:25, Link
Author: JLT
I watched the ID - the future video podcast in "honour" of Darwin day and I realised for the first time that by looking at Wells' body language you can actually determine if he his lying.
You really have to look closely otherwise you may miss it. But every time just before he starts lying, he opens his mouth.

Date: 2009/02/13 19:33:33, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (Doc Bill @ Feb. 13 2009,23:49)
My favorite DI Moment of all time was when Mark Ryland from the DI's Washington, D.C. office was on a panel with Richard Thompson who defended the school board in Kitzmiller.

Thompson made a comment that the DI added fuel to the Dover fire by advocating teaching ID in the public school.

Then Ryland said no, no no!  The DI has NEVER advocated teaching ID in the public school.

THEN Thompson pulled out a document that the DI used to have on their website titled something like "How to Teach Intelligent Design and Avoid Constitutional Entanglements - A Teacher's Guide" and waved it in Ryland's face.

Now, remember, these guys are on the SAME SIDE!  It was hilarious.  Ryland shut up fast and Thompson was furious enough to launch into a tirade about how the DI pulled out of the case and what assholes they were.   (Poetic license at work here, but you get the picture.)

Soon after that Ryland left the DI to "pursue other interests" as they say.

Busted, I say!

LOL.

I found this little tale about Ryland at The Institute for the Study of Nature homepage:
   
Quote
In the early 1990s Mark became interested in the modern debate over evolution theory, finding merit in modern critiques of the standard (selectionist) understanding of neo-Darwinism. This interest led him to collaborate for a time with the Discovery Institute, a center of gravity for both critics of neo-Darwinism (a broader group, many of whom have no opinion on an alternative explanation for biological evolution) as well as proponents of "intelligent design theory" or "IDT" (who purport to provide an alternative explanation). Eventually he became convinced that IDT was not a real alternative, and he also grew tired of the narrow perspectives and endless bickering that characterize the modern debate about evolution. [...]

See, he wasn't busted. He grew tired of the bickering. And  
Quote
He also discovered that there is a pressing need for the re-development of an explicitly philosophical, classically informed, and non-reductionist approach to nature, synthesizing the wisdom of the ancients with the insights and capabilities of modern scientific ideas and methods.
which is why he co-founded the ISN.
Now you know...

Date: 2009/02/14 05:10:45, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (sparc @ Feb. 14 2009,05:55)
finally my question about Beauregard's fmri studies showed up in the social neuroscience thread but Denyse is not willing to meet that pathetic level of detail      
Quote
blah, blah, blah
laminar correctly sumerizes      
Quote
16
Laminar
02/13/2009
5:53 pm

It seems like a bizarre contradiction to me but you seem to be saying that if the mind is the product of real (observable and measurable) processes then it is an illusion, but if it is caused by unreal (unobservable and unmeasurable) processes then it is real?

I'm always surprised how they eat up everything that they perceive as a blow against the scientific position*. I'm sure that for the next years this one article will be cited as absolute proof that every result (that they don't like) gained by using fMRI is irrelevant**. As if any single article could prove a whole field of study wrong. I'd always wait for independent confirmation.
Also, this is written by DO'L who isn't exactly an expert so I wouldn't be surprised if she's got the scope of this article like totally wrong.


* and that they think it were a blow against the scientific position if a view is corrected by new results.

** Remember this obscure article in a religious dutch newspaper that claimed the human and the chimpanzee genome were only to 70 % similar? That led to a whole flood of articles and comments about how the public is mislead by scientists who promote a higher figure. I'm pretty sure that for them a 70 % similarity is now "accepted knowledge".***

*** A prediction! I bet the next time the chimpanzee or human genome is mentioned someone will present the 70 % figure as absolute truth.

Date: 2009/02/14 14:01:50, Link
Author: JLT

Date: 2009/02/15 06:46:34, Link
Author: JLT
Just to recap:
     
Quote
Daniel: Show me a novel biological system where the immediate precursors are known.
<subtext> Ha, he won't be able to do that, because it's impossible for a novel biological system to evolve (without woo woo from God)</subtext>

Albatrossity: Here's your example of a novel biological system where the immediate precursors are known.
<subtext>Take that, moron*</subtext>

Daniel: No, that can't be an example of an evolved novel biological system because it's impossible for a novel biological system to evolve. So it isn't a novel biological system and the evolutionary event leading to this novel biological system happens so frequently that it can't be an evolutionary event, so it's either normal reproduction or made by God!!!1!!11

That's really brilliant reasoning right there, congrats.
Oh and BTW:
         
Quote
This is all pretty neat and tidy - don't you think?  A new morphological feature with all of its many complex biochemical processes just falling into place.  


You are aware that if the the "biochemical processes" weren't working properly in the new species there wouldn't be any new species, aren't you. It might be a novel concept to you, but there is this thing that is called "natural selection". It just means that any new variants in which the biochemical processes weren't working properly WOULDN'T SURVIVE (long enough to produce offspring)**.



* Sorry, if I assumed wrongly that you thought something like that. Couldn't resist.

** or be sterile or produce significantly less offspring than the parent species, ALL of which probably happened and happens way more often than that it works out.

Date: 2009/02/15 17:57:17, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 15 2009,22:40)
this thread is great.

Ack. Just read the whole thread. WHY DID YOU DO THAT TO ME?

Jerry is an asshole of biblical proportions.

Unexpectedly, I couldn't find a LOLcat that adequately expressed my feelings, therefore this unrelated one.


I'm off shooting elephants.

Date: 2009/02/16 11:08:31, Link
Author: JLT
DO'L, citing a Canadian poll showing that in Canada liberals are most likely to believe in some form of theistic evolution:
 
Quote
This is quite different from the United States, where most Republicans “doubt evolution” but most Democrats do not.
In short, for various cultural reasons, in Canada, 1) beliefs about origins are not determined along politically partisan lines, as they are in the United States, and therefore, 2) it is not in a politician’s interests to sponsor the controversy (because as many votes could be lost as gained). That is the most likely reason that origins questions are not publicly controversial here.

Decima, I regret to say, did not ask about people’s religious affiliations, which might have shed some light. Perhaps they will next time.


Isn't she basically saying here that in the US the evolution manufactroversy is perpetuated by politicians mainly for one reason: to get more votes?

In that case, she is probably right.

DO'L. Probably right.

<brain explodes>

Date: 2009/02/16 11:39:26, Link
Author: JLT
Quote
The Conservapedia evolution article has sprinted past the 500,000 view mark! This is bad news for the dogmatic evolutionists who are aware that in 2006, the prestigious science journal Science reported concerning the United States: "The percentage of people in the country who accept the idea of evolution has declined from 45 in 1985 to 40 in 2005. Meanwhile the fraction of Americans unsure about evolution has soared from 7 per cent in 1985 to 21 per cent last year."[9] Watch the internet continue to grind down evolutionism!
Linky

I think I finally found a sig.

Date: 2009/02/16 13:18:33, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (sledgehammer @ Feb. 16 2009,18:56)
StephenB is a veritable tardbucket today:
       
Quote

...The atheistic/agnostic world view, and its foundational principle that something can come from nothing, stem from pure emotionalism. No one who thinks straight can believe such things....The academy promotes a three fold philosophy of life: metaphysical naturalism, introduced as Darwinism, epistemological skepticism, characterized as sophistication, and licentiousness, promoted as freedom. Each complements the other, but certain individuals tend to pick their favorite in the beginning.

One may embrace skepticism for a while without getting all worked up about Darwinism and vice versa. Similarly, one may simply take on the licentious life-style without thinking much about the Darwinism. As the student gets older though, all three become reinforced and internalized, each through the other.

Through Darwinism, they learn to question the value of life and sneer at the dignity of the human person; through skepticism, they learn to hate truth and challenge the principles of right reason; through, licentiousness, they learn to disdain self control and avoid personal responsibility.


A sanctimonious little snot, he is.

Another one from StephenB (WARNING: Turn off your ironymeter):
 
Quote
You are undoubtedly unaware of the fact that Aquinas often provided arguments contrary to his own position in the beginning of his discourse in order to shoot them down later. Inasmuch as he was able to articulate these arguments even better than those who had misconceived them, badly educated professors often borrow them to support their misconceived positions without even bothering to read the refutation that follows.

Please make a note of that.


...

Date: 2009/02/16 13:29:23, Link
Author: JLT
mynym
 
Quote
 
Quote
Presumably, you accept Newton’s theory of gravitation as essentially right (though incomplete, of course). Let us now assume only for the sake of argument that some long lost historical documents were discovered whose accuracy could be verified…

But we don’t have to assume or imagine anything, history shows that no great physicist was a serial killer or took part in the patterns typical to them as instead they seek the “Mind of God.” If there was a great physicist who turned out to be a serial killer that would call into question his supposed knowledge/scientia because we already know that physicists understand beauty and use the elegance or beauty of a theory as part of the evidence that it is true.

There is no “pure” form of science that exists sans sentience.  
Quote
If we assume that your idea is correct, logically you must then say that the theory of gravitation is no longer a valid theory.

I’m not focusing on thought experiments which deal with imaginary evidence. If you could point out many great physicists who were serial killers or who matched that pattern (drowning puppies, etc.) then the idea that all truth is linked would be undermined. It’s telling that apparently the only way you can find evidence supporting the fact/value split is by imagining some in thought experiments.


Pure TARD.

Date: 2009/02/16 18:00:26, Link
Author: JLT
How about Haemophilius influenza - first genome of a free living organism fully sequenced in 1995. Or Saccharomyces cerevisiae as the first eukaryote in 1996.

Date: 2009/02/16 18:57:54, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 16 2009,23:18)
The answer to "what is message theory" I suspect can only be fully explained in the book form.

CreationWiki:
 
Quote
The Central Claim of Message Theory:
Life was reasonably designed for survival and for communicating a message that tells where life came from. The biotic message says, "Life is the product of a single designer - life was intentionally designed to resist all other explanations". The Biotic Message, page 20

So, it's the intelligent biotic message sender "theory".
If you wanted to know more (but why would you) there's this exhausting ARN book review. The reviewer thinks ReMine is too progressive....
 
Quote
And then ReMine omits any reference to Flood geology—which can explain the general patterns seen in the fossils without resorting to the contrivance of planned sequential release of newly-created organisms. It’s sad that ReMine resorts to this ‘progressive creationist’ approach. It mars an otherwise very good work.

Date: 2009/02/17 09:06:39, Link
Author: JLT
Polydnaviruses of Braconid Wasps Derive from an Ancestral Nudivirus
Science 13 February 2009: Vol. 323. no. 5916, pp. 926 - 930. DOI: 10.1126/science.1166788 Link

For some background: Not merely bioweaponized, but mutualistic bioweaponized wasps (Mystery rays from outer space)

The abstract:
 
Quote
Many species of parasitoid wasps inject polydnavirus particles in order to manipulate host defenses and development. Because the DNA packaged in these particles encodes almost no viral structural proteins, their relation to viruses has been debated. Characterization of complementary DNAs derived from braconid wasp ovaries identified genes encoding subunits of a viral RNA polymerase and structural components of polydnavirus particles related most closely to those of nudiviruses—a sister group of baculoviruses. The conservation of this viral machinery in different braconid wasp lineages sharing polydnaviruses suggests that parasitoid wasps incorporated a nudivirus-related genome into their own genetic material. We found that the nudiviral genes themselves are no longer packaged but are actively transcribed and produce particles used to deliver genes essential for successful parasitism in lepidopteran hosts.

And a bit from the article itself:
 
Quote
Comparative genomic studies have highlighted the role of symbiotic associations in evolution (1). Polydnaviruses (PDVs) are virus-like particles associated with wasp species that parasitize lepidopteran larvae. PDV particles are injected along with the eggs of the wasp into the lepidopteran larvae (or eggs) and express proteins that interfere with host immune defenses, development, and physiology; this interference enables wasp larvae to survive and develop within the host (2). Viral particle production occurs exclusively in a specialized region of the wasp ovaries (the calyx), and the vertically transmitted virus does not initiate particle production in the infected host tissues (3). The viral genome packaged in the particles is composed of multiple double-stranded DNA (dsDNA) circles, and it is surprising that it encodes almost no viral structural proteins, although it harbors immunosuppressive genes that are expressed in the host and are essential for successful parasitism (4, 5) (see PDV description at www.ictvonline.org). Because of this lack of genes coding for structural proteins, it has been debated whether PDVs are of viral origin or a "genetic secretion" of the wasp (6, 7).
PDVs are classified as either bracoviruses or ichnoviruses, when associated with braconid or ichneumonid wasps, respectively. Detailed phylogenetic studies have shown that the bracovirus-associated wasps form a monophyletic group known as the microgastroid complex (8), and it has been hypothesized that there has been a single integration event of a viral genome, as a provirus, in the microgastroid lineage. This predicts that vertically transmitted viral DNA may have been maintained because of its contribution to successful parasitism and that PDVs have contributed to the diversification of the microgastroid complex of at least 17,500 species (8).


And finally accompanying commentary.

Date: 2009/02/17 11:29:15, Link
Author: JLT
Looks like Casey Luskin doesn't like Expelled Exposed. He spends more than 4000 words (and ~80 links) on "correc[ting]  the various misrepresentations and falsehoods spread by Darwinists about Expelled."

Maybe he doesn't like the fact that if you google "expelled" you get Expelled Exposed as the first hit and not their lousy movie.

 
Quote
“Expelled Exposed” is now exposed for what it really is: it’s not just a website making the case against ID (which is perfectly fine if that’s what ID critics want to do)—it’s a website attempting to convince people that ID deserves no academic freedom. In other words, “Expelled Exposed” is an effort to encourage the further persecution of ID-proponents.

Ironically, by denying that professionally qualified ID proponents have a right to "a place in academia,” “Expelled Exposed” has justified the central thesis of the documentary Expelled, namely that qualified ID proponents do not receive academic freedom to hold, discuss, and promote their views within the academy.

Someone should tell Luskin that academic freedom isn't the freedom to spout nonsense.

Date: 2009/02/18 03:30:44, Link
Author: JLT
Are you sure your PC has got the right time? Your PC should synchronise the time with an internet server automatically, but it doesn't always do that. If you've got windows, right click on the time in your task bar and click Adjust Date/Time. The third tab in the opening box is Internet Time. There you can update the time manually.
Maybe that'll help.

Date: 2009/02/18 09:45:56, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (khan @ Feb. 18 2009,14:47)
Quote (JLT @ Feb. 18 2009,04:30)
Are you sure your PC has got the right time? Your PC should synchronise the time with an internet server automatically, but it doesn't always do that. If you've got windows, right click on the time in your task bar and click Adjust Date/Time. The third tab in the opening box is Internet Time. There you can update the time manually.
Maybe that'll help.

I have the same time on both computers and on the cable box.

Then the only other possible explanation is that aliens are performing a time distortion experiment in the area where you live. The government is probably also involved.

Date: 2009/02/18 09:50:39, Link
Author: JLT
I'd print out some of these:

and put them on the seats for others to find.





Date: 2009/02/18 10:13:06, Link
Author: JLT


No birthday party without cake.

Date: 2009/02/19 11:05:32, Link
Author: JLT
Jerry #69:
       
Quote
So I stand by my comment. The argument is over information and they know it but only throw out trivia and then claim victory.

Ah yes. You mean like this:

Jerry #36:
       
Quote
But also in the end we may continue to disagree but you should know that our opposition is based on the construction of new information that govern new systems and not that various combinations of current information can not make interesting morphological changes but are they really creating new information and systems that did not exist before.[handwaving] Also nearly all the discussions we have here are with animals and not plants. Animals seem to have more systems than plants.[Maybe tis stoopid plants evolved but I didn't do no evolving]


Jerry #70:
       
Quote
       
Quote
“Could you not think of a model of ID”

Craig Venter and MIT are both involved in modifying life forms.[trivia] These are two you can use. [It's working. I'm becoming religious. Just now I was thinking: Please, dear God, throw some brain from the sky roughly in Jerry's direction. Thank you.] There are many others who are trying to create something from scratch so you many want to look at them.

Jerry #76:
       
Quote
The process is: Making some observations. And then after we have made those observation, we have offered a tried and true way they could have happened.[That looks complicated. Humans make complicated things. Design!!!!!!11!1!!!!!1]

We then observe that no other mechanism has ever produced anything like these observations. [which isn't an observation but rather what has to be shown] And then we conclude that the most likely scenario is the one that has been shown capable to produce the observations and not some hypothetical pie in the sky mumbo jumbo. [waffling; the most likely scenario you're proposing IS some hypothetical pie in the sky mumbo jumbo did it][...]

Now there is no known intelligence before man[trivia]. But somehow the universe was created and is so incredibly fine tuned [trivia] that it must have been the result of intelligence so the likelihood of an intelligence existing after the universe came into being seem highly reasonable.[claiming victory]


I could've just highlighted all of it.

This guy is seriously getting on my nerves.

Date: 2009/02/19 17:19:00, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (J-Dog @ Feb. 19 2009,17:36)
 
Quote (JLT @ Feb. 19 2009,11:05)
I could've just highlighted all of it.

This guy is seriously getting on my nerves.

JLT - Damn man, that is some detailed fisking!

I think you put more into Jerry's dismantling, than Jerry put into his education, or praying to god for brains!

Thank you. IMO people like Jerry are more dangerous than e. g. Ray Martinez. RM is obviously nuts, but Jerry is oh so reasonable. He doesn't object to macroevolution because of his religious convictions but because of the evidence, dontchaknow. Bleh. I think it's important to show that the "reasonable" IDists are emitting the same kind of terminal nonsense than the more obvious cut off from reality-type IDiots, even if it isn't as much fun.

Btw, it's "Damn woman" ;)

Date: 2009/02/19 17:25:09, Link
Author: JLT
OT but not really OT:

Source: LOLGod

Date: 2009/02/19 18:10:42, Link
Author: JLT
Quote
   
Quote (khan @ Feb. 19 2009,23:25)
Btw, it's "Damn woman" ;)

Ah.

Another of the female persuasion.


:)

Date: 2009/02/20 03:44:22, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (J-Dog @ Feb. 20 2009,00:21)
 
Quote (JLT @ Feb. 19 2009,17:19)
 
Quote (J-Dog @ Feb. 19 2009,17:36)
     
Quote (JLT @ Feb. 19 2009,11:05)
I could've just highlighted all of it.

This guy is seriously getting on my nerves.

JLT - Damn man, that is some detailed fisking!

I think you put more into Jerry's dismantling, than Jerry put into his education, or praying to god for brains!

Thank you. IMO people like Jerry are more dangerous than e. g. Ray Martinez. RM is obviously nuts, but Jerry is oh so reasonable. He doesn't object to macroevolution because of his religious convictions but because of the evidence, dontchaknow. Bleh. I think it's important to show that the "reasonable" IDists are emitting the same kind of terminal nonsense than the more obvious cut off from reality-type IDiots, even if it isn't as much fun.

Btw, it's "Damn woman" ;)

Ich entschuldige mich fraulein!

All the other German I know is from WWII movies and TV like:

Col Klink:  "Ach General Burkholter!  What a pleasant surprise!"

Gen'l Burkholter:  "Shut up Klink."

However, I was able to find this pictrure of your Uncle Werner talking to Louis' uncle Terrance Booth-Simmons, IV.

You know, it is just not fair that you speak and write much better English than me! :(


I actually think that is Louis' aunt. Look at the hand gesture and the position of the legs!

Uncle Werner: You look so hot in this uniform!

Louis' aunt: Uh oh, Werner, not in front of all this people.

Date: 2009/02/20 03:49:52, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 20 2009,02:08)
 
Quote (JLT @ Feb. 19 2009,17:19)
Btw, it's "Damn woman" ;)

Congratulations.  This is the first time you will be mocked via LOLCat.

HA HA THIS IS YOU


I feel deeply honoured.

Date: 2009/02/21 11:39:41, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (FrankH @ Feb. 20 2009,20:41)
So Louis, you speak French as well?

Any German speakers here on this board?  My German sucks almost as much as my English, but I want to start trying to communicate with it again.

OBTW Louis, my great aunt is Norman and she's a sweetie, hates Parisians and a great cook so watch it buddy.....

As Louis already mentioned I'm German and sparc is, too.
So, if you want to give it a try, go ahead ;)

A nice place to practice German as a foreign language is LEO. It's a site with dictionaries for German - English, - French, - Italian, - Spanish, and - Chinese, and for each language there's also a forum where you can ask language related questions or just chat (e.g. the English - German forum).

Date: 2009/02/21 13:57:50, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (J-Dog @ Feb. 20 2009,16:09)
It is totally unfair and a stunning indictment of the American Educational System that you and JLT write better English than me.  

I seriously doubt that, but thanks all the same! :)

Besides, reading AtBC is really educational language-wise. So, if you think I write good English - I copied it all from you guys.

Date: 2009/02/23 03:58:32, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (CeilingCat @ Feb. 23 2009,06:51)
(Anybody know how to do that crossed out text trick?)

<s>like this</s> but with square brackets.

Date: 2009/02/23 10:43:41, Link
Author: JLT
Quote
28

Barb

02/23/2009

8:44 am

B.L. Harville @ 23 wrote: “There is a simple idea in philosophy which says that if something does happen then it can happen. Descent with modification does happen, therefore descent with modification can happen.”

That is the logical fallacy of questionable cause. It presents a causal relationship for which no real evidence exists. Try again.

Well, Barb, that's the logical fallacy of "not even close". It pretends a grasp of logic where obviously none exists.

Questionable Cause
This fallacy has the following general form:

  1. A and B are associated on a regular basis.
  2. Therefore A is the cause of B.

   
Quote
8

Barb

02/23/2009

8:49 am

For my course in Logic & Reasoning, we were required to take a small survey, the results of which are here: ...


FAIL.

Date: 2009/02/23 15:07:50, Link
Author: JLT
StephenB takes the strawmen argument to a new level:
 
Quote
Darwinists keep telling me that atheists can be just as moral as anyone else, and they bristle when anyone dares to question the point. Even so, I have to wonder. What must it be like to have a relationship with people who live by their feelings and make up their own morality as they go along? If they don’t believe in any such thing as truth, how can they be honest? If they disavow any notion of justice, how can they be fair? If they renounce natural law and natural rights, how can they be responsible citizens? Are they capable of delaying gratification for the sake of a higher good? More to the point, do they even recognize a higher good, or anything such as “good” period? By their own admission, they do not. How then, do they claim to be good and moral people while denying goodness and morality? I am still waiting for someone to solve that riddle.


Also, the end is near:
Quote
One thing I do know is that their ["semi-educated partisans", "misguided materialists", "misguided souls"] numbers seem to be growing and they are destroying the culture with their studiously contrived nihilism. Unfortunately, they will not pay the penalty alone; they will be taking the rest of us down with them.

Date: 2009/02/23 15:20:55, Link
Author: JLT
That's it. The proof. There are multiple universes. At least two. The one I live in and the one in which IDists exist:
   
Quote
1

SCheesman

02/23/2009

1:46 pm

       
Quote
The language of this bill comes primarily from the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, which has conducted lobbying efforts and political activism against the teaching of evolution since 1994.


That’s a pretty blatant lie, isn’t it? Since when has the Discovery Insititue ever lobbied against, or involved itself in political action against the teaching of evolution?

Can you sue over such things?

I'm speechless.
Bill exnotplains:
 
Quote
3

William Dembski

02/23/2009

2:13 pm

SCheesman: We live in an Orwellian world. To lobby for the truthful teaching of evolution (warts and all) is to lobby against the conventional teaching of evolution (i.e., indoctrination).

Date: 2009/02/23 15:54:27, Link
Author: JLT
This must be the strangest fish (YouTube video) I've seen so far:
Macropinna microstoma: A deep-sea fish with a transparent head and tubular eyes (press release by Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute).

The greenish globes inside the head are the eyes. The black spots at the front are the fish equivalent of "nostrils".

[edit]The video was removed from YouTube but can now be found at the press release link[/edit]

Date: 2009/02/24 08:57:41, Link
Author: JLT

Date: 2009/02/24 13:22:02, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (AmandaHuginKiss @ Feb. 24 2009,05:41)
I think that I am permanently on moderation as well. I just have had a little whinge:

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Why am I on moderation for comment 45? It is innocent enough. Stephen was saying earlier that he had killer arguments against atheists and all I am asking for him is to show the evidence rather than asserting points of view.
I’m just a 47 year old woman who got my theology from the Sisters. How is the argument going to go against an educated atheist.

It's a shame. You could've asked Stephan to take this quiz:

Do you have biblical morals?

Date: 2009/02/24 16:06:25, Link
Author: JLT
DLH
   
Quote
Compare the chimpanzee and giraffe, shrew and whale, ant and rhinoceros.
Would not this lead to the following hypotheses?
One design principle of an Intelligent Designer is:

“Provide for high complexity using combinations of components.”


The authors have clearly never played “Hide and Seek” either themselves or with their children. Otherwise they would recognize the value of progressively harder challenges towards maturing children while making it enjoyable. (Or would never admit to it.)

This experience could be summarized in another Design Principle:
“Provide enough simple systems to encourage biologists, and provide numerous complex systems to challenge them.”


Applying these to topoisomerases raises the following hypotheses for design regarding topoisomerases:

1) “Form topoisomerases with sufficient complexity to form a wide variety of systems.”

2) “Form topoisomerases with enough simplicity to encourage biologists in their discovery, and with enough of diversity to challenge them.”

Design hypothesis 1) could be disproved by showing that all systems could be formed from two ubiquitous Topo I and Topo II topoisomerases.

Design hypothesis 2) Could be disproved by showing that topoisomerases are too simple to provide a challenge. i.e. that they fit into Darwin’s neat “tree of life.”

Objection 2 appears to be dismissed by:

   “the distribution of topoisomerases families and sub-families among modern organisms is not congruent with the universal tree of life based on 16S rRNA sequence comparison (with the trinity Archaea, Bacteria and Eukarya).”

PS curious use of “trinity”.

From the growing evidence of highly specified complexity in biochemical systems, a third Design Principle might be hypothesized:

“Provide sufficient complexity to refute all theories that life could have occurred without an Intelligent Designer.”


LOL!
Designer plays hide and seek with biologists by designing different topoisomerases. How sneaky.
I like his last Design Principle (of course capitalised), too.
I mean, that explains EVERYTHING!

Of course, he could've just skipped this whole "I make it look like common descent" stuff instead, but we've already established that he's sneaky.

I think it's really a shame that they don't hypothesise speculate fantasize more about alleged design principles (at least not in public) - it would be much more amusing that way.

Date: 2009/02/24 16:18:28, Link
Author: JLT
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Lou FCD]

Quote (AmandaHuginKiss @ Feb. 24 2009,21:23)
This destroyed a lot of theories I had that you could tell the difference between men and women online.

But you can tell the difference.
Curious fascination with earthy colours (colors for some) and ol^fac^tory challenging stuff = male.

Date: 2009/02/24 16:44:32, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 24 2009,22:10)
that is a fine snapshot of projection there i believe.  




my god is greater than your gods because he is the MASTER PUZZLE MAKER.  if your god was greater then we would KNOW EVERYTHING MUWAHAHAHAHAH

is DLH trolling over here as Denial Smith?  Sounds like his particular brand of tardery

I'm still hoping DLH is a deep cover sock puppet, trying to evoke some tardalicious responses (I'm an optimist).
Unfortunately for Denial, the possibility that he's only pretending to be deeply confused is very slim.

Date: 2009/02/24 16:54:49, Link
Author: JLT
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Lou FCD]

Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 24 2009,22:23)
 
Quote (JLT @ Feb. 24 2009,16:18)
 
Quote (AmandaHuginKiss @ Feb. 24 2009,21:23)
This destroyed a lot of theories I had that you could tell the difference between men and women online.

But you can tell the difference.
Curious fascination with earthy colours (colors for some) and ol^fac^tory challenging stuff = male.


See?

QED.

Date: 2009/02/25 04:02:19, Link
Author: JLT
Riddick is being rude by summarising JWM and asking for some critical thinking.
 
Quote
8

riddick

02/24/2009

1:46 pm

Dembski: “JWM’s no-nonsense brand of apologetics, in which he was willing to put everything on the table for discussion and to consider all evidence pro and con on any topic,”

Everything, it appears, except for his Reformed theology. “Christianity” is an “ism,” an ideology, one opposed to the revelation of God in Jesus Christ. Perhaps someday those who are critical of Darwinism will be as critical of their own cherished assumptions.

Dembski can't have that:
Quote
9

William Dembski

02/24/2009

5:23 pm

To the moderators: Riddick needs to be removed. His ignorance of the difference between Reformed and Lutheran theology is bad enough (JWM is Lutheran). But his attack on Christianity is out of bounds with any standards of civility acceptable on this forum.


Meanwhile, in another thread:
 
Quote
3

Clive Hayden

02/24/2009

5:36 pm

The last event on the calendar:

Feb. 1-3, 2010 “The Perkins School of Theology will extend the celebration of the Darwin anniversary to 2010, focusing on the relationship between religion and science at the school’s annual “Minister’s Week” conference of lectures and presentations.”

Celebrating the relationship of Darwin and his materialistic atheism with non-materialistic theism, is like celebrating Hitler and the relationship between the Nazis and Allied Forces. Not really sure what there is to celebrate between such opposites.


Scolding by Dembski imminent, I'm sure.

Date: 2009/02/25 14:29:59, Link
Author: JLT








Fun with Wikipedia stats

Date: 2009/02/25 14:34:45, Link
Author: JLT
LOL, Michael Behe was looked up 6258 times, nearly 4 times more than Dembski. That must hurt.

Date: 2009/02/25 18:25:51, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 25 2009,23:04)
***** CAUTION ******

Do not undertake deep spelunking at UD without the proper equipment and training. Reiterating the required gear from a post on the BlogCzar thread, you need:

- a durable shit-hat
- a strong drink
- mouse with scroll wheel
- a collection of pristine vinyl: Brahms clarinet sonatas, Bach Partitas, Schubert's beautiful Sonata for Arpeggione (sort of a super cello) and piano, and so on.
- another strong drink

Training? I'm an autodidact with a certified IQ north of 150 (MGCT and SAT tests). I had a college level vocabulary at 9 years of age and was reading everything about science I could get my hands on starting a few years before that. I've continued on that course for over 40 years. In my spare time I became a computer design engineer and self-made millionaire. I quit my day job after making my third million (about 6 years ago) so I can concentrate on fun subjects like science that has little or nothing to do with computers (if I can help it), politics, and religion. So basically all the scientific discovery of the last 40 years important enough to make it into the pages of Scientific American I read about at the time it was discovered. For the last 13 years though I've had a broadband connection to the internet and my sources expanded exponentially. For the last 6 years I haven't been burdened with being a computer whiz kid and my time to learn new things has expanded not exponentially but at least doubled or trebled.

Wasn't there a discussion at UD once that all regulars at AtBC are secret drinkers?

To paraphrase Denyse (Am I a fearless TARD fighter or what):

Quote
Notice that these people - despite being supposedly smart - never ask themselves the obvious question, let alone answer it - so why do all AtBCers drink then? And why are we not allowed to think that the answer to that question matters?


Let me just add, that I welcome the Bathroom wall if that's my destiny. But some questions have to be asked.

Date: 2009/02/27 04:07:24, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (midwifetoad @ Feb. 26 2009,21:20)
   
Quote
When Michael Behe was asked what type of research would help prove his thesis as outlined in the Edge of Evolution, he pointed to the research of Lenski at Michigan State on bacteria evolution. As I said before Lenski would cringe if he knew he was doing ID research but ID research he is doing. Each generation of data for every culture line either supports or falsifies Behe’s thesis.


So there you have it. Groundbreaking ID research. Stealthed.

The real question is then: Why don't they do this kind of research?
Obviously, it IS possible to get grants for this kind of "ID research", so they can't argue that they don't have enough money to do research or that ID research is blocked by Big Science.
My institute has got a general funding of 1 million Euro per year, the absolute majority of people working here is paid by research grants as well as most of the equipment and materials.
The Discoinstitute had 4 million dollars in funding in 2007 alone. So, why don't they apply for research grants and do some of this "ID research" themselves?

I heard a talk on Tuesday from Alan Colman about the history of stem cell research. He was involved with the cloning of Dolly, the sheep, in 1996. It was the first time someone was able to clone an animal from an adult cell and it showed for the first time that it is possible to "re-program" an adult cell to an embryonic cell state. Only after that people tried to generate embryonic stem cell-like cells from adult cells. The first induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSC) were reported in 2006 (IIRC; people were quite sceptical whether those cells really were pluripotent or whether they just shared some markers of embryonic stem cells) but the process of reprogramming was still difficult and ineffective.
For the  generation of iPSCs adult somatic cells were transduced with transcription factors. For some time it looked as if 4 different transcription factors needed to be expressed in the cell to re-program it. This was reduced to three and then to two.
On one slide Colman had the sentence: (These two transcription factors) seem to be indespensable for the generation of iPSCs. Unfortunately, he added, this is last weeks news; maybe you've seen this article last week in which it was reported that the authors generated iPSCs with only one transcription factor (which wasn't one of the two mentioned by him).
So, in less than 15 years from the first hint that it may be possible to generate embryonic stem cell-like cells from adult cells to the generation of iPSCs with only one transcription factor. And most of the work was done by only a handful labs worldwide (mostly because you needed access to embryonic stem cells for comparison which is/was problematic in most countries).

So, what results did the IDists produce in the last 15 years?

Date: 2009/02/27 08:23:02, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 27 2009,05:05)
Erasmus turns 25 today! Hope you get good presents!



Happy birthday!

Date: 2009/02/27 16:17:29, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 27 2009,19:31)
Ray Martinez, up-and-comming cybertard is one for the future:

Tard!

 
Quote
Behe *chose* to “accept” common ancestry and human evolution in order for his IC evidence to not be dismissed as originating from a Creationist. His strategy has failed and now he is stuck.



OMG BEHE IZ REALLY A YEC LYIN FOR JEBUS AND NOW HES STUCK!

Ray goes on to tard it up for an other post and a half, by which point he's Russeled / Poed Atom:

R U 4 REALZ?

 
Quote
127

Atom

02/27/2009

2:15 pm
Mr. Ray Martinez,

I’ll assume that you’re not a troll and that you’re speaking your honest mind, to give you the benefit of the doubt.


...

LOL, that's absolutely brilliant.

More Atom:
Quote
You can argue all day about Genesis, Theos, etc. but that isn’t ID. Not to say ID is incompatible with Genesis; it is compatible, just as it is also with (designed) common ancestry.

Translation: <shouts>ID doesn't have anything to do with religion, no sirrree.<whispers>Pssst, don't ruin the big tent. It's all going to be ok, ID doesn't say anything against Genesis, really (just say designed common ancestry instead of special creation).

Ray doesn't want to buy stealth creationism:
Quote
 
Quote
Atom: “ID isn’t about that. It doesn’t start with presuppositions about whether or not something was actually designed; that is the conclusion….”


Atom: I just obtained controlling interest in a bridge in Brooklyn, looks like a cash cow, email me if you want in.
Ray


GO RAY GO!

Date: 2009/02/27 16:33:38, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 27 2009,18:21)
Behe double standards blogged

Some more blogging about Behe: The Sensuous Curmudgeon
 
Quote
Okay, you know all that. Now here’s the fun part:

     
Quote
After the lecture, an audience member asked, “Where are the testable predictions in intelligent design that we would expect in science?”


Good question! We applaud that audience member. Here’s what Behe, the “internationally recognized” creationist guru, had to say for his answer:

     
Quote
“I don’t have a mechanism to substitute for the Darwinian mechanism, that’s true. But the same was true for Newton or the Big Bang Theory,” Behe answered. “I don’t think you need a mechanism all the time in science.”


Think about that. Behe admits what we’ve always known — that he has no mechanism. But such mechanisms — explanatory mechanisms — are what scientific theories are all about. Darwin had a mechanism to explain the origin of species — variation and natural selection. Any competing theory should do at least as well, because scientific theories are explanations — testable explanations. But Behe has no theory, and although he probably doesn’t realize it, he just said so.

As for Behe’s mention of Newton, that’s a sleazy bit of bait and switch. Newton didn’t propose a theory. His nifty formula, shown here, described the effects of gravity. Similarly, his laws of motion described motion. He never explained these phenomena. That’s the difference — in science — between laws and theories. The former are descriptions, the latter are explanations.

Then there’s Behe’s mention of the Big Bang. That’s sneakier, because it really is a theory — of limited scope. What Big Bang theory purports to explain is the observation that the universe appears to be expanding. The explanation is that the universe began with expansion of a singularity. This makes predictions that are testable by reference to various observations. See: Foundations of Big Bang Cosmology.

But this is where Behe gets super-sneaky. In Big Bang theory, the cause of the initial expansion is unexplained. It really isn’t part of Big Bang theory — indeed, such a cause may be beyond scientific investigation. But this is irrelevant to the almost unanimous acceptance of Big Bang theory, which does explain observable phenomena following the initial moment.

Okay, let’s try to tie this all up to see where Behe’s ID fits in. Newton (like Behe) had no mechanism — but he had a law of gravity. It still works splendidly, in all cases except those extreme conditions where relativity takes over. Behe’s reference to Newton is utterly foolish.

Then there’s the Big Bang. True, it doesn’t have a mechanism for the origin of all things. But cosmological observations are indeed explained by the mechanism of the expansion — that’s the Big Bang theory.

Now what of ID? Behe has no mechanism — which means he has no explanation, no theory. What does have have? Surely he has no law — no tidy description of biological phenomena.

So Behe has no theory, and he has no law. There’s not much left of ID, is there? A bit of smoke, a few mirrors, and that’s about it.


We should invite him/her/them over here, they'd fit right in (and if you're using a feed reader: add this blog).

Date: 2009/02/27 16:38:52, Link
Author: JLT
Spot the difference!
Andrew "Janus face" Sibley on UD
Quote
Influential Christian preacher Tony Campolo highlights some of the racial assumptions that were part of Darwin’s theory. Writing in Christian Today, ‘What’s wrong with Darwinism?’, 27th February 2009 he draws attention to the full title of Darwin’s first book ‘On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life.’ Campolo though believes that ethics should be the focus of those who reject Darwin’s theory. He further comments (referencing the Descent of Man 1871) that;

and on Science and Values
Quote
Influential Christian preacher Tony Campolo highlights some of the racial assumptions that were part of Darwin's theory. Writing in Christian Today, 'What’s wrong with Darwinism?', 27th February 2009 he notes the full title of Darwin's first book 'On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life.' Campolo believes that ethics should be the focus of creationists' rejection of Darwin's theory. He further comments (quoting from the Descent of Man 1871) that;

Date: 2009/02/27 16:45:58, Link
Author: JLT
That's nice, too:
Andrew "I believe in a worldwide flood" Sibley:
 
Quote
Instead, the Bible teaches that all mankind are related through Noah and his family.

The other Sibley:
 
Quote
Instead, a plain reading of the Bible teaches that all mankind are related and are of common ancestry.


Guess, where he posted which.

Date: 2009/02/27 17:45:23, Link
Author: JLT
Gpuccio:
Quote
There are a lot of areas where the two ae mutually exclusive. Indeed, the two are mutually exclusive almost in everything, at least as far as the causal history is concerned. And as I have sad, specific reserach is being done. The exploration of protein functionla space is just one example. The research about non coding DNA is another important example.


Does anyone know why they think that ID "predicts" that all non-coding DNA has a function?
I know that they all wrongly believe that ENCODE somehow proved that all non-coding DNA has a function and feel now vindicated in their belief that 1) 20000 genes can't be enough to make a HUMAN and 2) a designer wouldn't clutter the genome with non-functional DNA.
But that isn't something that follows from ID as they've said themselves; e.g.:

Casey Luskin:
Quote
(a) Firstly, Zimmer's claim that an eye is not designed because our retinas may become detached after "a sharp punch to the head" is not a scientific argument: intelligent design doesn't require "perfection," nor does it require that a system always survive malicious physical attacks. Was the Ford Pinto, with all its imperfections revealed in crash tests, not designed?


Dembski:
Quote
Nevertheless, taken strictly as a scientific theory, intelligent design refuses to speculate about the nature of this designing intelligence. Whereas optimal design demands a perfectionistic, anal-retentive designer who has to get everything just right, intelligent design fits our ordinary experience of design, which is always conditioned by the needs of a situation and therefore always falls short of some idealized global optimum.


ISCID Encyclopedia of Science and Philosophy
Quote
The argument stipulates that nature is full of apparent and actual flaws, and so no designer - especially a perfect or extremely superior one - could be responsible for them. This argument is infelicitous because not only does it incorporate question-begging about the nature and intent of a putative designer, but it employs equivocation between the ideas of intelligent design and perfect design, and constructs a straw man view of intelligent design that obfuscates the real questions of whether intelligent design in nature is apparent or actual.

To reveal the flaws in the optimal design based critique of intelligent design, one might begin by checking the underlying assumptions of its predicates. Firstly, it assumes that the designer of intelligent design theory is required to be perfect, inerrant and thus capable of and committed to producing perfect designs. However, intelligent design theory does not require that any designer of nature be perfect. Furthermore, the argument from optimal design assumes that an intelligent designer will produce only perfect designs. An intelligent designer need not produce perfect designs - nor even functional designs. Optimal designs need not be perfect designs, and in fact it may be impossible for them to be so, depending on one's definition of perfect, and depending on whether such perfection is even materially attainable or desirable. Moreover, even a perfect intelligent designer (whatever or whoever that might be) need not produce perfect designs.

Date: 2009/02/28 11:24:40, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (raguel @ Feb. 28 2009,15:20)
 
Quote
For the purposes of this debate, if you wish to continue it here, when we say macroevolution we are talking about the creation of novel cell types, tissue types, organs, and body plans. Write that down.


Umm, correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't that mean man/chimp evolution from a common ancestor is an example of microevolution?

According to Jerry, the origination of mitochondria from endosymbionts is macroevolution but still doesn't count because no novel information was generated; the information was already present in the endosymbiont.

With that logic, whenever scientists can point to the predecessor of a novel organ or tissue type or whatever, that example ceases to be "real macroevolution"™ and they can continue to crow about how scientists can't explain "macroevolution".

Date: 2009/03/01 05:54:56, Link
Author: JLT
Jerry rewrites history:
     
Quote
It [Ireland] is one of the greenest places on earth and you know instantly why the Irish color is green. Food is abundant there and always was.

In Killarney there is a grave of about a thousand children who starved to death during the famine. Not three miles away is a 2000 acre estate that was there at the time of the famine where there was food a plenty but it went to England and not to the children starving to death outside the estate.

What sort of attitude led to such thinking and behavior? Victorian Britain ruled Ireland and this was the time when Darwin was beginning his musings about what it all meant.

It is unquestionable that the British Government made descisions (e.g. that it didn't suspense the Corn Law which restricted import of corn/grain) that considerably worsened the extend of the famine but the proximate course was potatoe blight which destroyed most of the harvest in five consecutive years. Plenty of food? I don't think so.

It's impossible for Jerry to blame it on Darwin because at the time of the famine (1845-1850) he hadn't published Origin of Species but he sure tries to.

But even better:
     
Quote
And yet when these Celts come to the US they flourish as well or better than the Anglo Saxons who were their oppressors.

I'm sure in Jerry's mind that started at the moment the Irish who had fled the famine left the ship. Maybe he should look up Irish American on wikipedia:
     
Quote
It was common for Irishmen to be discriminated against in social situations. Intermarriage between Catholics and Protestants was uncommon (and strongly discouraged by both ministers and priests).

Public schools relied heavily on the King James Version of the Bible, with passages considered derogatory by Catholics; an important response was the creation of a Catholic parochial school system. These schools, and numerous Catholic colleges, allowed Irish youth to be educated without this discrimination in public school systems.

Prejudice against Irish Catholics in the US reached a peak in the mid-1850s with the Know Nothing Movement, which tried to oust Catholics from public office. Thomas Hardy and Thomas Nast published popular political cartoons of Irish drinking, fighting, ignoring their children, gambling, and crowding poorhouses.

After 1860 the Irish sang songs (see illustration) about signs reading "HELP WANTED - NO IRISH NEED APPLY", which were also referred to as "the NINA signs." The song may have had a deep impact on the Irish sense of discrimination, and these "Nina" signs continue to be referred to today (2008).

Maybe he could also read "Angela's Ashes" by Frank McCourt and find out whether that had altered much by 1930.

Jerry:
     
Quote
There are those who defend Darwin who say he was a product of his time and everyone in elite circles in Victorian England was a racist and thus his race judgments were a product of his environment. Well why doesn’t the same line of thinking condemn the rest of his judgments as well. If the rest of Victorian England was screwed up, how does that make Darwin’s judgments on evolution not subject to a critical analysis that these ideas may have also been screwed up.

I'm sure Jerry will - after he found out that discrimination and prejudice against Irish people by protestants were prevalent in the US as well - critically analyse everything any protestant thought about between 1850 and 1930 because their ideas obviously may have been screwed up, too.

That e. g. Africans were closer to apes than Europeans was the scientific opinion of that time and Darwin accepted it (no doubt, this scientific opinion was deeply influenced by racistic prejudice. I remember seeing a history of science documentary once in which someone measured the brain capacity of different skulls and falsified his results to fit his opinion that the brain capacity of Africans must be lower than that of Caucasians).
But contrary to e. g. Jerry or StephenB* Darwin was quite capable of distinguishing between what he accepted as "is" from "ought".

Laelaps just had a post about The Tragedy of Saartje Baartman, a story about an African woman who was "on display" in Britain and France in the beginning of the 18th century:
   
Quote
Saartje continued making appearances in England for several more years by in 1814 she was sold to a new owner in Paris. Thus began a new round of exhibitions and parties where she was invited to the salons so that the elite could watch her perform as they might watch a trained beast. Even the famed anatomist Georges Cuvier came to see her, and while he felt that her appearance and gestures were very ape-like he was impressed by her memory and ability with languages (she knew Dutch, some English, and was beginning to learn French).

It was not only her mannerisms that Cuvier was interested in, however. While Saartje appeared at parties naturalists were debating whether her extraordinarily large buttocks were the result of disease, indicated a distinct and low type of humanity, or represented something else entirely. Her new owner apparently did not allow any detailed anatomical examinations, but when Saartje died the naturalists of Paris were free to poke and prod all they wished.[...]
This type of demeaning treatment would continue but it would be veiled in academic discourse. Saartje's appearance was so repulsive to many Europeans that they had little doubt that she was the most bestial of humanity, the closest human approximation to an ape. This was illustrated in an 1843 issue of The Family Magazine  which compared the facial angles of various "races" [native Americans, orangutan, Africans, and a grecian statue] to show how far Saartje's face differed from that of the "Grecian ideal." These types of illustrations had deep roots in the Great Chain of Being and certainly implied that she was closer to apes than Europeans even if her membership within our species had to be admitted.


To blame Darwin and/or evolution theory for that kind of racism is disingeniuous, clueless, and utterly wrong.

*StephenB = TARD:
   
Quote
In the “Descent of Man,” for example, he tempers his “scientifically based conclusions” with humanely oriented sentiments. On the one hand, he continually suggests that nature is cruel and ignoble, hinting at a decidedly cruel and ignoble social policy. On the other hand, he does, from time to time, tone things down a bit by suggesting that we are, nevertheless, noble in some sense, and ought to at least feel bad about what we must ultimately do to survive. [...]
There is no way around the fact that Darwin was both ambivalent and dishonest about what he was doing and why he was doing it. He was ambivalent because his conscience and love of family were at odds with his loveless way of looking at the world.

Date: 2009/03/01 17:27:11, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (AmandaHuginKiss @ Mar. 01 2009,20:59)
That stuff about the Irish makes my blood boil. It reminds me of my discussion about their "universal moral law". I was told that Christians aren't racist because Augustine may have been black.

I posted some links on the Baptist position on negro slavery prior to the civil war, but the last time I looked the post hadn't appear.

It never occurs to them to think that where were all the Christians during this period?

I try to repeat the mantra "These people are LOSERS, These people are LOSERS" and just laugh at them.

What enrages me about it is that they pretend it's all about The Truth. But what they're really saying is that even if they accepted evolution theory as true they'd rather teach some form of creationism because they think the message is nicer. They aren't interest in what's true at all.

The mantra I'm repeating is Unskilled and Unaware of it (*.pdf). These guys really make me hope that there's some form of special hell for them. One in which they get the knowledge of someone who actually studied biology and worked as a scientist and then they have to read UD for eternity. Without AtBC as a relief.* It's a shame that there's probably no afterlife...


* I know. I'm a mean and evil person.

Date: 2009/03/01 18:15:56, Link
Author: JLT
gpuccio answeres questions. What was designed ("genomes") and how was it done:
 
Quote
2) “How was it done?”

We don’t know exactly, but maybe we will know more in the future. But, certainly, in a general sense, it happened through the action of a designer (that is, a conscious intelligent being) who had access to manipulating biological realities, and especially genomes. You choose: aliens, a god, an intelligent force, or whatever else may comply with that definition. And how was it made? You choose: guided variation, intelligent selection, both, direct implementation at the nucleotide level, interaction with quantum level events… There is much to hypothesize and to research.


Thank you gpuccio, for finally enlighten us. The design was done through a designer who could manipulate genomes, possibly by interaction with quantum level events.
Why didn't you say so earlier, that would have prevented some confusion.

Date: 2009/03/02 03:53:49, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (keiths @ Mar. 02 2009,09:14)
 
Quote (JLT @ Mar. 01 2009,15:27)
The mantra I'm repeating is Unskilled and Unaware of it (*.pdf).

A profound lack of self-awareness -- particularly with regard to their own intellectual capacities and knowledge -- is what unites IDers, climate change skeptics, HIV denialists, etc.  It is the sine qua non of good tard.  Stupidity without arrogance is just stupidity.  Add a heap of unwarranted arrogance and condescension, though, and you have a fresh steaming pile of tard.  

Consider:  Ray "Behold the Banana" Comfort has just published a book titled "You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence, But You Can't Make Him Think."

Ray Comfort is the master of TARD. Next to his TARD all other TARD fades. He is the black hole of TARD, producing TARD of such a high density that no logical thought can escape, no reason can exist beside him.
I'm sure Nietzsche thought of him* when he wrote:
Quote
He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And when you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.


* That that's logically impossible only proves my point.

Date: 2009/03/02 04:10:02, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (dnmlthr @ Mar. 02 2009,07:01)
From Backyard Phenomena, the force argument regarding design is strong with this one.

     
Quote
Explore all aspects of the paranormal, from eyewitness sightings to controversial topics such as the connections between paranormal phenomena. From Bigfoot to UFOs, evolution to alternative history, every realm of the unexplained comes within your grasp here. Find connections you didn't know existed. Venture into the murky territory where phenomena merge, a zone in which many researchers fear to tread.

Evolution paranormal, unexplained, what?

It's... getting dark... don't know... if I can go on...
   
Quote
Both sightings and historical evidence suggest hairy hominids share a connection with UFOs. While no one can say for certain what the connection is or what it means, a few researchers like BPI's Lisa A. Shiel have posited theories about the connection. Many Bigfoot researchers seem to feel ignorance truly is bliss, as they prefer to ignore the problem of Bigfoot and high strangeness. Yet, from glowing orbs to flying saucers, UFOs have played a part in the Bigfoot enigma from the beginning. In ancient times, people carved or painted images of hairy hominids and UFOs onto cave walls, cliff faces, and other hard-to-access spots. Should we dismiss the simultaneous depictions as mere coincidence, or interpret it as something more? Other high strangeness, such as missing time or electronic beeping sounds, have surfaced in modern times.

You're a brave man.

Date: 2009/03/02 10:20:54, Link
Author: JLT
DaveScot gets it nearly right.
 
Quote
15
DaveScot
03/02/2009
7:43 am
Lisa
ID doesn’t require common descent. It’s compatible with it but it’s also compatible with special creation just about everything. Atheists Scientists reject ID because ID doesn’t reject special creation for exactly that reason it's completely useless and untestable. Agnostic Ignorance isn’t good enough for them.

It just needed two or three tiny modifications.

Date: 2009/03/03 04:53:51, Link
Author: JLT
Sibley:
Quote
Elsewhere, on pages 18-19, it gave a profile of a typical intelligent design supporter.

“[He is typically] 25 has just completed a master’s degree, believes that the complexity of life on earth can only be explained by Intelligent Design.[...]"
[...]
It would seem though that many of the best educated have concluded that Darwinian explanations cannot explain all of life.


Yes, that's obviously true. Therefore, the undeniably best educated in the subject, biologists, all agree with that notion.

Oh, wait....

Date: 2009/03/03 10:37:04, Link
Author: JLT
I skimmed the Comres report Sibley linked to (Faith and Darwin; 1,15 MB .pdf) and found this nice statistic (p. 73):

48 % of IDist believe in ghosts (39 % of the general population, 30 % of people accepting atheistic evolution)

36 % of IDists believe in reincarnation (27 % of all, 17 % of AE)

30 % of IDists believe in astrology/horoscopes (22 % of all, 15 % of AE)

19 % of IDists believe in fortune telling/Tarot (15 % of all, 13 % of AE)

LOL.

In all areas the AE group was the only one below the mean and in all these areas the IDists were either the most gullible or as gullible as the YECs.

I love it so.

Date: 2009/03/03 11:51:24, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (Louis @ Mar. 03 2009,15:56)
 
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Mar. 03 2009,15:45)
 
Quote (FrankH @ Mar. 03 2009,07:50)
   
Quote (FrankH @ Mar. 03 2009,07:46)
(snip)

Come on now, you should be able to do that as it is well known and you have all of these "laws" you can invoke.

As I don't have the edit function yet, that should be the EXACT Path, with 100% accuracy.

After all, isn't that what you are asking from others?

I keep waiting for some YEC historian to claim "if science can't tell us precisely where Lewis and Clark were every second of every day during their 1804 historic expedition across America, then Lewis and Clarke never existed!"


:D  :D  :D

I'm still waiting for someone to explain how I got to and from the pub by providing details of every step along the way. Because otherwise it's impossible that I've ever been in a pub, despite the fact that I am currently in a gutter wearing a traffic cone and a pair of fake breasts.

Louis

The facts:
- pictures of Louis without traffic cone and fake breasts in the pub
- Louis in the gutter with traffic cone and fake breasts*

ID explaination:
God The designer (or aliens) must have abducted Louis and provided him with a traffic cone and fake breasts.



* Interesting. Why fake breasts?**

** On second thought: Don't answer that.

Date: 2009/03/04 14:49:58, Link
Author: JLT
Joseph demonstrates why IDists deserve to be ridiculed:
 
Quote
As for Allen’s continuing to say tat euks evolved from proks via SET, there is also scientific data which demonstrates that proks “devolved” from euks- euks came first.

As support for this he links to an MSNBC article that is based on an article by Kurland, Collins, and Penny in Science 2006 (Genomics and the Irreducible Nature of Eukaryote Cells). The MSNBC article wouldn't be too bad if they hadn't included this bit:

 
Quote
It’s just a joke, but the idea that life starts simple and gets more complex over time persists even in scientific circles. Yet one of the biggest events in evolutionary history — the origin of the cells that make up every tissue in our bodies — may be a case of life getting less complicated, according to recent research.


That's complete and utter bullshit.
To explain why, a little science. The following is from an article by Yutin et al. (2008). The Deep Archaeal Roots of Eukaryotes (free fulltext). Molecular Biology and Evolution.*

 
Quote
Two key observations that must be taken into account by any concept of eukaryotic origin are currently not contested seriously.

1. All extant eukaryotes evolved from a common ancestor that already possessed an a-proteobacterial endosymbiont that gave rise to the mitochondria and their degraded relatives, hydrogenosomes and mitosomes (van der Giezen and Tovar 2005; Embley 2006).

2. Eukaryotes possess 2 distinct sets of genes, one of which shows apparent phylogenetic affinity with homologs from archaea and the other one is more closely related to bacterial homologs (not all eukaryotic genes belong to these 2 sets, of course; many are of uncertain origin, and many more appear to be unique to eukaryotes). There is a clear functional divide between the ‘‘archaeal’’ and ‘‘bacterial’’ genes of eukaryotes, with the former encoding, largely, proteins involved in information processing (translation, transcription, replication, and repair) and the latter encoding proteins with ‘‘operational’’ functions (metabolic enzymes, components of membranes, and other cellular structures, etc.) (Esser et al. 2004; Rivera and Lake 2004). In some of the informational and operational systems, the archaeal and bacterial affinities, respectively, of eukaryotic genes are manifest qualitatively: Thus, the key proteins involved in DNA replication in archaea and eukaryotes are not homologous to the functionally analogous proteins of bacteria (Leipe et al. 1999), and conversely, some of the principal enzymes of membrane biogenesis are homologous in eukaryotes and bacteria but not in archaea (Pereto et al. 2004).

Apparently, the most parsimonious scenario of eukaryogenesis combining these 2 key facts is that the first eukaryote was an archaeal–bacterial chimera that emerged as a result of an invasion of an archaeon by an a-proteobacterium, the well-established ancestor of the mitochondria (Martin and Muller 1998; Rivera and Lake 2004; Martin and Koonin 2006). However, this is by no means the only scenario of eukaryotic origins that is currently actively considered (Embley and Martin 2006; Poole and Penny 2007b). The main competitor is, probably, the archezoan hypothesis under which the host of the a-proteobacterial endosymbiont was not an archaeon but a primitive, obviously, amitochondrial, proto-eukaryote that already possessed the hallmarks of the eukaryotic cell, such as the endomembrane system, the nucleus, and the cytoskeleton (Kurland et al. 2006; Poole and Penny 2007a). The symbiotic scenarios substantially differ from the archezoan hypothesis with respect to the level of complexity that is attributed to the host of the mitochondrial endosymbiont. Under the symbiotic hypotheses, the host was a ‘‘garden variety’’ archaeon, with the dramatic complexification of the cellular organization being triggered by the symbiosis. In contrast, the archezoan hypothesis posits that, at least, some substantial aspects of the characteristic eukaryotic complexity (e.g., the endomembrane system) evolved prior to and independent of the symbiosis and were already in place in the organism that hosted the mitochondrion. Under the archezoan scenario, the presence of archaea-like genes in the ancestral eukaryotic gene set is, then, explained either by postulating that the proto-eukaryotic lineage was a sister group of archaea and/or by horizontal transfer of archaeal genes. The archezoan hypothesis was seriously undermined by the realization that all unicellular eukaryotes previously thought to be primitively amitochondrial actually possess degraded organelles of a-proteobacterial descent. Nevertheless, the archezoan scenario stays alive, with the proviso that the ancestral archezoan lineage had gone extinct (Poole and Penny 2007a).


Much shorter: There're two main scenarios which are debated, the symbiogenetic scenario and the archezoan scenario.
In the symbiogenetic scenario the host for the a-proteobacterial ancestor of mitochondria didn't have a nucleus, an endomembrane system or a cytoskeleton and the symbiosis triggered "eukaryogenesis".
In the archaeozoan scenario, the host already had some features that are characteristic for eukaryotes and correspondingly these features evolved independently of the endosymbiosis.
But even in the latter scenario by no means was the "proto-eukaryote" more complex than extant eukaryotic cells**. What Penny et al proposed is that extant bacteria could be simplified "proto-eukaryotes", but apparently Penny revised this view in a later article (2007) because of new findings.

The other problem with the MSNBC article is that it is completely one-sided. From a quick look at the literature it's clear that it's a highly controversial topic. Scientific controversies are almost never settled with a single article and as the Koonin article I linked to shows this specific controversy definitely isn't settled.
The MSNBC article doesn't mention that at all (in their defense I've to say that Penny argues as if the controversy were settled with his Science article).


If Joseph was really interested in the scientifically best explanation rather than in the explanation that fits his religious convictions best he would know all this as well.

But Joseph, ideology driven as he is, takes this one-sided non-scientific article which happens to fit his preconceived opinion as absolute truth and never ever asks himself whether there may be more to that story.

They never do.




* Disclaimer: Koonin is one of the authors and he's in favour of the symbiogenetic scenario.
** If one thinks that more organelles = more complex. Penny et al. fully accept the endosymbiotic origin of e. g. mitochondria.

Date: 2009/03/04 16:23:28, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 04 2009,18:44)
 
Quote (J-Dog @ Mar. 04 2009,12:18)
Achtung!

I was able to locate a video of our Very Own JLT when she was a little fraulein*...

JLT Smarty Pants


* Hat Tip to PZ Meyers and Pharangula - Not sure if everyone visits, and the video is cool.

SHE'S GERMAN, ERGO HITLER.



:P

Date: 2009/03/04 16:29:11, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (dvunkannon @ Mar. 04 2009,17:58)
The Origin of Phagocytosis and Eukaryogenesis

Or as Tommy Lee Jones said in Men In Black, "Eat me!"

Damn it.

Date: 2009/03/04 16:37:53, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (JLT @ Mar. 04 2009,22:29)
 
Quote (dvunkannon @ Mar. 04 2009,17:58)
The Origin of Phagocytosis and Eukaryogenesis

Or as Tommy Lee Jones said in Men In Black, "Eat me!"

Damn it. Didn't see that one.

Argh, I hit send too fast and now it won't let me edit my original post :(

Date: 2009/03/05 13:17:18, Link
Author: JLT
How to pwn a YEC - Design requires a designer (YouTube)

Funny!

Date: 2009/03/05 13:59:34, Link
Author: JLT
Egnor responds to PZ.

I'm wondering whether he knows what academic freedom means. This is the exact opposite:
 
Quote
The American public is Dr. Myers’ employer, and for many years it has patiently underwritten the Darwinist ideological crusade. Americans’ patience will run out someday, and they will decide to use their hard-earned tax money to employ ethical scientists who respect academic freedom and who advance real science, not atheist metaphysics.

Translation Egnor - rational:

ethical scientists - fundamentalist Christians
respect academic freedom - don't say things Egnor doesn't like and don't publish research Egnor doesn't approve of.
real science - God did it
atheist metaphysics - scientific hypothesis and theories Egnor doesn't like

Date: 2009/03/05 15:44:33, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (J-Dog @ Mar. 05 2009,19:38)
 
Quote (JLT @ Mar. 05 2009,13:17)
How to pwn a YEC - Design requires a designer (YouTube)

Funny!

funny and kute!  Like Heidi Klum! Only sort of, not exactly..

Another example of funny and cute that is not like Heidi Klum (maybe even more intelligent than her):


Source

Date: 2009/03/05 17:48:20, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (huwp @ Mar. 05 2009,21:48)
 
Quote (Louis @ Mar. 05 2009,13:36)
FFS! I take a couple of days to relax at an alternate establishment de bloggage and what do I get??? Abuse. Unwarranted, unasked for, undeserved, unintelligent abuse.


Well they are a bunch of louts.  Educated and intelligent and frequently very funny, but they are a bunch of louts.

I mean, you DO ask for it much of the time whereas I tend to keep quiet (after all my degree is in French and Italian unlike all you science types) and I chip in only occasionally.  I'm not even very rude about Arden and EVERYONE is rude about Arden.

But I am Welsh and rather proud it; we may be a very small nation but we have much to be proud about.  So it does stick in my throat a bit when they seek to insult you by calling you Welsh.

All the other insults are fine, however  ;)

Let me help you get your message across by translating it to LOLcat:

Date: 2009/03/05 18:48:57, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Mar. 06 2009,00:14)
Here, I think this is what you're after:



Clearly superior to my caption.

Date: 2009/03/06 15:43:49, Link
Author: JLT
Quote
40

uoflcard

03/06/2009

10:25 am

Adel DiBagno, your opinion is certainly welcome here, unlike on blogs like Pharyngula, where I was recently told to “get the **** out” once I defended my Christian worldview after a couple attacks.


Oh yes, thank you! I really need a dose of TARD just now.

Date: 2009/03/06 16:29:31, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (dnmlthr @ Mar. 06 2009,21:59)
   
Quote (JLT @ Mar. 06 2009,21:43)
   
Quote
40

uoflcard

03/06/2009

10:25 am

Adel DiBagno, your opinion is certainly welcome here, unlike on blogs like Pharyngula, where I was recently told to “get the **** out” once I defended my Christian worldview after a couple attacks.


Oh yes, thank you! I really needed a dose of TARD just now.

According to google, uoflcard is lying about being told to "fuck off".

I am shocked, shocked!

Me, too.
I thought the people at Pharyngula knew what to say to concern trolls.

Date: 2009/03/07 18:01:41, Link
Author: JLT
DonaldM:
 
Quote
I find this to be the height of arrogance and, frankly, its a bit scary. A science morally and ethically unrestrained by government will ultimately take the mentality that anything that is possible should be.


Platonist
 
Quote
I know H.G. Wells isn’t too popular around here, but I always felt that The Island of Dr. Moreau was an excellent depiction of science with no boundaries.


Domoman
 
Quote
It seems like such ideas could lead to further Holocausts. After all, it was Hitler’s idea that he should, as if by the will of Nature herself, exterminate, based on scientific “knowledge,” those that were deemed “lesser beings”. If the government, or somebody doesn’t keep supposed “science” in check, who will?


Oh yes. Because Obama is going to lift the ban on US federal funding for research on human embryonic stem cells created after 2001 THE WORLD WILL COME TO AN END! Scientists will do whatever they want and what they want is killing people.

Quote
Stem cell researchers may have to wait no longer: President Barack Obama appears ready to lift the ban on U.S. federal funding for research on human embryonic stem cell lines created after August 9, 2001.

The ban was put in place by President George W. Bush, who was responding to concerns among abortion opponents that research on human embryonic stem cells is morally problematic because it involves destruction of embryos. Obama will reportedly sign an executive order overturning the ban on Monday, 9 March. The Washington Post also reported that Obama will likely “simply lift the restriction without caveats and let the [U.S. National Institutes of Health] work out the details.” The NIH is currently formulating ethical guidelines and policies for scientists who want to apply for federal grants to work with human embryonic stem cells.


Source

Date: 2009/03/07 18:33:04, Link
Author: JLT
[quote=Junior,Mar. 07 2009,22:27][/quote]
You know, maybe you should actually look at what scientists say about how evolution works and what evidence there is for it. You could start here.

Date: 2009/03/07 19:11:00, Link
Author: JLT
StephenB:
   
Quote
You are trying to compare apples with oranges. ID is not a belief system, so it can accomodate all kinds of world views that acknowledge the reality of design. Skepticism, on the other hand, is a belief system, or rather, an anti-belief system, that contradicts itself by first affirming that nothing at all is true and then violating that principle by affirming that its anti-truth program is the truth.

Further, that fact that some ID’s might go off the deep end and believe in the occult, ghosts, or reincarnation is not altogether surprising since they are open to the realm of the spirit. On the other hand, the report also shows that a large number materialist/atheists, who renounce the reality of spirit by definition, end up believing in spiritual realities anyway, which shows how truly whacked out they really are.


TARD

Date: 2009/03/07 19:40:21, Link
Author: JLT
Quote
Is there anyonehere who has ever heard the professor's brain, felt the professor's brain, touched or smelt the professor's brain? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, with all due respect, sir.


That must be one of the dumbest things I've read in a very long time. And I read UD regularly.

Date: 2009/03/09 13:43:02, Link
Author: JLT


Climate change "skeptics".

source

Date: 2009/03/10 11:28:12, Link
Author: JLT
Georg LF asks:
 
Quote
Why don’t you tell me at what points the designer intervened?

Once only? Once a year? Once a decade? Once a century?

If evolution does not posess the mechanism to get from microbe to man then you believe the designer helped.

When? How?

You have no answers whatsoever to these questions, whereas at least the current evolutionary synthesis has partial answers and is searching for more details.

What have you got? Only negative arguments.


Jerry nonswers:
 
Quote
George, you list a bunch of silly questions. If you want to understand how it could be done then read about synthetic biology to get some ideas. Nobody in biology does not say it cannot be done. When and how often will probably come in the future when more is known about genomes and how they changed over time. Or as you seem to hope, there will not be any need since a naturalistic mechanism will be discovered.


Nobody in biology does not say it cannot be done?

Jerry, why not just be honest and say that you don't have the faintest idea how any of these questions could be answered?

Date: 2009/03/10 15:50:49, Link
Author: JLT
A new all-time low: All atheists are racists.
Quote
D'OL:
The really interesting question for me is, why don’t the atheist materialists I have met just admit and repudiate Darwin’s racism, instead of telling me how much they admire him and what a great hero he was?

They never do. Is that because they secretly believe it and hope for the day when they can admit it openly?

Date: 2009/03/12 04:40:40, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (Ptaylor @ Mar. 12 2009,08:38)
Yes Chayanov, Clive has now completely lost it:          
Quote
Allen,

The difference, that is being overlooked, is that Darwinian evolution is inherently a system that determines evolution only against others. It’s a comparative endeavor. If there were nothing to compare, there would be no ability to show any differences, and thus no evolution or progression from one thing to another. Applied to human races, it stands to reason that some are more evolved than others. However, the same cannot be said about the very system of Christianity, for there are only two races, the race of the first Adam, (those who are not regenerate) and the race of the second Adam (those who are washed by the Blood). And we are in the New Testament now, in which there is no such things as even the Jew or Gentile, male or female in Christ. The point is that any Christian who regarded racism as true did it IN SPITE of Christianity–not in accord with it. According to scripture, everyone can from Adam and Eve. However, Those who see differences between races have acted in accordance with Darwinian evolution, which is inherently a comparative endeavor to even discern evolution in action. We should also remember the killing of Australian aboriginals during the early part of the 20th century by Darwinian scientists  who believed that they were missing links between apes and humans, and less than human and more than ape.

There is just so much wrong with that screed I don't know where to start. The bold parts are mine - I attempted to emphasise the especially stupid bits, but soon realised they all ran into each other. I'll just comment on the two especially double stupid points I've highlighted.
1. Clive, no races, no animal species, no organisms today are "more evolved" than any others. All life forms here today are the offspring of a long long line of ancestors that survived long enough to reproduce, and have adapted, so far, to their particular environment.
2. So Charles Darwin is now responsible for atrocities committed by Australian settlers. Clive, you are a fuckhead.

Hmmm, I wonder wether Clive has heard about this:
 
Quote
Medieval models of race mixed Classical ideas with the notion that humanity as a whole was descended from Shem, Ham and Japheth, the three sons of Noah, producing distinct Semitic (Asiatic), Hamitic (African), and Japhetic (Indo-European) peoples. This theory dates back to the Judeo-Christian tradition, as described in the Babylonian Talmud, which states that "the descendants of Ham are cursed by being black, and [it] depicts Ham as a sinful man and his progeny as degenerates." In the 14th century, the Islamic sociologist Ibn Khaldun, an adherent of environmental determinism, dispelled this theory as a myth. He wrote that black skin was due to the hot climate of sub-Saharan Africa and not due to the descendants of Ham being cursed.[21]
[Wikipedia: Race]
or this:
 
Quote
In the Middle Ages, European scholars of the Bible picked up on the Jewish Talmud idea of viewing the "sons of Ham" or Hamites as cursed, possibly "blackened" by their sins. Though early arguments to this effect were sporadic, they became increasingly common during the slave trade of the 18th and 19th Centuries.[10] The justification of slavery itself through the sins of Ham was well suited to the ideological interests of the elite; with the emergence of the slave trade, its racialized version justified the exploitation of a ready supply of African labour. This interpretation of Scripture was never adopted by the African Coptic Churches.
[Wikipedia: Curse of Ham]

Date: 2009/03/12 15:04:52, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 12 2009,19:41)
Clive clarifies, er, something
   
Quote
Unless you want to define evolution as anything that ever does anything, you have to have an idea of a progression, as opposed to a digression, otherwise, if evolution is defined as the mere movement in any direction, nothing would stand to falsify it, except staying static, but nothing would stand to falsify the direction itself, and so it would become vacuous; it would be like congratulating yourself for reaching your destination, and defining your destination as the place that you’ve reached. I can’t understand a construction of evolution in that way. Please forgive me if I misunderstood your point. Evolution has to be directional, and if it is not directional by definition, I can’t see how it is an evolution.

OK, who's taken Clive's medication? Own up!
Link

Clive's understanding of evolution is depicted on the left:

Date: 2009/03/13 06:38:48, Link
Author: JLT
joshuabgood:
 
Quote
Further, if RM and NS produce aggressive behavior or thought systems which aids survival of individuals/group by producing domination and extinction of individuals/groups without the identical adaptation - then TTOE, as defined by the engines of RM and NS can be considered the cause of aggressive behavior and aggressive thought systems.

Seems pretty clear to me…

If a group of bees develops a “Killer” mentality they are better adapted and can take over the “regular” bees. (We of course actually see this happening in the Southern US.)

The bottom line is with TTOE, Ken Miller aside, there seems to be no “ought” there is just “is.” Therefore which groups survive and which group go extinct is not a moral question at all but is instead one of survival. If a racist mentality helps a group exist/reproduce there is no moral constraint. TTOE in the least then, to my way of thinking, makes no moral judgment on racism and partially enables it by suggesting that some groups will be “better adapted” than other groups. Some groups of living things will become extinct as conditions change. It also makes good sense that groups that are “better adapted” would not want to be bred with groups that are not as well adapted and would also keep the less well adapted groups/individuals from the finite resource pool.


That is so wrong on so many levels.

Date: 2009/03/13 10:49:09, Link
Author: JLT
Quote
If you think about it the BEST way to expose ID as sophist pseudo-science is by presenting the scientific data which demonstrates that.

It is only because such scientific data is unavailable do the ID critics and opponents use those other methods of debate.

And that is because if you can’t attack the data then attack the person because that is all that is left.


Says Joseph. After three posts that accused all evolution biologists of being racists and described Darwin as The Origin of All Evil.

Date: 2009/03/13 10:56:47, Link
Author: JLT
And the link I forgot to include..

Date: 2009/03/14 04:49:31, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (Kristine @ Mar. 14 2009,02:03)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Mar. 13 2009,13:33)
   
Quote (FrankH @ Mar. 13 2009,10:11)
     
Quote (Louis @ Mar. 13 2009,08:47)
{sigh}

I've got so much to learn.

Louis

You'd be surprised how many things that are fun are considered "bad parenting".

Like letting them play with frayed electrical wiring.

Swimming with Crocs and 'Gators.

Letting them puff on a cigar and drinking Johny Wlaker while watching the game with you.

Playing on the Interstate, with or without a vehicle.

Some many restrictions nowadays.  How can anyone have fun anymore?

No lie.

All the good stuff winds up on that list.

Don't worry, parents and 'rents-to-be, there's always the list of things that kids do that they never tell you:

Going down the stairs on the bean-bag chair. With my four-year-old niece. By sitting and both of us crab-walking backward. *Raises hand*

Mixing all the alcohol in the bar together and daring your neighbor to take a sip.

Throwing gloves at the ceiling fan and watching the blades slap them into the walls.

Doing flips on the bed. *Raises hand again*

Inexplicably getting the giggles at a funeral. Or blurting out some totally innocent observation. (Some little urchin I know, confronting the burial of a cremation urn draped with flowers: "Is there a dog in there?")

Jumping out at passing cars and growling. (Don't ask)

Throwing snowballs at passing cars. (Big no-no.)

Writing childish (well, natch) and body humor sayings with the other kids in comic balloons in the coloring books given to keep all of you upstairs while your parents are at Bible study. *My arm is getting tired*

Girls especially: Making prank phone calls.

But were you able to resist a cookie when you were four?

Found this interesting podcast in which they talk about a long-term experiment: They tested the willpower of four-year olds to resist marshmellows and compared the SAT scores of the same kids 10 years later. The resisting kids performed significantly better.
If you're interested in child torture you can watch this video ;)

Date: 2009/03/15 16:58:29, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (afarensis @ Mar. 15 2009,22:16)
I'm going to miss the big lug... now that the entertainment has left the only thing that remains is the stupidity.

So true.

Date: 2009/03/15 18:34:34, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (Ptaylor @ Mar. 16 2009,00:24)
Meanwhile, Barry has put up another Darwin-was-a-racist thread:
         
Quote
Some Darwinists will say anything to try to draw attention away from the obvious.  The point of my “Scientific Certitude” post was to show that evolutionary theory has been used to support racist views.  Darwin was a firmly committed racist, and he was not shy about expressing his racist views: <snip>


Link
What a wanker.

That's a trap. I bet that whoever posts a comment to that thread and doesn't agree completely with BarryA will get banned.

Date: 2009/03/15 20:22:56, Link
Author: JLT
Jerry:
Quote
It is not ID that is absolute about the role of intelligence but the anti ID people who posit the impossibility of intelligence.

If you follow UD long enough you can reach that conclusion, yes.

Date: 2009/03/16 10:23:31, Link
Author: JLT
Quote
33

Oramus

03/15/2009

9:27 pm

Forget about racism already.

Its the least of darwinists problems. They can’t even see the forest for the trees.

There is absolutely no competition happening in nature. It is an illusion, much more so than the supposed illusion of design Dawkins likes to trumpet.

Competition says there are winners and losers. In nature, there are no winners and losers. Rather, there are fluctuations in the quantitative representation of organisms. Species come and go but animal kinds are still here.

The Dodo bird left us long ago. But birds are still here. The day ALL birds go extinct is the day nature starts to unravel and ALL of life goes extinct.

Again, organisms don’t compete, they barter. Rabbits give 8 so they can keep two. Snakes give 100 so they can keep 20. Insects give millions so they can keep thousands.

This is a key concept that Darwinists miss (whether from ignorance or intent I don’t know).

 
Quote
46

Oramus

03/15/2009

11:36 pm

Mikev6, dinosaurs are still with us: the shark, the elephant, the hippo, the gilo monster,

47

Oramus

03/15/2009

11:40 pm

Madsen,

If you have trouble with the concept of kind, you oughta have even more trouble understanding what a species is.

Oh, I dunno, I’ll give it a shot.

Kinds: bacteria, insects, reptiles, fish, mammals.


He should call himself IGNoramus.

Poe?

Date: 2009/03/16 17:44:41, Link
Author: JLT
WHY? Why did you make me read that drivel?

The most obvious blunder is that he equates "RNA transcripts present" with "has function". To be fair, this misconception was widespread in the press when the ENCODE articles were published. But it's wrong nonetheless.
Larry Moran wrote about some of the limitations of the study here.
Something not directly related to ENCODE but exactly to the point:
Larry Moran  
Quote
There are a lot of studies suggesting that a substantial percentage of the genome is transcribed even though less than 5% is known to be functional. This leads to the idea that it encodes some unknown function. The argument is that these regions would not be transcribed unless they were doing something useful.

One objection to these studies is that the workers are looking at artifacts. The so-called transcripts are just noise from accidental transcription. This ties in with the idea that the EST database is full of examples of "transcripts" that don't make any biological sense.

There's another possibility. The regions of junk DNA could be transcribed regularly but the transcripts are rapidly degraded. They do not have a biological function. They are junk RNA.

Arthur Hunt has just posted an article on Panda's Thinb that supports this idea [Junk to the second power]. He describes the work of Wyers et al. (2005) in yeast cells. They show that there is a large class of junk RNA. The take-home lesson here is that you can't assume that some region of genomic DNA is functional just because it's transcribed. It's a lesson that many people need to keep in mind.

And he's not alone with this view.
T. Ryan Gregory:
 
Quote
- A large fraction of the sequences analyzed, both in introns and intergenic regions, appears to be transcribed. However, most of this DNA is not conserved and there is no clear indication of function. It could be that the transcripts themselves play a functional role or that the process of transcription but not the transcripts per se contributes an important effect. It could be that the regions they examined, which were typically gene-dense, included transcribed introns (no surprise) plus longer-than-expected regulatory regions such as promoters near but outside of genes (e.g., Cooper et al. 2007), but that on the whole the long stretches of non-coding DNA in between genes are not actually transcribed. Or, it could be that transcription in the human genome simply is very inefficient. For example, the data in this study suggest that 19% of pseudogenes in their sample are transcribed, even though by definition they cannot encode a protein and are unlikely to play a regulatory role. It also appears that in other groups, e.g., plants (Wong et al. 2000), there is lots of intergenic DNA that is not transcribed, which may indicate that this is a process unique to mammals and is not typical of eukaryotic genomes.

- Looking at a broader scale, we must bear in mind that about half the human genome consists of transposable elements. Some of these clearly do have functions (e.g., in gene regulation), but others persist as disease-causing mutagens. It could be that a large portion of these have taken on functions, but this remains to be shown. We are also left with the question of why a pufferfish would require only 10% as much non-coding DNA as a human whereas an average salamander needs 10 times more than we do. The well known patterns of genome size diversity make it difficult to explain the presence of all non-coding DNA in functional terms, even as there is growing evidence that a significant portion of non-coding DNA is indeed functionally important.

Also interesting: Ultra-conserved non-coding regions must be functional ... right?

We KNOW that e. g. the human genome contains long stretches of non-functional DNA e. g. transposons, repetitive elements, pseudogenes etc. (Larry Moran again). So, the whole premise of the YEC article is bogus.

The next annoying thing was this:
 
Quote
Let’s now put this information together with Haldane’s dilemma.17 Famous geneticist J.B.S. Haldane calculated that it would take about 300 generations for a favourable mutation to become fixed in a population (every member having a double copy of it). He calculated that in the approximately 6 million years since our supposed hominid ancestor split from the chimpanzee line, only about 1000 (<2000 according to ReMine18) such mutations could become fixed. This is certainly not nearly enough to turn an ape into a human. But most importantly, we now know that there are about 125 million single nucleotide differences between humans and chimps, resulting from about 40 million mutational events. This means that somewhere between 39,998,000 and 124,998,000 deleterious changes have occurred since the split with our common ancestor.
That means we have degenerated from chimps, which
makes a mockery of the whole mutation/selection theory
of origin.


First of all, Haldane's dilemma doesn't exist anymore (in the stated form). Second, the author falsly equates "doesn't get fixed" with "is deleterious".
And the rest is also either wrong, stupid, or both.

Date: 2009/03/16 17:46:57, Link
Author: JLT
Oh, and the ENCODE article in Nature is open access, just in case someone wants to read it.

Date: 2009/03/16 18:34:24, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (J-Dog @ Mar. 16 2009,19:20)
HOW TO SPOT A HIDDEN RELIGIOUS AGENDA

I just found this article on New Scientist - and read it because it has been pulled from the online edition due to "legal complaints" - suspected to be a Densee O'Leary minion or lacky.

How To Spot A Hidden Religious Agenda

I think the author does a nice job - and BOO! to pulling the article!

I read this at the New Humanist Blog:
 
Quote
Last week we had Turkey's leading science magazine being forced to spike a story on Darwin, but could we now have a similar story somewhat closer to home? The blogosphere is awash with news that the New Scientist have pulled a piece from their website entitled "How to Spot a Hidden Religious Agenda", in which their book reviews editor Amanda Gefter explains the key signs she looks out for when deciding if a "science" book is in fact a creationist tract. At the URL where the article was, all that remains is the message, "New Scientist has received a complaint about the contents of this story. It has temporarily been removed while we investigate. Apologies for any inconvenience", along with the 643 comments the article must have received before it was pulled.
[...]
Could the New Scientist really be catering to creationist whims? Could it really have reacted to a few creationist complaints by pulling an article? Let's be honest, this has to be seen as pretty unlikely. Anyone out there accusing them of cowardice or suggesting that the creationist hordes now hold sway over one of the world's most respected science magazines (and people are suggesting this – just Google blog search "New Scientist creationism", and look at posts like this) should probably stop and think for a moment. Perhaps the complaint was of a legal nature, in which case the magazine will have a policy of removing the piece while it is investigated. By a "complaint about the contents of this story", the New Scientist won't just mean that someone wrote in and said they disagree because creationism is actually right. In all likelihood the "complaint" will have had legal implications that will have had to have been addressed by removing the article, at least temporarily. It's what any publication would have to do.

Anyhow, if the New Scientist is so scared of creationists, why is it currently carrying this article on the Turkish magazine controversy?

Update: The message at the article's URL has actually changed now to:

   "New Scientist has received a legal complaint about the contents of this story. At the advice of our lawyer it has temporarily been removed while we investigate. Apologies for any inconvenience."


As I said earlier - less a case of caving in to creationism, more a case of sensibly heeding legal advice.


So, they might put it back online if and when the lawyers give their ok.

Date: 2009/03/16 18:45:40, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Mar. 17 2009,00:21)
   
Quote (JLT @ Mar. 16 2009,10:23)

         
Quote
46

Oramus

03/15/2009

11:36 pm

Mikev6, dinosaurs are still with us: the shark, the elephant, the hippo, the gilo monster,

47

Oramus

03/15/2009

11:40 pm

Madsen,

If you have trouble with the concept of kind, you oughta have even more trouble understanding what a species is.

Oh, I dunno, I’ll give it a shot.

Kinds: bacteria, insects, reptiles, fish, mammals.


He should call himself IGNoramus.

Poe?


Reptiles are para-kindic, or in less technical language: parabaraminic.

Thanks for the explanation. Baramanalology is SOOO sciency-like with all this long words and stuff.

Date: 2009/03/16 20:41:13, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (Jkrebs @ Mar. 17 2009,01:19)
This is great.  

     
Quote


68

R. Martinez

03/16/2009

7:04 pm

Sparc (#51): “I will miss DaveScot who has been banned from here just because he tried to keep UD connected with reality.”

Once again, you have misunderstood.

I am sorry to have to tell you that DaveScot was a double agent who forgot his mission (misrepresent ID). His intellectual inferiority caused him to lose composure and lash out against his Christian opponents with very ugly slander.

Ray


Link

AAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

I propose we refer to Ray as Ray Tardinez from now on. He clearly deserves it.
And UD deserves Ray Tardinez. A guy who constantly equates IDists with Christians and design with creation, denies evolution and common descent, and denounces Behe as a heretic. Probably the most honest person at UD. They should give him posting rights.

Date: 2009/03/16 21:19:22, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (Ptaylor @ Mar. 17 2009,03:00)
 
Quote (JLT @ Mar. 17 2009,15:41)
AAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

I propose we refer to Ray as Ray Tardinez from now on. He clearly deserves it.
And UD deserves Ray Tardinez. A guy who constantly equates IDists with Christians and design with creation, denies evolution and common descent, and denounces Behe as a heretic. Probably the most honest person at UD. They should give him posting rights.

Ha - or maybe just RayTard. However, Atom's next comment is confusing...
   
Quote
Ray Martinez wrote:

   I am sorry to have to tell you that DaveScot was a double agent who forgot his mission (misrepresent ID). His intellectual inferiority caused him…

Why hasn’t this guy been bannedgiven posting rights  yet? All he does it insult people.

Atom

...so I've fixed it for him.

Clearly, Atom is just another double agent.

Date: 2009/03/17 05:49:03, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (Quack @ Mar. 17 2009,10:31)
Don't know if relevant but I seem to remember a report about perfectly healthy mice being born even after portions of junk DNA being removed.

T. Ryan Gregory talks about it in this post:
Also interesting: Ultra-conserved non-coding regions must be functional ... right?

Very funny, the Disco'tute just blathers about an article in Nature that found a possible function for some ultra-conserved transcribed but not translated RNAs.
The title of the Nature article isChromatin signature reveals over a thousand highly conserved large non-coding RNAs in mammals.

First, T. Ryan Gregory from the above link:
   
Quote
It is important to note that elements exhibiting signs of selective constraint make up a small fraction of the total genome of organisms like mammals, on the order of 5%. Ultraconserved elements in particular represent a very tiny portion of the total DNA. It would therefore be a major exaggeration to assume that the demonstration of such sequences implies that all non-coding DNA is functional. Most or all of it might serve a function, but there is no evidence to support this notion at present. It is also inaccurate to suggest that the discovery of some function in non-coding DNA is a total surprise.


Now the DI (Casey Luskin, who else):
   
Quote
The Nature article, titled, "Chromatin signature reveals over a thousand highly conserved large non-coding RNAs in mammals," finds that rather than being "transcriptional noise," over 95% of the non-coding RNAs studied in the paper show "clear evolutionary conservation." That's another way of saying that their sequences are more similar than would be expected if they were functionless and their encoding DNA was accumulating neutral mutations at a constant rate. After all, if such RNA has no function, you can mutate their encoding DNA with no negative consequences to the organism. But if they have function, then mutations in their encoding DNA would tend to be highly deleterious. By finding that they have highly similar sequences, we find evidence of stabilizing selection, which is strong evidence of function.

I highlighted the important part. The authors of that paper looked for highly conserved and transcribed sequences to find functional non-coding RNA. These highly conserved sequences are included in the 5 % T. Ryan Gregory talks about. They make up a tiny fraction of the genome.

More Luskin:
   
Quote
The article makes an extremely important point: "Strictly speaking, the absence of evolutionary conservation cannot prove the absence of function." This is important because in his book, The Language of God, theistic evolutionist Francis Collins argues that a greater level of differences among species’ non-coding DNA than among their protein-coding DNA serves as evidence that the non-coding DNA is "junk." The alternative, of course, is that the large differences within non-coding DNA serve important functions that may actually help determine the differences between species themselves. In other words, the genetic holy grail — the differences in DNA that determine differences between species — was staring Collins in the face and he dismissed it as genetic junk. This shows how the "junk" DNA paradigm is deeply embedded within Darwinian thinking, and can serve to stifle scientific advance.


It boggles my mind how Luskin can say the "Darwinian thinking" about "junk" DNA stifles scientific advances if he just hypes an article WHICH FOUND FUNCTIONAL NON-CODING RNA BY APPLYING EXACTLY THAT KIND OF "DARWINIAN THINKING" AS HE HIMSELF DESCRIBES in the first quote.
And btw, the quote from the Nature article Luskin cites in context:
   
Quote
The main concern was raised by the observation that most of the intergenic transcripts show little to no evolutionary conservation5, 13. Strictly speaking, the absence of evolutionary conservation cannot prove the absence of function. But, the markedly low rate of conservation seen in the current catalogues of large non-coding transcripts (<5% of cases) is unprecedented and would require that each mammalian clade evolves its own distinct repertoire of non-coding transcripts. Instead, the data suggest that the current catalogues may consist largely of transcriptional noise, with a minority of bona fide functional lincRNAs hidden amid this background.


That's why we call them IDiots (and lying scumbags).


[edit]Larry Moran has read it, too!:
Quote
In other words, most of the transcripts are probably transcriptional noise, or junk, just as I said. This is the consensus opinion among molecular biologists.

Guttman et al. wanted to identify the small subset that might be functional. They identified 1,675 transcripts that show evidence of conservation. The average transcript has six exons averaging 250 bp. Thus, each transcript has about 1500 bp. of conserved exon sequence.

Even if every single one of these lincRNAs have a biological function they will only account for 1675 × 1500 = 2.5 million bp. This represents less than 0.1% of the genome. Casey Luskin ain't gonna disprove junk DNA using this paper.
[/edit]

Date: 2009/03/18 06:34:58, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (Louis @ Mar. 18 2009,11:20)
Me last night:

"No, I really can't go out for St Paddy's night, I've got too much to do........no really I can't.....NO! Fuck me don't you bozos understand NO means NO!......Oh all right then."

Me this morning:

"Ow......owowowowowowowowowowowow. Bastards!"

Louis

P.S. Ow.

Louis LOLcaterised:

Date: 2009/03/18 19:22:00, Link
Author: JLT
Have to share this one, although it's not from UD:
   
Quote
From the millions of fossils collected, the paleontologists still don't have this missing link to prove that man came from a swamp.

This missing link would have to be half ape and half man. But if they were correct then they would have to find one that's half ape and half female.


That's what reading Ray Comfort does to you.

Date: 2009/03/22 07:58:21, Link
Author: JLT
StephenB:
 
Quote
This up and down cycle continues to this day. During the 1950’s the Catholic Church was a positive moral force to be reckoned with and even put the fear of God into Hollywood. Whenever a good institution starts accomplishing things, bad people do their best to destroy it. If they can’t do it from the outside, they will infiltrate it and try to get the job done on the inside. Today, the Church has been compromised in exactly that way and is indeed in the middle of its most serious crisis.

Perhaps most noticeable is its recent tendency to de-emphasize its universal teachings (they never change), take the easy road, and look for ways to fit in with the world. That is why some U.S. Bishops (not all) have neglected Catholic seminaries and Catholic universities. It is also why many church leaders tolerated illegal immigration, remained silent in the face of sex scandals, and allowed this ridiculous conference on evolution. Yes, we can also throw in those misguided sycophants who think that Christ’s teachings can be reconciled with Darwin’s materialism.


Interesting. According to StephenB, the universal teachings of the catholic church must involve railing against illegal immigration and banning conferences about evolution.
I've always thought the universal teachings of the catholic church were something like "love your neighbour" and "don't commit adultery" (instead of "admit it if you committed adultery"). I wasn't aware of a commandment like "You shall not allow conferences about evolution".

But what do I know.

Quote
Oh dear, it appears that I must revisit this site to explain Catholicism’s position on evolution and a few other things.


Why, thank you, everything is so much clearer now.

Date: 2009/03/22 09:43:17, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (k.e.. @ Mar. 22 2009,02:51)
     
Quote (FrankH @ Mar. 22 2009,02:57)
[...]
Then there's the fire bombing of Dresden.  Where the USAA lit the city up during the day and the RAF continued at night.  OVer 200,000 people died there.  War is a nasty business but there are more than just "peace" as the alternative.

Subjugation and slavery are others.

I read somewhere that Dr J. Goebbels added a zero on the end of the death toll to make it look "better".

Might or might not be true, don't know and can't be bothered finding out.

Why?

Death toll figures released during war take on  Orwellian baggage and even long after it can be almost impossible to get an actual “true” figure.*
[...]
If the Dresden figure was produced by the propaganda ministry you can guarantee that it's false.
[...]

k.e. is right. The 200 000 deaths figure is wrong.

Current research shows that a minimum of 18 000 people died, more likely are 20 000 to 25 000 deaths.

     
Quote
In the first few decades after the war, some death toll estimates were as high as 250,000. However, figures in the regions of hundreds of thousands are considered disproportionate.[8] Today's historians estimate a death toll of between 24,000 and 40,000,[3] with an independent investigation commissioned by the city itself stated that around 18,000 victims had been identified and that the estimated total number of fatalities was around 25,000.[9][10]

[Bombing of Dresden in WWII]

It was certainly a lot of propaganda involved in producing the very high numbers; first the Nazis wanted to demonise the Allies (some Neo-Nazi groups still claim up to 500 000 died in Dresden).
The GDR government wasn't interested in establishing the real numbers, either. During the cold war they claimed that the Allies unnecessarily destroyed Dresden (and other parts of Eastern Germany) because they didn't want to leave it to the USSR and exaggerated both the death toll and the degree of destruction.

It was (and is) difficult to determine the actual death toll because no one really knows how many people were living in Dresden at that time. A lot of people had fled because of shortage of food and fear of bombardments, many children were sent to rural parts of Germany for protection ("Landverschickung"), and most of the male inhabitants were soldiers i.e. not in Dresden at the time of the bombing. But there were also a lot of refugees and wounded soldiers in Dresden (up to 85 000 in the inner city). It's possible that some of the dead were never found, either because they were completely burned or they were buried under too much rubble. IIRC more than 1 900 bodies were found during construction work in Dresden between 1945-1970.

But even with these uncertainties it's very unlikely that the death toll is substantially higher than 25 000, let alone as high as 200 000.

Date: 2009/04/26 17:35:47, Link
Author: JLT
The Discovery Institute apparently sent out emails asking its "friends" to support Don McLeroy, chairman of the Texas SBOE. He was nominated for a second term as chairman but
it doesn't look all that good for him.

From the email:
Quote
"Supporting those, like Don McLeroy, who take a stand for academic freedom to question evolution at personal cost is one of the most important and effective things citizens can do," said CSC Associate Director John West. "It sends a message to elected officials that expelling leaders like Dr. McLeroy because of their stance on Darwin's theory is simply not acceptable."


Now it's expellimation if elected officials vote against a creationist. I'd thought that's called democracy.
But what do I know.

Date: 2009/05/10 07:04:11, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (sparc @ May 10 2009,05:01)
 
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ May 09 2009,19:52)
     
Quote (Nils Ruhr @ May 09 2009,18:01)
         
Quote (CeilingCat @ May 09 2009,17:00)
Nils, it's been about six hours since you asked that question.  So far we have had five real live biologists, two student biologists and one person who was trained in biology, but works in another field respond to you.

Ok, I was wrong, there are indeed many scientists in the field of biology on this forum. This means your opinions here might be relevant for my questions.

There are many biologists in the ID movement:
Michael Behe, Jonathan Wells, Paul Chien.

Three in the ID movement vs. 5 just commenting on this website.  Way to shoot yourself in the foot!

You may add me to the list:
Diploma in zoology, PhD in molecular biology.
Worked in animal physiology, immunology, extracellular matrix research and skin biology, mouse genetics.

In contrast to the UD guys I actually did ID by being involved in planning, designing and creating more than 30 mouse mutants during the last 10 years.

Add me too.
Diploma in genetics, working on my PhD (immunology).

Date: 2009/05/14 06:15:21, Link
Author: JLT
That's it. UD can't sink any lower.
Adnan Oktar: More lies, strawmen and misconceptions per word than Ray Comfort.

For those of you who have to abstain from UD for medical reasons some choice quotes:
 
Quote
I did some investigation and saw that the Darwinist materialist mindset lies behind all wars, revolutions and anarchy.
 
Quote
But Darwinists have established a dictatorial regime. The great majority of people are afraid to raise their voices under pressure from that dictatorial regime.
 
Quote
There is generally almost no chance of a politician who is critical of Darwinism coming to power.
 
Quote
For one thing, Darwinism is a pagan religion whose roots go back to the Sumerians and Ancient Egypt. The Egyptians also believed that life emerged spontaneously from the muddy waters of the Nile. The theory of evolution is a superstitious belief that has been around ever since and that is not supported by a shred of scientific evidence.
 
Quote
Yet we have come up with 100 million fossils, fossils belonging to fully formed and perfect life forms that all show evolution never happened, and they have no rational answer to give.
 
Quote
Turkey is the country with the lowest level of belief in Darwinism in the world, because the Turkish people are highly intelligent and foresighted.

I think I have to lay down now.

Date: 2009/05/15 13:06:28, Link
Author: JLT
Quote
As if the materialist scientists would give up their 6-figure salaries and years or research (not to mention a cozy “there’s nothing there” worldview) without a fight, or straight up denial.


Dang. I don't get a 6-figure salary. I'm obviously not a materialist scientist.

link

Date: 2009/05/15 17:07:46, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (J-Dog @ May 15 2009,21:16)
 
Quote (JLT @ May 15 2009,13:06)
   
Quote
As if the materialist scientists would give up their 6-figure salaries and years or research (not to mention a cozy “there’s nothing there” worldview) without a fight, or straight up denial.


Dang. I don't get a 6-figure salary. I'm obviously not a materialist scientist.

link

Could you be a Material Girl instead?


Ha. I'm afraid singing is not my forte. Maybe I could earn some money by threatening e.g. pub owners that I won't stop "singing" until they pay me to.
I'd rather be a 6-figure salary material scientist if it's all the same to you. If only someone told me what I have to do to become acknowledged as a proper materialist scientist. Being member of the evil atheist conspiracy (AND knowing the secret handshake) doesn't seem to be sufficient.  :angry:

Date: 2009/05/15 17:18:37, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (Bob O'H @ May 15 2009,21:34)
   
Quote (JLT @ May 15 2009,13:06)
   
Quote
As if the materialist scientists would give up their 6-figure salaries and years or research (not to mention a cozy “there’s nothing there” worldview) without a fight, or straight up denial.


Dang. I don't get a 6-figure salary. I'm obviously not a materialist scientist.

link

Two of those figures are after the decimal point.

Heh. That would explain it.

Date: 2009/05/16 13:24:39, Link
Author: JLT
Quote
16

herb

05/16/2009

1:00 pm

feebish,

     
Quote
I don’t know. It looks like kind of an echo chamber over there [at Pharyngula], where dissent is quickly pounced on. I don’t think someone like Joseph would last long there  without being banned. Maybe he is already banned there.


I think you’re probably right. It looks like they have no concept of free and open discussion over there, unfortunately.


I LOL'd.

link

Date: 2009/05/19 17:13:36, Link
Author: JLT
[rant]
It never ceases to amaze me that the UD people rather get all wound up about a news article about a new scientific find than look at the scientific article itself. It was widely published that the original article would be published today, in PLoS ONE, open access.
Complete Primate Skeleton from the Middle Eocene of Messel in Germany: Morphology and Paleobiology

If DO'L really had wanted to know what the significance of that find is, she could have simply read the beginning of that article:
 
Quote
Conclusions/Significance

Darwinius masillae represents the most complete fossil primate ever found, including both skeleton, soft body outline and contents of the digestive tract. Study of all these features allows a fairly complete reconstruction of life history, locomotion, and diet. Any future study of Eocene-Oligocene primates should benefit from information preserved in the Darwinius holotype. Of particular importance to phylogenetic studies, the absence of a toilet claw and a toothcomb demonstrates that Darwinius masillae is not simply a fossil lemur, but part of a larger group of primates, Adapoidea, representative of the early haplorhine diversification.

And a bit more from the end of the article:
 
Quote
Morphological characteristics preserved in Darwinius masillae enable a rigorous comparison with the two principal subdivisions of living primates: Strepsirrhini and Haplorhini. Defining characters of Darwinius ally it with early haplorhines rather than strepsirrhines. We do not interpret Darwinius as anthropoid, but the adapoid primates it represents deserve more careful comparison with higher primates than they have received in the past.

Darwinius masillae is important in being exceptionally well preserved and providing a much more complete understanding of the paleobiology of an Eocene primate than was available in the past.


This fossil ADDS to our understanding of primate evolution, whether or not it is a direct ancestor to humans.

DO'L:  
Quote
All I know is this: Between two competing arguments, in which only one side can be right, information that supports Argument A must subtract from information that supports Argument B.


No, it must not, doofus. More information is more information.

Good god. By her "logic" we could never come to any conclusion if two (or more - OH NOES) competing hypotheses exist.
All competing hypotheses must be in congruence with the existing data. There isn't information belonging to one hypothesis and information belonging to the other hypothesis which somehow cancel each other out. There might be facts that are better explained with one hypothesis than the other but that does not make the facts go away.

D "I've just skimmed a pop sci article about this" O'L:
Quote
I could not determine from this body of evidence that humans are descended from either group.

Hnnnng. <brain melts>
[/rant]

Date: 2009/05/19 17:34:56, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (AmandaHuginKiss @ May 19 2009,23:18)
We are witnessing the evolution of a new meme. We are going from you can't mix chemicals together to create life to nature cannot reproduce the careful process of a laboratory to create life. Although this meme may undergo convergent evolution to the scientists are sneaking information into the chemicals.

No, no, no. The new meme is going to be:
The chemicals must have already contained the information to build life. So, who put it there?*


* Compare Dembski's latest "article".

Date: 2009/05/20 16:59:43, Link
Author: JLT
Quote
beelzebub (why don’t people just give their real names?*), most self-corrections came at immense cost to the scientists who had laboured to discover the facts and correct the record.

Usually, the persecutions were brought on them by fellow scientists whose careers were threatened.

Science is rarely self-correcting except under the gravest threat - for the same reasons as a drug addict doesn’t decide on rehab until he wakes up from a coma in some hospital whose name he doesn’t recognize - and he doesn’t even remember how he got there. But he is informed that a detective superintendent wants to interview him as soon as his doctor feels he is well enough.

DO'L

Date: 2009/05/21 08:56:23, Link
Author: JLT
Now, that'll come as a surprise to some (namely, molecular biologists*):
 
Quote
I totally agree, rna. That’s because molecular biology is not Darwinism. Molecular biologists, because they are curious engineer-types, will continue to research “junk DNA.” But they will dutifully bow to Darwinism to maintain their grants and jobs.

Many don’t for a minute believe it is actually “junk,” and so functionally they are IDists.


The crazy is strong in this one.



* Hi sparc! Recently bowed to Darwinists?

Date: 2009/05/21 19:59:51, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (Ptaylor @ May 21 2009,23:00)
 
Quote (Hermagoras @ May 17 2009,02:09)
I've been searching for any reviews of the play (which opened the other night) but can't find anything in the Houston media.  If anybody sees one PM me or post a link please.

This may be old news but there is a review of Thomas Vaughan's The Third Side here. Sounds like the ID component is fairly minor in an otherwise forgettable production. Summary:        
Quote
Actually, in The Third Side, it isn’t cute or sad. It’s just dull.

Thanks for the link.
Vaughan turns up in the comments and whines about the harsh review:
 
Quote
Everett:
-
I am a big fan of yours and your continued support of Houston theatre, but I feel compelled to say that the fervor of your pan here is a wildly over-the-top. The contrast between your experience and the experience of others who saw The Third Side over the weekend is striking. Their reaction has been overwhelmingly positive. Audiences have laughed hard, willfully followed the characters and found the exchange of ideas engrossing. I met several people who told me they are coming back this weekend to bring friends. Some have sought me out to tell me this was the best theatre experience they had in a long time. Somewhere here there is a disconnect. [...]
-
Most importantly, I have been extremely gratified by the enthusiastic response The Third Side has received. I always want you to like our work, Everett, and I am genuinely sorry that you didn't, but the intensity of your review sounds just a bit askew this time out. I can't recall seeing this kind of animosity from you.

Date: 2009/05/22 07:36:01, Link
Author: JLT
The Discotute on the 19th:
     
Quote
Lemur Monkey Falls From the Sky, Robbing Man of Sleep

If they weren't atheists, you'd think the scientists raising the ballyhoo over Ida were hailing the second coming.

Here is yet another icon of evolution. Every time one of these discoveries is made, there’s a huge PR snow job from the Darwin lobby to make it seem like it answers all the questions and objections. I thought Tiktaalik did that. Or maybe Archaeopteryx. It goes at least as far back as Proconsul. Each time the Darwinists seem to forget they already found the missing link — the one fossil to rule them all — and re-find it all over again.

[then they go on quoting from the abysmal Sky news article]

and on the 21st:
     
Quote
Is Great Grandma Ida Getting More Accolades Than She Deserves?
By the far the most insightful is this post from a science writer at the Smithsonian, offering some more tempered words than the Darwinian elders. In some ways this is a pretty stunning piece, even just appearing on his blog. As is known, the Smithsonian doesn't play nice with people who don't toe the line. Switek doesn't commit the sin of disavowing a strict Darwinian view, but he does chastise the establishment for overselling this latest "missing link."


Isn't that curious? "Scientist raising the ballyhoo", Laelaps (Brian Switek) with "more tempered words than the Darwinian elders" and "chastis[ing] the establishment" - when all they looked at were Sky News and CBS News and despite the fact that the not at all sensationalistic original article went online on the 19th and this were the headlines on Nature News that day:
     
Quote
Reunion of fossil halves splits scientists
Well-preserved primate suffers identity crisis.

and on Science News*:
     
Quote
"Revolutionary" Fossil Fails to Dazzle Paleontologists




* That one has got some really "interesting" comments...

Date: 2009/05/23 05:07:10, Link
Author: JLT
Quote
93

Clive Hayden

05/23/2009

12:28 am

beelzebub,

——”As an imperfect human, you can never be absolutely certain that a particular belief is true.”

You’re absolutely certain that as an imperfect human you can never be absolutely certain. Nice.

——”All beliefs should be held provisionally.”

You don’t hold that belief provisionally. Wonderful again.

 
Quote
109

Clive Hayden

05/23/2009

2:39 am

beelzebub,

Your very declaration “If you provide sufficient evidence, I will revise them [beliefs].” is a belief that is not held provisionally.

If it is held provisionally, then you’re lying about changing your beliefs. Again, self-referential incoherence.


Clive wrongly believes that he's being clever. Another point in favour of the notion that you should hold all your beliefs provisionally and should revise them if evidence to the contrary is turning up.

Hey Clive,
what do you think is the more rational assumption:
1) The human mind is infallible   OR
2) The human mind is fallible?
We see every day that people come to the wrong conclusion or act illogical. We know from our history that people believed lots of things that turned out to be wrong.
I'd say the second assumption is more warranted.
That beliefs should be held provisionally is not a belief in itself, it follows logically from the assumption that the human mind is fallible.
Of course, I could be wrong.

Date: 2009/05/23 05:21:02, Link
Author: JLT
StephenB:
   
Quote
Most people, after hearing that the Old Testament contained 459 prophecies about Jesus Christ, all of which became manifest in time/space/history, would be flabbergasted by the mere improbability of it all. They would demand that I offer a few examples, and, once satisfied that they were legitimate, would be impressed by that astounding fact. Your response, on the other hand, was to shrug it off without another thought or to mischaracterize it as you did as an “after the fact” event—as if Scripture writers had taken New Testament events and redacted them back into the Old Testament records, which is impossible.


You know, Stephen, there is a second possibility. They might have written some stuff in the New Testament to "fulfill" prophecies of the Old Testament. But of course, that is totally completely utterly impossible, isn't it, because everything in the bible is true which is proven by the fulfilled prophecies. I really can't understand why everyone is so reluctant in accepting these facts. I'm convinced. Your logic is impenetrable.

Date: 2009/05/23 10:12:31, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (Rrr @ May 23 2009,15:37)
 
Quote (JLT @ May 23 2009,05:07)
     
Quote
93

Clive Hayden

05/23/2009

12:28 am

beelzebub,

——”As an imperfect human, you can never be absolutely certain that a particular belief is true.”

You’re absolutely certain that as an imperfect human you can never be absolutely certain. Nice.

——”All beliefs should be held provisionally.”

You don’t hold that belief provisionally. Wonderful again.

         
Quote
109

Clive Hayden

05/23/2009

2:39 am

beelzebub,

Your very declaration “If you provide sufficient evidence, I will revise them [beliefs].” is a belief that is not held provisionally.

If it is held provisionally, then you’re lying about changing your beliefs. Again, self-referential incoherence.


Clive wrongly believes that he's being clever. Another point in favour of the notion that you should hold all your beliefs provisionally and should revise them if evidence to the contrary is turning up.

Hey Clive,
what do you think is the more rational assumption:
1) The human mind is infallible   OR
2) The human mind is fallible?
We see every day that people come to the wrong conclusion or act illogical. We know from our history that people believed lots of things that turned out to be wrong.
I'd say the second assumption is more warranted.
That beliefs should be held provisionally is not a belief in itself, it follows logically from the assumption that the human mind is fallible.
Of course, I could be wrong.

Of course you are right, you could be wrong. But in that case, you would have proven your point, and in fact be right.

A paradox come true. Self-referential indeed.

I CAN HAS WORDSGAMEZ TOO.

;)

Date: 2009/05/24 12:03:35, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (Lou FCD @ May 24 2009,17:15)
Quote (dvunkannon @ May 21 2009,08:39)
Not In My Back Yard!


I saw these guys when I was walking on the grounds of Bertramka, last Saturday. Bertramka is in the Smichov suburb of Prague, just across the Vltava River. Bertramka is famous for Mozart having stayed there during his visits to Prague. He finished Don Giovanni there.

In any case, these reminded me more of African masks than Mozart. Anyone know what they are?

Whoa, neat bugs.

Firebugs!

Gosh, sometimes I surprise myself ;)

Date: 2009/05/24 18:19:47, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (Aardvark @ May 24 2009,21:53)
We now return you to our regularly scheduled 'tard...

That's priceless.

The much beloved genetic entropy "predicts" junk DNA.  Oops.
 
Quote
8

herb

05/24/2009

1:20 pm

spark,
 
Quote
In Dr Sanford book states that genome is in decay and nature selection can not stop it. this leads to the idea design was perfect once.

Interesting view. I haven’t read Dr. Sanford’s book, but is he saying that this so-called junk DNA is caused by deterioration of genomes? And that ID therefore predicts junk DNA? (and I mean true junk DNA here, not just DNA which might have yet undiscovered functions).

Mapou explains how ID "predicts" that most of genomic DNA has a function.
 
Quote
9

Mapou

05/24/2009

2:06 pm

Sal Gal @2:
 
Quote
And should most of the DNA remain apparently useless for centuries to come, IDers will remind us, “Well, bad design does not mean no design.” You can’t have it both ways.

My position as a (non-YEC) Christian and ID supporter is that the designers (Elohim) had millions of years to perfect their creation. We are told that, after they were done, they took a step back and said, “It is very good”.

From this perspective, I would expect that bad designs would show up mainly in the distant fossil record. Having said that, even good designs can deteriorate over the years due to disease or incestuous mating. Still, I would expect junk DNA to be a very rare occurrence.

Herb works on his own ID prediction:
 
Quote
12

herb

05/24/2009

4:45 pm

spark,
 
Quote
In Dr Sanford book he supports the ID prediction that all DNA has some function or effect. Meaning the prediction is that there is no junk DNA.[Interesting. Genomes are supposedly deteriorating but everything remains functional. Even herb can see that that doesn't make sense.]

Thanks for clarifying [Or not]. This has got me to wondering, however, whether the Fall has any implications on the issue of junk DNA. I have to confess that I used to follow organizations like AIG more closely than I do now, and IIRC it that their view that Creation itself had decayed nearly to the point of collapse in these end times. Might that be consistent with our DNA being full of broken or completely nonfunctional genes?


ALL SCIENCE SO FAR

Btw, regarding good/bad design, that's my favourite Dembski quote:
     
Quote
Nevertheless, taken strictly as a scientific theory, intelligent design refuses to speculate about the nature of this designing intelligence. Whereas optimal design demands a perfectionistic, anal-retentive designer who has to get everything just right, intelligent design fits our ordinary experience of design, which is always conditioned by the needs of a situation and therefore always falls short of some idealized global optimum.


And from the 'Encylopedia of [Misunderstanding] Science and Philosophy' of the 'International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design':
Optimal design, Argument from
     
Quote
Why would a software engineer leave flaws in the program code? There are many possible reasons for this. Perhaps the offending portion of code, although imperfect, is known to be harmless, and the time and effort required to remove it, given budget constraints and the fact that the software has to be delivered to the client tomorrow, render the effort of removing the offending code and going through the lengthy process of re-compiling and testing insensible. Any intelligent observer who sees the code at a later date - perhaps five years after delivery - when the code needs to be re-furbished, will wonder how an intelligent software engineer could make such an error. A good example of this is dead code. [...]
Dead code is code that was written into the program in high level programming language, either erroneously, or originally, for some now redundant purpose (such as testing other code), and remains in the program source code doing nothing. Modern compilers, programs that convert source code into computer-interpretable code, usually strip out such unused code during the process of compilation, analogous to the way in which DNA polymerase excises introns (non-coding sequences) out of a gene and splices together its exons (coding sequences) when transcribing to mRNA. However, the dead code can happily sit in the source code (as perhaps can the 'junk' DNA stay in the DNA) forever - doing nothing but causing confusion to later intelligent observers - engineers who must update the program for example.

Date: 2009/05/24 18:39:03, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (olegt @ May 25 2009,00:16)
jerry is shaking his fists at Diffaxial:
       
Quote
The scenario which you call a fantasy was made up to illustrate a point that most of the changes that are touted as evolution are trivial and essentially devolution. And this is consistent with what ID would predict and as such represents an empirical test of Behe’s ideas. I have not seen anything in any book/article/discussion/treatise on evolution dispute that. And you have not disputed that or provided any counter examples nor has anyone who has ever appeared here. Which is why the scenario though obviously fictitious represents the main problem with evolutionary biology. If you want to call it a fantasy, indulge yourself. It is ok with me.

Delicious, simply delicious!  I [heart] you, jerry.  ID is a Gedankenteorie.

LOL.

And after conducting his fantasy made up fictious ID research he disses the anti ID crowd for contributing nothing to the evolution debate:
 
Quote
The anti ID sole’s contribution to the evolution debate seems to be to mock, ridicule, make stupid statements but not make comments of substance and essentially be irrelevant of which you seem to be an exemplar.

Nothing but REAL research and REAL results...

Date: 2009/05/26 13:12:50, Link
Author: JLT
The Discotute started a new web site, faith and evolution. Looks like it's a direct response to Francis Collins BioLogos site.
Quote
In recent years, debates over faith and evolution have continued to intensify. On the one hand, “new atheists” like Richard Dawkins have insisted that Darwinian evolution makes it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. On the other hand, “new theistic evolutionists” like Francis Collins have assured people that Darwin’s theory is perfectly compatible with faith and need have no damaging cultural consequences. [...]

“Increasingly, the only voices being heard in the faith and evolution conversation come from two wings of the evolution lobby: atheist evolutionists like Richard Dawkins, and a handful of theistic evolutionists like Francis Collins. But there are a lot of thoughtful scientists and scholars who are skeptical of Darwin’s theory whose views aren’t being heard.”

“Thus, the first goal of FaithandEvolution.Org is to present the scientific information about evolution and intelligent design that is typically left out of the discussion,” says West. “A second goal is to tackle tough questions that are usually ignored about the consequences of Darwin’s theory for ethics, society, and religion.”

They even produced a short video to promote it.

Date: 2009/05/27 03:54:41, Link
Author: JLT
Quote
Can we say quality is commensurate with complexity? I ask this because it seems there is in the animal kingdom a proportionality between the level of complexity of an organism and its quanity in the environment. Bacteria and next Insects are innumerable yet appear to be at the botton of the complexity ladder. The higher up we go on the complexity ladder the less the quantity.

So it appears there is a purposeful inverse heirarchy in quality vs. quantity.

Until we reach the highest level of complexity, Humans. Here there seems a curious anomoly. Humans comparitivel,y are ascending to top honors in both categories quality AND quantity.

Oramus

Scientifically determined quantities of living things according to Oramus (in descending order):

- bacteria
- other really small stuff
- plants
- insects
- other animals with more than 4 legs
- animals without legs, like fish and snakes
- animals with four legs
- birds
- rats
- humans
- mammouth (until they became extinct)
- dodo (ditto)
- some other not so important species
- ALF

Date: 2009/05/27 18:07:42, Link
Author: JLT
Quote
Behe's Back: The Letters Science and Trends in Microbiology Won't Print

It must be hard to be the Darwinist editor of a major science journal, to have to constantly maintain the party line that there is no scientific debate between intelligent design and evolution while publishing articles whose authors seem haunted by design arguments, often taking it upon themselves to stick up a straw man of ID to knock down with a puff of hot air.

It must be especially hard when a scientist like Michael Behe bothers you, thinking it his duty to advance the debate by correcting the Darwinists' mistaken views of irreducible complexity which you published, hoping that maybe he would go away.
Alas, for the editors of Science and Trends in Microbiology, Michael Behe has not gone away. In fact, he's publishing the letters himself at his Amazon blog, which you can read here and here. Because knowledge advances when arguments are best understood, not when they're ignored or (purposefully?) mistaken, those who follow the debate would do best to read what Behe has to say for himself:


AHAHAHAHAAHAAHA! HAHAHAH! AAAAHAHAHAHAHA!

HE'S BACK! AHAHAHA!

Be afraid, because:

Behe has not gone away. In fact, he's publishing the letters himself at his Amazon blog

AHAHaHa.

Sorry. I can't stop myself.

Date: 2009/05/28 18:45:37, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (Lou FCD @ May 28 2009,21:24)
I linked to this comment from my Facebook page. Allow me to share the response of a friend of mine who was previously unfamiliar with the denizens of UD, EN&V or the interconnected web of DiscoTARD:

   
Quote
Let us fervently hope that this person does not ever, ever reproduce.


You never get a second chance to make a first impression.

Edited to cover all the bases, which r belong 2 me.

Did you invite your friend to join us? Sounds like he/she would fit in quite well.

Date: 2009/06/03 09:16:27, Link
Author: JLT
Congrats, Louis!

Very well done.

My father got even with me for the sleep deprivation I had caused as a baby when I started to go out. He used to wake me up Saturday mornings at 8 after a night out to help with the gardening.

Maybe that's something you can look forward to while you are trying to adjust to 4 hours sleep/night...
;)

Date: 2009/06/04 07:37:09, Link
Author: JLT
Quote

FOXP2 and Human Cognition

Our restless species strives ceaselessly to invent ever more useful devices, improve our social systems, and create new works of art. Our creative ability derives from motor and cognitive flexibility that allows us to form a potentially unbounded number of new words and sentences as well as tools, art, dance forms, and music; it is a fundamental defining attribute of Homo sapiens that presumably derives from a suite of neural capabilities absent or greatly reduced in other species. The archaeological record, however, reveals few signs of creativity earlier than not, vert, similar200,000 years ago in Africa, with a burst of creativity appearing in Homo sapiens during the Upper Paleolithic, not, vert, similar50,000 years ago ([Klein, 1999] and McBrearty and Brooks, 2000 S. McBrearty and A.S. Brooks, J. Hum. Evol. 39 (2000), pp. 453–563. Abstract |  PDF (2416 K)  | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (314)[McBrearty and Brooks, 2000]). Something must have modified the brains of our ancestors in that distant time, the period associated with both the appearance of the immediate ancestors of modern humans and the amino acid substitutions that differentiate the human form of the FOXP2 gene from that of chimpanzees. Now, Enard, Paabo and their colleagues shed new light on the role of the FOXP2 gene on the evolution of human language and cognition (Enard et al., 2009).

They report, in this issue, the results of introducing into mice the human version of the Foxp2 gene. The mice exhibited alterations in ultrasonic vocalizations and exploratory behavior as well as changes in brain dopamine concentrations. The neurological consequences provide an explanation for why human speech, language, and cognitive capacity transcend those of living apes, as well as the cognitive abilities of our distant hominid ancestors that can be inferred from the archaeological record. In mice with a “humanized” Foxp2 gene, the medium spiny neurons of the basal ganglia show increased synaptic plasticity and dendrite length. Such changes enhance the efficiency of neural cortico-basal ganglia circuits, the brain mechanisms that in humans are known to regulate motor control including speech, word recognition, sentence comprehension, recognition of visual forms, mental arithmetic, and other aspects of cognition (Figure 1).

[....]
This brings us to the signal achievements of Enard and his colleagues (Enard et al., 2009). The FOXP2 story started with the discovery of a mutation in this gene in an extended family in the UK that resulted in extreme speech motor-control deficits, deficits in language comprehension, and lower scores on standardized intelligence tests. Neuroimaging studies revealed anomalies in basal ganglia morphology and activity. Embryological studies then showed that both the mouse and human versions of this gene modulate development of the basal ganglia and other subcortical structures. Moreover, the two amino acid substitutions that differentiate the human form of FOXP2 from that of chimpanzees occurred and were fixed within the past 200,000 years, the period associated with the appearance of the immediate ancestors of modern humans and Neanderthals. However, it has not been clear whether the behavioral deficits associated with the aberrant missense mutation in the affected family members have any bearing on the effects of the human form of FOXP2 on the brain. With their new study, Enard and coworkers resolve this issue. They demonstrate that the amino acid substitutions that mark the human form of FOXP2 would have played a key role in the evolution of the human brain by increasing synaptic plasticity and dendrite length and connectivity in the basal ganglia.

The proximate “tinkering” logic of evolution has often been pointed out. In a sense, we can view the effects of the human form of FOXP2 as a sort of “tuning” that brought the cortico-striatal circuits that humans inherited from other species to a state of higher efficiency. Synaptic plasticity is the key to how neurons code and process information. Dendrites connect the neuronal map, channeling information between neurons. Neurophysiological texts contain hundreds of references to studies that note the roles of synaptic plasticity and neuronal connectivity in forming new associations and new action patterns—the Hebbian (Hebb, 1949) “computational” processes of the brain that appear to underlie virtually all aspects of cognition.

As is the case for all significant discoveries, the new work addresses seemingly unrelated issues and raises further questions. The earliest surviving hominid fossils that could have had tongues capable of producing fully modern speech date back 50,000 years to the Upper Paleolithic (Lieberman and McCarthy, 2007). In earlier Middle Pleistocene fossils, in which the neck segment is equal to the mouth segment, neck lengths were too short to accommodate a human tongue. Tongue proportions that facilitate speech came at the cost of increasing the risk of choking—the fourth leading cause of accidental death in the U.S. Therefore, a human tongue would be worse than useless unless the hominid in question also had cortico-basal ganglia circuits capable of executing the rapid, complex motor gestures that are necessary to produce articulate speech. The presence of a human tongue in Upper Paleolithic hominids thus serves as an index for the presence of these neural circuits. But as Enard et al., 2009 W. Enard, S. Gehre, K. Hammerschmidt, S.M. Hölter, T. Blass, M. Somel, M.K. Brückner, C. Schreiweis, C. Winter and R. Sohr et al., Cell (2009) this issue.Enard et al. (2009) show, cortico-basal ganglia circuits could have evolved before the appearance of the modern human tongue, explaining the presence of some Upper Paleolithic artifacts in Africa >50,000 years ago.

Finally, these results argue against Noam Chomsky's views concerning the neural bases of human language. In all versions of Chomskian theory, the central claim is that humans possess a species-specific, innate, neural “organ,” devoted to language and language alone. Language in Chomsky's theories, moreover, is equated with syntax, the means by which distinctions in meaning are conveyed in a sentence. Cortico-basal ganglia circuits clearly are involved in sentence comprehension, but enhanced human cortico-basal ganglia circuit efficiency clearly would be expressed in cognitive acts beyond language and motor control. With the study by Enard and his colleagues, we have reached a new milestone in the journey toward understanding the evolution of human cognition.


Enard et al., A Humanized Version of Foxp2 Affects Cortico-Basal Ganglia Circuits in Mice
Cell, Volume 137, Issue 5, 29 May 2009, Pages 961-971


Short video summary of Enard's and Pääbo's results

ETA: The original article is open access. If the above link isn't working try this one.

Date: 2009/06/04 18:09:11, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (dvunkannon @ June 04 2009,18:31)
 
Quote (JLT @ June 04 2009,08:37)
   
Quote

FOXP2 and Human Cognition

The proximate “tinkering” logic of evolution has often been pointed out. In a sense, we can view the effects of the human form of FOXP2 as a sort of “tuning” that brought the cortico-striatal circuits that humans inherited from other species to a state of higher efficiency.


Hmm, I'm going to have to skim it again. I didn't see "efficiency" the first time through. I'm pretty sure mice had a highly efficient FoxP2 gene and cortical neurons for their niche. If they are less jittery and more thoughtful mice, thay are worse mice, no matter what that tells us about humans.

How do you know they are worse mice?

*





* You're right, of course. That's a very anthropocentric view.

Date: 2009/06/05 11:04:03, Link
Author: JLT
DO'L:
 
Quote
Here is Forrest’s comment, published at Science (free registration wall):

   The Twilight of Taxonomy
   by Forrest Mims III

[Comment posted 2009-06-03 12:22:04]


Date: 2009/06/05 16:49:13, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (keiths @ June 05 2009,22:04)
   
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,June 04 2009,21:34)
except the keiths debacle raises my private odds on HIM BEING JERRY.  PM ME GODDMMMIT

'Ras, I don't do socktards, dammit.

My socks are all sheer, like pantyhose.  As with the guy robbing the gas station, you can see my features through them, though you can't always identify me right away.

You are protesting way too much.  We all know you are jerry.

Date: 2009/06/05 16:53:46, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (dvunkannon @ June 05 2009,20:10)
On the C Hunter thread:
   
Quote
29

Nakashima

06/05/2009

2:00 pm
Mr PaulN,

Of all the plants and animals mentioned in the Bible, which do you think has the weakest support in the fossil record for gradual, macro-evolutionary change?


Which will Paul choose? Which would you choose?

Of all the plants and animals mentioned in the Bible, which do you think has the weakest support in the fossil record for gradual, macro-evolutionary change?

Ruminant rabbits.

Date: 2009/06/05 21:01:49, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (afarensis @ June 06 2009,02:37)
   
Quote (carlsonjok @ June 05 2009,20:34)
   
Quote (afarensis @ June 05 2009,20:21)
Say, is there a thread devoted to Behe and irreducible complexity?

No, but hang around. It is bound to appear, with the OP and all followup replies extant, any day now.

I ask because this is really funny and seems like it would fit on such a thread. Nick Matzke found it...


"Can you imagine building all of this complicated mechanism into a trap of the size of the head of this pin?
God did it."*

LOL.

* starts at 7:45

Date: 2009/06/06 12:04:32, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (Quidam @ June 06 2009,17:23)
 
Quote (J-Dog @ May 31 2009,17:52)
I hope Quidam can do something with the cover of  Dr. Dr.'s new book, like he did for his last book.  Those Green Buttocks were a great marketing tie-in for the usual crowd of UD and ID Ignorati .




It does sort of resemble the Erectile Dysfunction undoubtadly suffered by most UD and ID supporters...

Since Obama's election I have been taking a bit of a sabbatical from the ID Tard and marvelling at the Beck/Hannity/O'Reilly  tard.

This really doesn't give me too much to work with, but I suppose that IS the point.  Dembski is reduced to traditional insipid apologetics.  The once mighty Explanatory Filter failed to rise to the occasion, leaving O'Leary unsatisifed, ForTheKids without meat on the table and is seldom seen or even mentioned now.   So on that theme:


You should've called it "Finding an oh god in impotent apologetics".

Date: 2009/06/06 13:03:44, Link
Author: JLT
DO'L:
 
Quote
6 June 2009
Darwinism and academic culture: Skepticism not allowed?
O'Leary

A friend draws my attention to an essay published in Nature (458, 30 (5 March 2009) | doi:10.1038/458030a) by a sociologist [Harry Collins], who advises that we cannot live by skepticism alone.


Here friend must be reading UD:
 
Quote
5 March 2009
We cannot live by scepticism alone
Mario A. Lopez

Scientists have been too dogmatic about scientific truth and sociologists have fostered too much scepticism — social scientists must now elect to put science back at the core of society, says Harry Collins [in Nature].


That post got over 500 comments.

Date: 2009/06/08 13:46:29, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (didymos @ June 08 2009,14:06)
30. 30 points for suggesting that Einstein, in his later years, was groping his way towards the ideas you now advocate.

No, but I submit that quasi-coyly accusing (but not having the actual balls to actually accuse) Einstein of plagiarising GR from his ex-wife is grounds for a new 30-pointer:
         
Quote

As mentioned earlier, in 1949, Einstein's friend, Kurt Gödel, announced to the world that the spacetime of general relativity allows time travel via closed time-like loops. Einstein agreed with Gödel's finding but he was not very happy about it. He could not fathom how his grand theory would allow something as ridiculous as time travel. color=red]This gives some credence to accusations by Einstein's critics that he was not the true author of general relativity and that he was a mediocre plagiarizer at best. Some say that Einstein's first wife, Mileva Maric Einstein, was the real author of relativity and that Einstein was forced to give her his entire Nobel prize money to keep her quiet. Just hearsay but one never knows.[/color]


So, yeah:

+30 points

Someone really believes that? I've never heard that before and I should have - I used to post at a forum where the crankiest of cranks (in Germany) "proved" regularly that Einstein was wrong. To give you an impression  just look at his homepage. You don't need to be able to read German. The "design" speaks for itself.
He loved to call Einstein "dumm wie ein Stein" = "stupid as a stone" which is of course absolutely hillarious because Ein-stein means "a stone" in German. Haha. Totally funny.

A choice quote for those of you who speak German (he writes a bit odd):

 
Quote
Aus diesem "Denk"-Ansatz von Einstein ergeben sich gleich zwei unauflösbare Widersprüche, welche Einstein in seiner offenbar satanischen Besetzung zu erkennen selbstverständlich viel zu verblendet gewesen ist - andernfalls wäre Einstein ja nicht einzuschätzen als dumm wie ein Stein, und die RTh als die größte Idiotie aller Zeiten, als eine verbrecherische Lüge und als Betrug, und seine nur aus Widersprüchen, Lügen und schwachsinnigen Behauptungen bestehende Relativitätstheorie (RTh), als eine Erfindung Satans, wäre nicht existent:

  1. Ist Zeit das physikalisch Imaginäre, dann kann sie nicht gemessen werden - doch genau das behauptet Einstein (im Widerspruch zu seiner selbst getroffenen Voraussetzung)! Kann aber Zeit nicht gemessen werden, dann kann sie sich auch nicht dehnen - wie wollte man das ergründen?
  2. Um das physikalisch Imaginäre, die Zeit, dennoch messen zu können, bedarf es eines (Zeit-) Meßinstrumentes. Nun ist die totale Verblödung von Einstein und der gesamten physikalischen Fachwelt nicht mehr zu überbieten aufgrund der klinikreifen Wahnvorstellung, eine Uhr sei ein Meßinstrument, ein Zeitmeßinstrument, so daß diese unter stetiger Energiezufuhr laufenden Maschinen, also Uhren, nicht etwa nur ihre Ganggeschwindigkeit (gelegentlich) ändern, sondern in solchen Fällen eine andere Zeit messen - unglaublich, aber wahr; von solcher absoluten Idiotie ist jeder Physiker zutiefst überzeugt.

That quote basically says that
- Einstein is stupid and apparently posessed by satan
- the theory of relativity is the biggest idiocy of all times, a criminal lie and fraud, and invented by Satan
- all physicists incl. Einstein are clinically insane to believe that time can be measured by mechanical clocks.

He's also a YEC and HIV/AIDS denialist. How surprising.

Really frightening fact: He was a math teacher until he retired (or was EXPELLED!!!!ONE!!111!!!1!ELEVEN).

Date: 2009/06/09 18:06:18, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (steve_h @ June 09 2009,23:48)
   
Quote (keiths @ June 09 2009,22:52)
Unbelievable. He still hasn't learned:
               
Quote
9 June 2009

A More Realistic Computer Simulation of Biological Evolution

GilDodgen

[snip mindblowing idiocy]

Achh
Err
Gack
Whatthe?

[snip]

Seconded.

Also:
<head explodes>

Date: 2009/06/10 03:45:03, Link
Author: JLT
Lamarck:
 
Quote
If biologists want to confirm that natselec/ranmut’s cause net info increase and large changes, speciation etc, they should start by realizing there’s no evidence for either of these points. So if they have a computer simulation confirming current neodarwinism, it’s automatically wrong.

Anything that contradicts my opinion is automatically wrong.

Date: 2009/06/10 12:46:59, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (keiths @ June 10 2009,15:37)
Mark Frank comments on vjtorley's latest, entitled The Conspiracy:
     
Quote
Re #35, #36 and #37

Wow! I am not sure whether you are serious. I hope not. You seem such a nice, rational chap - albeit mistaken about some things. If you really believe this lot then you must incredibly stressed and unhappy.

Wow. I'm speechless.
   
Quote
Vjtorley:

Thus the ultimate aim of the conspiracy is to create a world which is no longer governed by human decision-making processes, but by artificial intelligence. The leading lights of the conspiracy honestly believe that humanity, left to itself, will probably destroy the world in the next 200 years; rather than let that happen, they would prefer to create a more rational society, in which the key decisions are made by computers, not people. Humans are just too erratic and irrational to be entrusted with the governance of the planet, in the long term. Our brains, after all, are (according to the Darwinistic way of thinking) nothing but an assorted “kludge” of loosely integrated modules which evolved on an ad hoc basis to suit our immediate biological needs, but which can no longer evolve fast enough to cope with the demands of today’s ever-changing world. In other words, the human brain is far too unreliable to make it through the 22nd century. We need new masters.

In such a world, human wants, which are potentially limitless, will have to be strictly regulated, lest we end up destroying the planet (and ourselves) with our infinite greed. Or so the thinking goes. But a little-noticed corollary of this line of thinking is that any talk of human rights will therefore have to be jettisoned, as a right is basically a human want which society is bound to respect, no matter what.

In this “hyper-rational” society of the future, there can be no talk of people having a right to life, for in practical terms that would seem to legitimize an unlimited demand for the resources that people need to live. It could, for instance, translate into hospitals overflowing with so-called “bed blockers” - people receiving scarce medical resources which might be better allocated elsewhere, on a purely utilitarian basis.


And that's the real reason people are in favour of euthanasia or assisted suicide: They want to destroy human rights and install our new robot overlords.



(Say Hi to our new master!)

Date: 2009/06/11 05:38:48, Link
Author: JLT
Reconstructing the Evolution of Laughter in Great Apes and Humans
Davila Ross, M., Owren, M. J. & Zimmermann, E. Curr. Biol. (2009).doi:10.1016/j.cub.2009.05.028

Quote
Human emotional expressions, such as laughter, are argued to have their origins in ancestral nonhuman primate displays [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] and [6]. To test this hypothesis, the current work examined the acoustics of tickle-induced vocalizations from infant and juvenile orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees, and bonobos, as well as tickle-induced laughter produced by human infants. Resulting acoustic data were then coded as character states and submitted to quantitative phylogenetic analysis. Acoustic outcomes revealed both important similarities and differences among the five species. Furthermore, phylogenetic trees reconstructed from the acoustic data matched the well-established trees based on comparative genetics. Taken together, the results provide strong evidence that tickling-induced laughter is homologous in great apes and humans and support the more general postulation of phylogenetic continuity from nonhuman displays to human emotional expressions. Findings also show that distinctively human laughter characteristics such as predominantly regular, stable voicing and consistently egressive airflow are nonetheless traceable to characteristics of shared ancestors with great apes.


I really hope this link works: movie of a ticklish gorilla

Date: 2009/06/11 13:21:39, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (Texas Teach @ June 11 2009,17:47)
 
Quote (Louis @ June 11 2009,04:08)
 Mind you, given his current favourite game of "Wee on Dadda" and the abominable aim he demonstrates, I'm concerned he won't be able to handle a lightsaber anything like as well as Master Yoda...

Louis

Two words: secondary containment.  Slide the clean diaper under the baby before opening the old one, then pull the used one out and the new one over as quickly as possible.  When wiping is needed keep the new diaper's edge in one hand like an emergency shield ready to protect you.  I also recommend two pairs of gloves and a full face shield.  If you have one handy, do all of this in a fume hood with the sash lowered.

HAR HAR THIS IS YOU changing diapers




(Sorry)

Date: 2009/06/11 14:46:23, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (Hermagoras @ June 11 2009,17:21)
My stars Denyse is an awful writer.  She has not one but two rambling posts attempting, as far as I can tell, to continue the "Darwinism = racism" theme.

DO'L:
 
Quote
This, however, must be said: Darwinists need “ape men” in a way that no one else does, because no one else cares if there aren’t any ape men and never have been - for the same reasons as no one  cares if Puff the Magic Dragon has never existed.


Funny thing is, we ALL are "ape men". All "Darwinists" accept that. No need to make them up.
OTOH I know some people who'd really care if their Puff the Magic Designer never existed.

Date: 2009/06/12 06:46:03, Link
Author: JLT
DO'L:
 
Quote
And - while I am here anyway - if we apply Darwin’s own standards, he was completely wrong about the fate of his own “race” (as I suppose he understood it) which, rather than extinguishing others, is headed for extinction due to low birth rates.


If we apply DO'L's standards, DO'L just declared that she wants to extinguish the "Brit toff race" because in her line of "thinking" making a prediction equals declaring the intended outcome of your big evil masterplan.

Date: 2009/06/14 06:27:54, Link
Author: JLT
Has anyone watched the video ("Joseoh Campbell's Loss of Faith") WAD posted?
   
Quote
Joseph Campbell died in 1987 but remains influential. In this revealing video, Campbell clarifies why he left the Roman Catholic faith of his youth — EVOLUTION:
[video]
While many try to reconcile their faith with evolution, many find in evolution reason to leave the faith. Just because there’s no strict contradiction between the two doesn’t mean that the two aren’t in tension. Campbell felt the tension and left the faith.


Maybe I saw a different video somehow but in the video I saw Campbell said things like this:
   
Quote
It started when I was studying biology that ... there is absolutely no relationship between the biological evolution of human species and of the animals and plants, all this world here and what you get in the book of Genesis, with a cosmology that dates in the 4th millenium BC.

The myth has to deal with the cosmology of today and its no good when its based on a cosmology that is out of date and that's one or our problems...

I don't see any conflict between religion and science. Religion has to accept the science of the day and penetrate it to the mystery. The conflict is between the science of 2000 BC and 2000 AD.

And this is one of the problems with our tradition where our inherited mythology let's say of today's Christian tradition relates to the near east in the first millenium BC and has nothing to do with life here and everything has to be explained....

What we have there is the result of a concretization(?) of the symbols ... to think that this symbolic statement refers to a historical fact and the two prime ones that are troubling our world are the image of the virgin birth which has nothing to do with a biological problem, and the image of the promised land which has nothing to do with real estate. These are symbols of the birth in the heart of a spiritual life.

For me that doesn't sound as if he was troubled by biological evolution. I'd say he had problems with a literal reading of the bible.

But of course a non-literal reading of the bible means that you are No Real Christian and probably never were one:
   
Quote
riddick:
Campbell can say whatever he wants, and Dembski is free to believe him. But the scriptures make it clear that no one “leaves the faith.” [...] Based on his own testimony, it appears that Campbell was never a believer in the first place (1John 2:19).

WAD (He said evolution! He said evolution!) ignores most of what Campbell said and explains the importance of ID:
   
Quote
WAD:
Yes, from God’s perspective, God knows from eternity who are His and who are not His. But from a human vantage, we find people confessing the faith and then leaving the faith and giving reasons why they left the faith. Evolution is one of the prime reasons given. I regard this as significant. It raises the counterfactual question, Where would Joseph Campbell’s faith be if a cogent refutation of evolution had been available when he was first exposed to it?

Campbell mentions biological evolution only once, but keeps on talking about the conflict between the science and cosmology of today and the outdated scientific understanding that is integrated in the bible. I guess, after coming up with a cogent refutation of evolution WAD needs to come up with a cogent refutation of the rest of today's science if he wants to prevent more Campbells.
And Tragic mishap thinks it is a sign of weakness if you don't just reject everything that conflicts with your childhood belief:
   
Quote
I found Campbell’s remarks, confusing to say the least. I wonder what his goal is, since it appears not to be objective truth. I don’t have a lot of time for people without the cajones to say that if one thing is right its opposite must be wrong. Evolution here is just another compelling myth Campbell for whatever reason is unable to simply reject. Raised in the Catholic church, learned about biology and how it conflicted with Genesis, had not the masculinity to believe one is right and the other is wrong, [...]

There was something else I wanted to say. What was it now... ah yes:

ALL SCIENCE SO FAR!

Date: 2009/06/14 06:42:26, Link
Author: JLT
Alan Fox asks a rhetorical question:
Quote
7

Alan Fox

06/14/2009

5:33 am

Mr Sibley,

I see from following your link that you are a creationist. Do your theological beliefs drive your assessment of Darwin? I get that impression from the tone of news articles, for instance on “Ida” and “Tiktaalik” at your site.

I haven’t seen you presenting the weather recently on BBC TV. Have you retired from meteorology?

Date: 2009/06/14 07:02:04, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (carlsonjok @ June 14 2009,12:42)
First of all, I heard nothing in the video that indicates Campbell lost religious faith as a whole. What he lost was faith in the Roman Catholic Church. Second, when you listen to Campbell it is obvious (to me at least) the real issue Campbell states for his break with the RCC was theological literalism that cannot be reconciled with the observable world. Evolution was only the MacGuffin in the story.  
[snip]

Not only to you.
   
Quote
EDIT:  I guess I have to get up pretty early in the morning to get in before one of our German friends.   *shakes fist at JLT*   :angry:

*waves to carlsonjok*
:p

Date: 2009/06/15 17:32:36, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (Doc Bill @ June 15 2009,20:58)
Stephen Meyer, Director of Something Very Important at the Dishonesty Institute, has a new book coming out!

It's called "The Bafflegab of Tard" or along those lines.  They even have a pitiful Blogspot-esque website that I'll leave as an exercise for the student to find.

There is a link to Dr. Meyer's long and illustrious biography that contains this choice bit when referring to his previous "publication" of nearly 5 years ago:

 
Quote
Prior to the publication of Signature in the Cell (ed. aka Bafflegab of Tard), the piece of writing for which Meyer was best known was an August 2004 review essay in the Smithsonian Institution-affiliated peer-reviewed biology journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. The article laid out the evidential case for intelligent design, that certain features of living organisms--such as the miniature machines and complex circuits within cells--are better explained by an unspecified designing intelligence than by an undirected natural process like random mutation and natural selection.

Because the article was the first peer-review publication in a technical journal arguing for ID, the journal’s editor, evolutionary biologist Richard Sternberg, was punished by his Smithsonian supervisors for allowing Meyer’s pro-ID case into print. This led to an investigation of top Smithsonian personnel by the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, widely covered in the media, including the Wall Street Journal and Washington Post. The federal investigation concluded that Sternberg had been wrongly disciplined and intimidated. The case led to widespread public indignation at the pressures placed on Darwin-doubting scientists not only at the Smithsonian but at universities around the U.S. and elsewhere.


Dirty laundry in a freaking BIOGRAPHY!

Pitiful.

From teh short video about the book:
Quote
If you want to produce life in the first place, if you want to develop a new form of life from a preexisting form of life you have to provide information. So the question is where does that information comes from...
[SCM’s book] will show that the digital code embedded in DNA points powerfully to a designing intelligence and helps unravel a mystery that Darwin did not address: How did the very first life begin.

That's just depressing.

The Bafflegab of Tard
Index
Ch. 1: Paley's Watch
Ch. 2: A cell is more complicated than a watch
Ch. 3: Where did the information come from?
Ch. 3: Code is designed, DNA is code, therefore God
Ch. 4: Also, first cell was designed because nothing comes from nothing
Ch. 5: How can you not be convinced by this?
Ch. 6: I was Expelled because Darwinists were afraid of me
Ch. 7: Waterloo

Date: 2009/06/16 17:51:27, Link
Author: JLT

Date: 2009/06/18 05:07:00, Link
Author: JLT
Don't you get sarcastic with Gil or Clive'll put you in moderation.
Quote
71

Clive Hayden

06/16/2009

4:50 pm

Gaz,

——”Grateful for a quick reply, we’ve been waiting with bated breath for some time now.”

Drop the disdainful rhetoric or I will put you in moderation.


The offending comment:
Quote


70

Gaz

06/16/2009

4:43 pm

GilDodgen (55),

“That being said, would you kindly share with us these revelation-bearing simple mathematics about probabilities and combinatorics? If it convinced you, I’m sure it would do a number on the rest of us.

http://www.uncommondescent.com…..selection/”

Gil, are you sure you gave the right link? That just seems to lead to a rather dull and wordy thread. Can’t you just put your sub-teenager math and probabilities up for us to see here?

Grateful for a quick reply, we’ve been waiting with bated breath for some time now.

Date: 2009/06/18 15:53:50, Link
Author: JLT
Someone is going to be picked up by the black helicopters....
 
Quote
260

David Kellogg

06/18/2009

1:08 pm

Actually MN is a conspiracy of the illuMiNati and the freeMasoNs.


Just kidding. Black helicopters. Haha. There is NO big secret conspiracy that kidnaps people who spilllllllllllllll

Date: 2009/06/18 16:51:30, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (Pompous Bore @ June 18 2009,22:18)
When therefore I say the Philosophers do not care to concern God himself in the Search after Natural Knowledge; I mean, as it concerns Natural Knowledge, meerly as such; for 'tis a Natural Cause they seek, from a General Maxim, That all Nature has its Cause within it self...

There's only one possible explanation:

Defoe lived veeeeery long and wrote that in the last twenty five years or so because as we all know
Quote
The “enforcement of Methodological naturalism is about 25 years old. The idea is a little older than that, but not much.

Or he was a baby eating atheistic materialist (BEAM).

Ok there're only two possible explanations, a very long live, or BEAM.
Or          
Quote
In an attempt to rationalize the recently imposed “rule” of methodological naturalism, some Darwinist academics have resorted to rewriting history

and made up Defoe and all of his writings, including this bit. That's of course always a possibility.

Three different possibilities....

Date: 2009/06/19 06:10:15, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (afarensis @ June 19 2009,01:03)
   
Quote (JLT @ June 18 2009,16:51)
     
Quote (Pompous Bore @ June 18 2009,22:18)
When therefore I say the Philosophers do not care to concern God himself in the Search after Natural Knowledge; I mean, as it concerns Natural Knowledge, meerly as such; for 'tis a Natural Cause they seek, from a General Maxim, That all Nature has its Cause within it self...

There's only one possible explanation:

Defoe lived veeeeery long and wrote that in the last twenty five years or so because as we all know
       
Quote
The “enforcement of Methodological naturalism is about 25 years old. The idea is a little older than that, but not much.

Or he was a baby eating atheistic materialist (BEAM).

Ok there're only two possible explanations, a very long live, or BEAM.
Or                  
Quote
In an attempt to rationalize the recently imposed “rule” of methodological naturalism, some Darwinist academics have resorted to rewriting history

and made up Defoe and all of his writings, including this bit. That's of course always a possibility.

Three different possibilities....

Um, hate to mention this, but there are two other options. First, Satan planted the fake evidence so that you would be led into sin and depravity (looks at AtBC'ers and realizes that didn't need any extra prompting on that score). Second, God, or baby Jesus (or the beneficent entity of your choice) planted the fake evidence so that you would not be led into sin and depravity. Either way, ID wins!!111!

Surprisingly, StephenB picks none of these options but comes up with his own:

Defoe doesn't count because contemporary scientists believed in god.
Defoe didn't describe MN because he did "allow" the belief in god as the ultimate cause.

Both of which highlight StephenB's complete lack of understanding what a) Defoe is saying and b) what MN means.

Is he really incapable of seeing the difference between providing "Goddidit" as an explanation and believing that God created a rational universe that follows natural laws and that it's therefore possible to find out how things work like e.g. Newton believed?

BTW, I think it's really funny that Linnaeus is almost always mentioned as an exemplary creationist scientist - but they never show how he classified humans.  
I wonder why?

Systema Naturae, p. 29

Date: 2009/06/19 19:09:04, Link
Author: JLT
Quote
IMO, concentrating solely on science as the only method of attaining all knowledge is as wrongheaded as concentrating only on philosophy and metaphysics as the only method attaining all knowledge. They need each other. Science is based on philosophy, and philosophy needs something to think about. The problem comes when people make their one methodology absolute. The problem is seen easily enough concerning methodological naturalism, which is based not on methodological naturalism, but on philosophical naturalism, but philosophical naturalism cannot be reached as a conclusion by methodological naturalism.

Ah yes. I'm sure that all makes perfect sense. To Clive.

Date: 2009/06/20 06:55:44, Link
Author: JLT

Date: 2009/06/21 12:23:17, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (Dr.GH @ June 21 2009,16:02)
Re: Rodney Stark. "The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success" (Paperback - Sep 26, 2006), "The Rise of Christianity: A Sociologist Reconsiders History" (Hardcover - May 13, 1996), and so forth.

Interesting that he is a sociologist, and not a historian at all. I don't find any titles by Stark related to creationism.

In the 2nd chapter of "For the Glory of God: How Monotheism led to Reformations, Science, With-Hunts, and the End of Slavery" Stark talks about "Evolution and Religion" and "Darwin's Theory". You can read most of it at Google books here, starting at p. 176.
From what I've read I'd say it's pretty standard creationist stuff, with quotemines from Gould and Eldredge, "confessions" that the fossil record doesn't support "Darwinism" etc.

Date: 2009/06/23 11:18:24, Link
Author: JLT
"Darwin's Legacy" -- June 23rd, Heritage Foundation, 12 Noon
The Heritage Foundation and Discovery Institute invite you to hear Dr. Stephen Meyer speak from his new book Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design.
Watch this event live online. Click here at 12 Noon EDT on June 23rd to watch a live feed of Dr. Meyer's presentation. Here or if that doesn't work here

That's starting NOW, in case you're in need of some high quality TARD.

Date: 2009/06/23 11:21:55, Link
Author: JLT
AND you can ask questions via email during the lecture.

  PRESS  > Events

Signature in the Cell: DNA Evidence for Intelligent Design

Have a question for a panelist or speaker? Email us at: speaker@heritage.org

Date: 2009/06/23 12:45:56, Link
Author: JLT
Now that was an hour of my life completely wasted.
Stephen:
Quote
Proteins are sooo complex! All proteins obviously even in the very first self-replicating protocell contained all 20 biogenic aminoacids and were at least 150 aas long, so that I can mention 10^195 as the number of possible combinations (20^150). Sure. And then look at this totally modern cell with all that fancy stuff in it! It has nothing to do with how a first cell would've looked like but I just don't care!
I'm sure you don't mind that I repeat the same old shite about chance & necessity (aka explanatory filter) yet again (buy my book) and on the way completely misrepresent what pre-biotic selection means. Because as we all now intuitively the ONLY origin of information is an intelligent mind. Can this intuition be turned into a scientific hypothesis? Hell ya! We just need to pretend that inference to the best explanation don't need any actual you know "data" and pronounce our intuition to be a scientific hypothesis: If we find information the best explanation is intelligent design because intelligence is the only source of information that I don't actively ignore and agrees with my god hypothesis.
BUY MY BOOK!

Date: 2009/06/23 15:22:34, Link
Author: JLT
Wow. This Hunter guy is so full of TARD, amazing.
   
Quote
20

Cornelius Hunter

06/23/2009

11:58 am

Folks: This discussion highlights the subtlety of evolution’s religion foundation.
[snip]
Herb (#13):
         
Quote
Thanks for the link to the article. As a Protestant Christian, however, I do have reservations about using the word “religious” in a derogatory manner toward ToE. Perhaps the word “dogmatic” would work just as well, without offending the faithful.

Sorry, but Protestantism is primarily where evolution comes from (with some help from Roman Catholicism). Sorry, but the word “religious” is precisely the right word.

WTF?
     
Quote
22

Cornelius Hunter

06/23/2009

12:39 pm

Herb (21):
         
Quote
First, thank for replying. However, given that most of us pro-ID folks here are religious Protestants or Catholics, isn’t it odd to criticize evolutionists for being religious as well?

I don’t think so. I suppose most people are “religious” in some sense. I certainly don’t criticize evolutionists (or anyone else) for being religious. My criticism is directed at problematic theories, and at people only insofar as they hold to the theory. The problem with evolution is that while it is not a good scientific theory, it is nonetheless mandated by religion, and so is declared to be a fact. Yet evolutionists claim it is all “just science.”
         
Quote
Perhaps you could elaborate a bit on your Worldview and tell us if you consider yourself to be religious?

I am not anti religion. In fact I am a Christian. The problem with evolution is not that it entails religious assumptions, per se, but that it is in denial about it.

Of course the religious assumptions need to be defended as well, but first things first.

Date: 2009/06/23 16:22:36, Link
Author: JLT
Behold. The Disco'tute put a post up about Stephen Meyer's presentation. It starts with this bit:
     
Quote
CSC director Stephen C. Meyer launched his important new book, Signature in the Cell: DNA and Evidence for Intelligent Design, with a speech today at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C. In Signature, Dr. Meyer exposes the increasingly evident hopelessness of materialist explanations of life’s origins and makes a fresh, powerful, and seemingly conclusive new scientific argument for intelligent design.

LOL. Fresh, powerful, conclusive? If his "speech" is representative of his book then I'd say it's old, boring, and non-sequiturive.

BTW, sermon, yes, presentation, lecture, ok, but speech? Would you normally call something like that a speech? Sounds wrong to me, but maybe my Sprachgefühl is amiss.

     
Quote
The question and answer period [with three questions in total...] after the speech gave a preview of the avenues of attack that critics will take on Signature in the Cell. One questioner asked, “What’s the big deal here? Give science a little time!” There are always gaps to be filled in our knowledge, and science always manages to fill them.

As Dr. Meyer suggested, that would be a cogent objection if the case for intelligent design were based on a “God of the gaps”-style “argument from ignorance.” “But that’s not actually how we’re arguing,” Meyer pointed out. The design argument is based on positive knowledge about the only sort of cause known to produce information.

Another questioner posed the inevitable “Who designed the designer?” challenge. Meyer answered that if the designer is assumed to be immanent in nature, that could be a strong objection. “But then there’s the idea that the intelligence [responsible for the design of life] is transcendent,” meaning outside nature, as Meyer himself supposes. What’s known by modern science about the origin of the universe, the singularity from which all physical existence burst forth, demands that we suppose exactly such a cause. Before the Big Bang, of course, there was no nature. Whatever caused the Big Bang is, therefore, necessarily transcendent. [TARD]

Still another questioner asked how Dr. Meyer thought Richard Dawkins or Daniel Dennett would respond to his DNA-based case for intelligent design. Meyer replied that Dawkins himself has admitted “no one knows how life first originated.”

Summary: No one knows how life first originated, but we know that intelligence can produce information, therefore, first life was designed by a transcendent designer.*
N.B.: This is not God of the gaps.


* There's probably too much punctuation in that sentence. Btw, I'm convinced that no one actually knows how to punctuationise correctly in English. The only rule I could infer from observation was that the more intellekshual the more punctuation.

Date: 2009/06/23 16:40:49, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,June 23 2009,22:03)
 
Quote
Since C. doesn't seem to know much about me, the notion that he has some great insight into what I must or must not do is risible.


   
Quote


glancing up from his computer screen, chuck realizes that he is excited that wes has noticed him.  his glands increase their manufacture of secretions in anticipation of a confrontation.  he notices, irritatingly, that his palms are sweaty again.  he thinks he smells his feet.  the realization that he might be on display now causes chuck to sit up more straightly and his eyes are alertly roving the room.  the noise of running footsteps far down the hall alert his attention to the shadow in the hall visible underneath the door...  

"This is a piss-poor time for that tosser Jehu to show up" thought Chuck.  "Wes is about to call and I am buck naked watching Glenn Beck.  Darn!  Of all the coincidences, surely this one means that Jesus wants me to be straight For Him.  Yet, PZ and Jerry Coyne and Wesley!!???!!  What should I do?

The knock at the door brought him back to his senses, at least the state which he believed that most people referenced when they said "senses".  chuck couldn't possibly know that this was in fact not true, he was not like most people, but he would not know this until after the viral outbreak had destroyed the planet and the hologram emerged from the body of a former lover.  But that is neither here nor there..... for someone stood in the hall, waiting.

C. cleared his throat in order not to sound too eager.

Date: 2009/06/23 18:23:36, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (Richardthughes @ June 23 2009,22:54)
 
Quote (JLT @ June 23 2009,16:22)
* There's probably too much punctuation in that sentence. Btw, I'm convinced that no one actually knows how to punctuationise correctly in English. The only rule I could infer from observation was that the more intellekshual the more punctuation.

   
Quote
One thing? I, like: about, Dear Miss Kinnian: (thats, the way? it goes; in a business, letter (if I ever go! into business?) is that, she: always gives me' a reason" when - I ask. She"s a gen'ius! I cou'd be smart like-her, Punctuation , is? fun!"

- Daniel Keyes, Flowers for Algernon

Well, compared to that I'm, of course, a bloody amateur punctuatist.

Date: 2009/06/26 03:28:00, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (afarensis @ June 26 2009,04:51)
 
Quote (jswilkins @ June 25 2009,22:19)
Sorry! I added my vote for Grrl before I saw Wesley's claim to the icy wastes.

But I am at least conflicted, so that's OK, right?

Yeah, I did too...conflicted as well...

You can change your vote if you want to...
Just sayin'...

Date: 2009/06/26 06:21:52, Link
Author: JLT
Quote
71

Cornelius Hunter

06/24/2009

5:40 pm

Herb (70):

   
Quote
Seems like a rational person would conclude a Designer was at work.


Well I wouldn’t say evolutionists are not rational. Their argument that evolution must be a fact is perfectly valid. It entails religious premises, but given those premises, the conclusion follows.

Therefore the scientific evidence is inconsequential. When the evidence contradicts the theory (as it often does), they just modify the theory to accommodate.

The Tard that keeps on giving.

Date: 2009/06/28 04:03:05, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (sledgehammer @ June 28 2009,07:39)
What is it about sanctimonious pricks like Bussel and Mullings that they can't admit to any error, no matter how trivial?

With DaveTard, it was clearly his fragile ego coupled with his weapon, the bannination stick, that explained his behavior.  (I've known a lot of police and military officers who had similar issues).

Stephen and Gordon's behavior reminds me of my 12 yo daughter, who will moan, bitch, whine, and argue, over the smallest request, putting more effort into the argument than doing the minor task would require.  With her, at least, I understand that she's arguing over the principle of the thing, her perception being that if she gives in, it will set a precedent, and she will then forever be expected to buss her dishes, load the dishwasher, etc. Her hope being that if she makes enough of a fuss, then I'll give up and just do it myself.

Stephen and Gordon act just as hilariously juvenile, but I get the impression that it's deeper. They seem to honestly believe that they can do no wrong, possibly because they believe they are warriors annointed by the Grand Poobah, which gives them license to cheat and lie, since it's the Culture War, and all's fair in a war.

Or maybe they imagine themselves to be paragons of virtue, and losing face in front of their fellow rubes is perceived by them as a fate worse than death?

Anyway, that's my Post #100 rant.

Stephen doesn't seem to even try to understand what others have to say, he doesn't click on links that he suspects may link to "enemy" sites etc. because they must be wrong (or lying) by definition. After all the other side doesn't have absolute morals and doesn't believe in absolute truth like he does.
IMO he's a perfect example for Morton's demon.
 
Quote
Thus was born the realization that there is a dangerous demon on the loose. When I was a YEC, I had a demon that did similar things for me that Maxwell's demon did for thermodynamics. Morton's demon was a demon who sat at the gate of my sensory input apparatus and if and when he saw supportive evidence coming in, he opened the gate. But if he saw contradictory data coming in, he closed the gate. In this way, the demon allowed me to believe that I was right and to avoid any nasty contradictory data. Fortunately, I eventually realized that the demon was there and began to open the gate when he wasn't looking.

However, my conversations have made me aware that each YEC is a victim of my demon. Morton's demon makes it possible for a person to have his own set of private facts which others are not privy to, allowing the YEC to construct a theory which is perfectly supported by the facts which the demon lets through the gate. And since these are the only facts known to the victim, he feels in his heart that he has explained everything. Indeed, the demon makes people feel morally superior and more knowledgeable than others.

The demon makes its victim feel very comfortable as there is no contradictory data in view. The demon is better than a set of rose colored glasses. The demon's victim does not understand why everyone else doesn't fall down and accept the victim's views. After all, the world is thought to be as the victim sees it and the demon doesn't let through the gate the knowledge that others don't see the same thing. Because of this, the victim assumes that everyone else is biased, or holding those views so that they can keep their job, or, in an even more devious attack by my demon, they think that their opponents are actually demon possessed themselves or sons of Satan. This is a devious demon!

Don't know what KF's problem is though, I never read his posts...

Date: 2009/06/29 05:55:34, Link
Author: JLT


Logorrhoea:  
Quote
Logorrhoea or logorrhea (Greek ?????????, logorrhia, “word-flux”) is defined as an “excessive flow of words” and, when used medically, refers to incoherent talkativeness occurring in certain kinds of mental illness, such as mania. Logomania is the medical condition and mania with the underlying symptom logorrhoea. The spoken form of logorrhoea (in the non-medical sense) is a kind of verbosity which uses superfluous (or fancy) words to disguise an otherwise useless message as useful or intellectual, and is commonly known as “verbal diarrhea” or “diarrhea of the mouth”.


ETA: Five out of six. Who can get a screen capture with all six recent comments by KF? Bonus points for more than half of the comments starting with variations of PS.

Date: 2009/06/30 16:27:45, Link
Author: JLT
Dembski:
   
Quote
The suppression of Alan Carlin’s report arguing against anthropogenic global warming serves as a warning to anyone who would facilely contend that science is self-correcting. Science by itself is not self-correcting. It only becomes self-correcting when scientists and outsiders refuse to let dogmatists who pretend scientific objectivity monopolize the discussion. Science is not about consensus. It is about informed dissent. Indeed, progress in science is only possible through informed consent. Those who suppressed Carlin’s report should read John Stuart Mill, who stressed the need for all sides in a debate to be fairly represented. This applies the debate over design and Darwinism as well.

Dembski's source is the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI). That's really worth looking at...
   
Quote
In a letter earlier this month to Esso, the UK arm of ExxonMobil, the Royal Society cites its own survey which found that ExxonMobil last year distributed $2.9m to 39 groups that the society says misrepresent the science of climate change. [...]
This is the first time the society has written to a company to challenge its activities. The move reflects mounting concern about the activities of lobby groups that try to undermine the overwhelming scientific evidence that emissions are linked to climate change.

The groups, such as the US Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), whose senior figures have described global warming as a myth, are expected to launch a renewed campaign ahead of a major new climate change report. The CEI responded to the recent release of Al Gore's climate change film, An Inconvenient Truth, with adverts that welcomed increased carbon dioxide pollution.
Source: The Guardian
   
Quote
ExxonMobil should stop funding groups that have spread the idea that global warming is a myth and that try to influence policymakers to adopt that view, two senators said today in a letter to the oil company.

In their letter to ExxonMobil chairman and CEO Rex Tillerson, Sens. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, and Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., appealed to Exxon's sense of corporate responsibility, asking the company to "come clean about its past denial activities."

The two senators called on ExxonMobil to "end any further financial assistance" to groups "whose public advocacy has contributed to the small but unfortunately effective climate change denial myth." [...]
The senators singled out the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a Washington think tank, and the Tech Central Station Web site as beneficiaries of Exxon's efforts to sow doubt within the public about the scientific consensus behind global warming.

"We are convinced that ExxonMobil's long-standing support of a small cadre of global climate change skeptics, and those skeptics' access to and influence on government policymakers, have made it increasingly difficult for the United States to demonstrate the moral clarity it needs across all facets of its diplomacy," the letter said.

The letter said ExxonMobil's efforts to confuse haven't worked everywhere.

"It has failed miserably in confusing, much less convincing, the legitimate scientific community," the senators wrote.
Source: abc
   
Quote
But interests will always find a way to be heard, lobbyists say. One is through think tanks. The Competitive Enterprise Institute, which widely publicizes its belief that the earth is not warming cataclysmically because of the burning of coal and oil, says Exxon Mobil Corp. is a "major donor" largely as a result of its effort to push that position.

"I think what attracted them to us was our position on global warming," said Sam Kazman, CEI's general counsel. "And we hope to get support from other industries that agree with us."
Source: Washington Post

Soooooo. A think tank that is funded by people and groups who want to push a specific viewpoint contrary to the scientific consensus, that therefore lies about and distorts science and scientific facts, and complains about these mean science dogmatists who suppress opposing viewpoints.

Hmmm... somehow that sounds familiar. Can't really put the finger on it tho.

ETA: link, spelling...

Date: 2009/07/03 09:04:04, Link
Author: JLT
Happy birthday!

Date: 2009/07/03 09:57:04, Link
Author: JLT
How to Think, Say, or Do Precisely the Worst Thing for Any Occasion
Daniel M. Wegner
Science 3 July 2009:
Vol. 325. no. 5936, pp. 48 - 50
DOI: 10.1126/science.1167346
   
Quote
Ironic lapses of mental control often appear when we attempt to be socially desirable, as when we try to keep our minds out of the gutter. People instructed to stop thinking of sex, for example, show greater arousal (as gauged by finger skin conductance) than do those asked to stop thinking about a neutral topic. Indeed, levels of arousal are inflated during the suppression of sex thoughts to the same degree that they inflate during attempts to concentrate on such thoughts (8). In research on sexual arousal per se, male participants instructed to inhibit erections as they watched erotic films found it harder than they had hoped, so to speak—particularly if they imbibed a mental load in the form of a couple of alcoholic drinks (30). Ironic effects also may underlie the tendency of homophobic males to show exaggerated sexual arousal to homoerotic pictures (31).

LOL.
Klinghoffer should read this*. Or maybe he knows already...

Ref 31:

Is homophobia associated with homosexual arousal?
Adams HE, Wright LW Jr, Lohr BA.
J Abnorm Psychol. 1996 Aug;105(3):440-5.
   
Quote
The authors investigated the role of homosexual arousal in exclusively heterosexual men who admitted negative affect toward homosexual individuals. Participants consisted of a group of homophobic men (n = 35) and a group of nonhomophobic men (n = 29); they were assigned to groups on the basis of their scores on the Index of Homophobia (W. W. Hudson & W. A. Ricketts, 1980). The men were exposed to sexually explicit erotic stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual, and lesbian videotapes, and changes in penile circumference were monitored. They also completed an Aggression Questionnaire (A. H. Buss & M. Perry, 1992). Both groups exhibited increases in penile circumference to the heterosexual and female homosexual videos. Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli. The groups did not differ in aggression. Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.



* His latest homophobic diatribes: 1**, 2, 3, 4)

** That's the post that started it all. Klinghoffer reposted a comment from a reader that he found "brilliantly insightful". I think it's friggin' hilarious.
 
Quote
The social history behind this piece is clear: once they've experienced sex with other men, Catullus tells us, men are unsatisfied with what their new wives provide them. Notice that the poet is unconcerned about the husband's dallying with other women -- it's the other men around that threaten the marital union. [...]

And so now we come back to the idyllic day of free choice and tolerance envisioned by the gay and lesbian movement. It turns out that that day has winners and losers. The winners -- big time -- are homosexual men, because the historical record shows that they can expect their potential pool of partners to expand exponentially. Of note here is that this expanded pool of partners accrues to gay men, but not to homosexual women. At the risk of getting too explicit, I leave it the reader's basic grasp of anatomy to figure out why in ancient Rome a man who found pleasure in a woman, could also find pleasure in a man, while the record shows that a heterosexual woman rarely found sexual satisfaction in the company of another woman.

The losers from all this will be the vast majority of women. With full social sanction given to homoerotic activity, the historical precedent suggests that tomorrow's women will have a harder time finding and holding on to suitable men. As women will suffer, so will the vitality and stability of the nuclear family.[...]

But there is a utilitarian argument as well: full social sanction for the homoerotic bond is opposed not for God's sake, but for the sake of tomorrow's women.

tl;dr: If homosexuality becomes socially acceptable, all men will become gay and women won't find someone to marry.

Date: 2009/07/03 12:50:34, Link
Author: JLT
Quote
Any single woman in new York City could tell you that all the desirable men were either gay or taken.

Well. The only difference, if you still live in a place were homosexuality is a no no, is that it's not gay or taken but gay, taken, or both.
BTW, we all know who's fault it is that there are so many gays. Pornography!
 
Quote
Some of Dr. Manning’s patients report first encountering pornography at the very young age of 5 or 6. One patient—now a grown man—is struggling with same-sex attraction. He firmly believes he is straight, and wants to get married and have a family. But his first sexual experience was with homosexual pornography—at the age of 9.

From here, linked to by DO'L.

Date: 2009/07/04 05:21:43, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (didymos @ July 04 2009,10:47)

That's ... that's just beautiful!
<wipes tears away>

Thank you!

Date: 2009/07/05 04:22:20, Link
Author: JLT
Quote
32

iconofid

07/04/2009

5:28 pm

Denyse O’Leary:
   
Quote
“Why do so many of Darwinists spout so much filth, hostility, and aimless detraction?”

Well, reading down the thread, many Darwinists are, apparently:
   
Quote
… cry-baby table-pounders-; bullies who deserve to be punched squarely on the nose; uncivil; vile, and illustrative of man’s fallen nature; have probably suffered child abuse and are subconsciously reacting; …”have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity…. are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice…. are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.”; the fiercest of beasts; nihilists; hostile and immoral; vitriolic and filthy.

Wow! Right up to deserving death! Just call me a douchebag anytime!

Perhaps we should ask:

Why do so many anti-Darwinists spout so much filth, hostility, and aimless detraction, and do so with such blatant hypocrisy? :)


   
Quote
54

Clive Hayden

07/05/2009

12:39 am

iconofid,

——”Why do so many anti-Darwinists spout so much filth, hostility, and aimless detraction, and do so with such blatant hypocrisy?”

They’re not spouting filth, nor being hypocritical. There is such a thing as righteous anger.


Date: 2009/07/05 04:27:33, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (midwifetoad @ July 05 2009,02:39)
 
Quote (keiths @ July 04 2009,20:32)
William J. Murray, in a spasm of honesty:
   
Quote
I believe whatever I wish, regardless of evidence pro or con.

   
Quote
Beliefs are my tools, not my masters.

More Murray:
 
Quote
Is there a reason you think that accumulating beliefs that are approximations to reality is the only way to lead an “authentic life”? Why do you find it so important? What does it get you? What is the point?

You seem to think that it is self-evident, but I can’t see what is so important about believing “close approximations to reality” that one would prefer them to simply believing what is the most enjoyable, profitable, or helpful to believe.

Date: 2009/07/05 04:32:15, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (didymos @ July 05 2009,10:25)
Apropos of nothing in particular:


PhotoshopOTW!

Date: 2009/07/05 05:13:19, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (Quack @ July 05 2009,09:37)
About
Goodbye Darwin
       
Quote
Review
Finally a true independent and honest view of science's and religion's theories about Darwinism, evolution and the origin of life. -- Dr. Collin Patterson, Chief Paleontologist, Brtish Museum of Natural History.

Product Description
The first book in the history of mankind to challenge on scientific, philosophical and plane common sense grounds, at the same time and inside the same book, both the scientific theories as well as the religious teachings about the origin of life and human beings. The only book not backed or proded by any scientific or religious interest group.

I was intrigued by Dr. Pattersons positive review since I found the book so bad – not just badly written, but idiotic and downright silly, that I threw it in the garbage. My reaction was: Why would any publisher publish such crap?

So I thought I better do some googling, and I got this Candy for CMI

I can’t find the words to express what I think, but I believe something bad must have happened to Dr. Patterson’s brain somewhere along the way.

Well, for one thing his brain decayed...
He died in 1998.

ETA: ... in March, 5 month before the book was published. So, in principle it's possible that he reviewed the book but I very much doubt it.
Patterson about the talk that is quoted by CMI:

Quote
     "I was too naive and foolish to guess what might happen: the talk was taped by a creationist who passed the tape to Luther Sunderland... Since, in my view, the tape was obtained unethically, I asked Sunderland to stop circulating the transcipt, but of course to no effect.  There is not much point in my going through the article point by point.  I was putting a case for discussion, as I thought off the record, and was speaking only about systematics, a specialized field.
I do not support the creationist movement in any way, and in particular I am opposed to their efforts to modify school curricula.  In short the article does not fairly represent my views.  But even if it did, so what?  The issue should be resolved by rational discussion, and not by quoting 'authorities,' which seems to be the creationists' principal mode of argument."  
(Letter from Colin Patterson to Steven W.
      Binkley, June 17, 1982).


and about the talk as well as the letter to Sunderland (dated 16 August 1993):
Quote
Dear Mr Theunissen,

Sorry to have taken so long to answer your letter of July 9th. I was away for a while, and then infernally busy. I seem fated continually to make a fool of myself with creationists. The specific quote you mention, from a letter to Sunderland dated 10th April 1979, is accurate as far as it goes. The passage quoted continues "... a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way to put them to the test."

I think the continuation of the passage shows clearly that your interpretation (at the end of your letter) is correct, and the creationists' is false.

That brush with Sunderland (I had never heard of him before) was my first experience of creationists. The famous "keynote address" at the American Museum of Natural History in 1981 was nothing of the sort. It was a talk to the "Systematics Discussion Group" in the Museum, an (extremely) informal group. I had been asked to talk to them on "Evolutionism and creationism"; fired up by a paper by Ernst Mayr published in Science just the week before. I gave a fairly rumbustious talk, arguing that the theory of evolution had done more harm than good to biological systematics (classification). Unknown to me, there was a creationist in the audience with a hidden tape recorder. So much the worse for me. But my talk was addressed to professional systematists, and concerned systematics, nothing else.

Date: 2009/07/06 17:40:07, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 06 2009,21:09)
     
Quote (didymos @ July 06 2009,14:53)
Clivebaby, you are SUCH an exemplary TARD:
       
Quote

Clive Hayden

07/06/2009

10:51 am

PaulBurnett,

——”Materialism has given us medicines to increase our lifespan, decrease infant mortality rates, cure diseases, and vastly increased food supplies. Plus technological toys used by some to carp against materialism.”

No it hasn’t. Our minds gave us those innovations, not our materials.


That approaches the "I violate SLoT every time I type" gold-standard.

Our minds working in which paradigm?

If you have an exam, do you study, or do you pray?

Can't say I never prayed before an exam...

Please, let the exam questions be about <this stuff that I really studied> and not about <this stuff that I skipped because there wasn't enough time> ...

Date: 2009/07/07 09:21:11, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (keiths @ July 07 2009,07:24)
 
Quote (djmullen @ July 06 2009,23:09)
   
Quote (khan @ July 06 2009,14:18)
I shook hands with Carl Sagan, and he autographed a book for me.

Same for T A Randi.

I once toured the Yerkes observatory in Williams Bay, Wisconsin.  Carl Sagan did some kind of post-doc thingy there.  The tour guide went into the library and came out holding a book which he proudly opened for all to see.  It had been checked out by Carl Sagan.  So my Sagan/Bacon number is one.  Carl Sagan is dead.  So is Jesus.  So my Jesus/Bacon number must be two.

Fall down and worship me, puny mortals!

My sister saw Gordon Lightfoot once on a plane.  My other sister was sitting in her dentist's waiting room in Michigan when Bob Seger walked in. I was riding down the bike path in Venice Beach when Rhea Perlman skated by.  My dad looked like Joseph Cotten.  John Dillinger robbed a roadhouse about a half mile from my Mom's house.  My sister (the Bob Seger one) got an autographed book from the governor of Indiana in eighth grade.  I once unintentionally snubbed Daniel Dennett.

The brother of a friend of mine is called Elvis. I win.

Date: 2009/07/07 14:45:06, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (Henry J @ July 07 2009,19:58)
 
Quote
But you’re right, AtBC is a bunch of lay onlookers, and doesn’t represent science in general or Darwinists in particular.

Well, I'm certainly a "lay onlooker", but aren't there some professional onlookers on this forum, too?

Henry

Don't know. Is anyone here a lawyer, piano player/nearly rocket scientist, or worked for Dell? As that seems to be required to be a professional onlooker at UD...

Date: 2009/07/07 15:03:00, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 07 2009,19:59)
Gordon's Diary, day 3631:



Onlookers

1. Once again I awake on this island paradise. The Sun and crystal waters try to beckon me outside, but this would entail enjoying myself which is strictly forbidden.

2. I must do teh lords work on the interwebs. I know many hang themselves on my every words. ------> Quasi-latching into Christianity.

3. People dared to call be my real name. Somehow they cyber tracked me down. I just can't work it out. I'll moan to clivebaby. He'll ban them and then keep replying to them even though their posts don't go through -----> Victory, and I'll pontificate to the empty ad hominem oil soaked chair.

J.E.M of Truly Outrageous.

LOL. Nearly perfect.

The only thing [IMHO] you've missed [of course, you also injected humour, a concept completely unknown to the KF, but that was the whole point of your post AFAICS. And you didn't mention materialistic atheistical evolutionists burning ad hominem-oil-soaked etc.; thank you for that] are these additional [make that superfluous] remarks in brackets that make his post even more unreadable [beside their repetitiveness, repetitiveness, and pointlessness].

Date: 2009/07/07 15:13:35, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (Henry J @ July 07 2009,20:48)
The only physically inert substances that I know about are some of the elements in group 8 of the periodic table. (Although t least one of even that group (Xe) has known compounds.)

Henry

After years of research I feel confident in my conclusion that the brains of typical ID supporters are physically inert, too.

Date: 2009/07/14 03:49:14, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (midwifetoad @ July 14 2009,04:25)
All I'm suggesting, based on my own fiddling around, is that there is no need to assume that each step in the invention of a new function must be selected.

After a gene duplication mutations in the duplicated gene that limit/alter the original functionality (and might have been deleterious in the original gene) can spread trough genetic drift. Subsequent mutations can lead to a complete loss of the duplicated gene but in rare cases they can convey a new function (or altered enzyme specificity or ...).

Maybe not a perfect example for this but still interesting in this context is the evolution of hormone receptors.

Date: 2009/07/16 18:20:39, Link
Author: JLT
[quote=MichaelJ,July 16 2009,22:22]    
Quote (blipey @ July 16 2009,09:21)

Cheers to you all with a glass of fine Australian beer (fill in your favourite).

There's actually a fine Australian beer?*

Anyway, happy birthday! And Prost!**



* Can't help it. I'm German. Only a beer according to the German purity law is a fine beer.

** Since I happen to be drinking a bottle of (extraordinarily expensive) Krombacher Pils here in my Irish exile.

Date: 2009/07/18 08:37:05, Link
Author: JLT
Now that KF has shown that he, too, doesn't get the difference between a computer simulation and what's being simulated:
     
Quote
It is enough for me that the GA is itself FSCI (programs being informational entities), and that the machine on which it runs exhibits FSCI. They therefore exemplify the pattern that FSCI originates in intelligent design per our observational experience.


I wonder, if I wrote a program that shows how differently shaped objects fall by implementing code that simulates gravitational force and air resistance would that prove intelligent falling?

Date: 2009/07/18 09:48:31, Link
Author: JLT
Yesterday was a good day for tard, it seems. First Robert Byers:
       
Quote
Same shaped creatures are said to be unrelated because of some details and classified as separate with no more justification then the marsupial/placental case.

Likewise, sharks, whales, dolphins, and fish each resulted from "just a minor change of the same creatures," I'm sure. Aren't they all fish-shaped? Don't know about penguins, though. Fish-shaped or not?



And what shape exactly do rays have?
--> leaping ray
Or are they one of a kind?



And then we have this:
       
Quote
That is why I adhere to the ‘Aquatic Ape’(qv) theory of early human emergence, about which I could post at length because it explains so much, but to cut to the chase: Infants are born knowing how to swim underwater, and they are the only primate babies with considerable body fat, obviously ‘designed’ for flotation and insulation. Babies’ clenching fists are simply grabbing mama’s long hair (another aquatic adaptation) for a tow while she’s foraging.

During this aquatic phase (7 to 4 Myr ago) breasts were baby pillows and infants didn’t spend the first year of their life in total helplessness, undoubtedly a major contributor today to all human problems. So put your infants in swimmable water (even a full bathtub) as long as they want, every day, and see if they’re later easier to raise (which should count as a scientific test).

Only aquatic animals have voluntary breathing, without which talking is impossible. Only aquatic animals cry salt tears, and use what started out as aquatic osmosis-glands for sweating on land, which is proof we didn’t start on the savannah (since we’d be baboons), but only got there later.

Finally, the indispensible but not permanent aquatic phase is proof of God ultimately directing our evolution, since it required the sinking of the Milocene Danakil Alps in Eritrea to form a large Red-Sea jungle island hosting already bipedal tree-apes. The island conveniently became a desert in the Pliocene, which drove our ancestors into the lee shallows and salt-swamps for the abundant food therein.

The requisite adaptations were our upright posture, lack of hair, and the voluntary breathing required for speech, among others (anatomy always clinches the argument). Later the Home Island conveniently rose and our ancestors left its beloved swamps before they became irreversibly aquatic, like seals. Then the Pleistocene changed us into savannah runners, giving us our present rapid speech.

Only God could have ‘conspired’ to have those successive geophysical events so perfectly timed to stimulate the humanization of our ancestors, steady over a 7 million year course. Now that’s divine Patience in action.


Who's Interstelar [sic] Bill?

Date: 2009/07/18 16:40:00, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (Texas Teach @ July 18 2009,20:23)
       
Quote (JLT @ July 18 2009,09:48)
Don't know about penguins, though. Fish-shaped or not?

Here's how you can tell:

When you serve them up fried a on a bun, are they square or round?  If they're square, they're fish.

I just learned that at McDonalds (at least in Germany) they give you an additional clue:



Isn't that nice? If you can't tell whether it's fish or not by its taste (not entirely unlikely...), just look at the bun.

Now I only need to find a fast food restaurant that sells penguin burgers ...

Date: 2009/07/18 20:14:27, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (Texas Teach @ July 18 2009,23:39)
That's fantastic.  Is that ketchup, cocktail sauce, or some crazed German condiment on top?  How do they expect to catch up to the US in the size department if they aren't putting a huge glob of tartar sauce on their fried fish?

     
Quote
für Kinder im Happy Meal® um ein hochwertiges Fischprodukt.


I only took one semester of German 15 years ago, but is the "Fischprodukt" for the kids like "cheese food"?


I guess "cheese food" would be food which isn't really what it says it is (e.g. a "meat burger" that contains only 10 % actual meat and the rest is flour, saw dust, bones, fat, etc.)? If that's correct then it's not cheese food. It's actually 100 % fish. They have to call it "fish product" because the fish fingers aren't cut out of individual fish filets but rather cut from a block of frozen fish.

So, 100 % fish and no tartar sauce, just ketchup (= vegetable) and lettuce. If you now ignore for the moment that it is fried, wrapped in a bun with no nutritional value whatsoever and sold as a Happy Meal together with French fries* and a soft drink... it's incredibly healthy**!

* And Germans are known to sometimes put mayonnaise on their fries (which is unheard of in the US, AFAIK), so that could remedy any disadvantage in the size department resulting from tartar sauce deprivation.

** McDonalds says so.

Date: 2009/07/19 06:03:48, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (didymos @ July 19 2009,03:04)
I think O'Leary should no longer be considered a contributor to UD.  She's just a  spammer with inexplicable posting privileges at this point.  She's got six posts today, all filed under "Intelligent Design", and only one (more stupidity about gravity) could be charitably considered on-topic (it mentions fine-tuning).

Does anyone here have experience with Yahoo pipes? I pieced together a UD comment feed but I wasn't able to get Pipes to read out the feeds of more than the last ten posts. Is it possible to change the default "only the last ten posts" setting? After a O'Leary blogarrhea like this my comment feed nearly dries out...
Or is there an easier way to get an UD comment feed that I've missed?

Date: 2009/07/19 06:21:43, Link
Author: JLT
Quote
Seversky said:

 
Quote
T H Huxley is credited with coining the word ‘agnostic’ because he wanted a label for beliefs which were neither theistic nor atheist.


The word “atheist” in those days (today too, actually) carried with it heavy negative connotations: much like the terms ‘public defacator’ or ‘eater of babies’ and such do. So atheists are forever inventing sexier labels for themselves.


There you have it, all you whiny agnosticists. In reality, you're all baby-eating defacators (whatever that is; I guess he meant defecator?), don't try to hide it.

Linky

Date: 2009/07/19 08:11:52, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 19 2009,12:21)
They seem to do RSS
http://feeds2.feedburner.com/uncommondescent/JCWn

But I don't seem to get the comments with that, only the posts.
I suspect they don't provide a comment feed by design (sometimes I kill myself etc.) because it makes it easier to obliviated unwanted comments. The original comment feed stopped working during the the Oloffson episode at UD.

Some were talking about setting up something to automatically save the comments, so that it'd be easier to regain deleted comments.
         
Quote
stevestory @ Nov. 27 2008,23:37:
[...] and the UD RSS of the last 10 comments or so will be in that file. If you set up a script to run this every few hours, the next time, it'll save the new file into wp-commentsrss2.php.1 It adds the .1 to make the filename different and not overwrite the first one. And the files will slowly accumulate on your hard drive, and when you suspect the censors at UD have deleted a comment you can look back through your files.

Clive was installed as the new Blog czar
         
Quote
steve_h @ Dec. 08 2008,02:18:
I  can't help feeling that Clive Hayden is thier new wordpressczar. Two days ago, I'd never heard of him and now he's out there threatening bannination left, right and, ok, he's not had enough posts to get to include center yet but he's obviously just itching to include it. Who is he? How did he get white box status so quickly when, afaict, he's never posted anything of substance (!??;) and doesn't seem to exist even to  google?  (unless he's a Brit Toff ™ osteopath in London, a Brit Toff ™ in Poland, or some bible wiz in Australia)

and realized that we were recording comments.
         
Quote
7

Clive Hayden

12/07/2008

4:58 am

Your comment had a condescending tone. I don’t mind one bit that you present your arguments, just keep them properly respectful. I apologize on behalf of anyone who has treated you unduly disrespectful that’s associated with UD. That’s no reason to act that way yourself. Let’s just stick to civil and respectful arguments and discussions. Otherwise, I will ban you. There’s no double standard in that.

I have to ask, why do people record our comments and post them on that website you linked?

Around that time Barry implemented his new policy of silent bannination while pretending that no one was banninated
       
Quote
Occam's Aftershave @ Dec. 15 2008,21:08:
This seems to be the way of the new 'kinder, gentler' UD.  Under the old system DaveTard at least had the honesty to tell people when he was removing their posts or hitting the bannination button.  
These new slimy asshats now like to make selective posts (i.e. the embarrassing ones they can't address) just disappear with no mention.  Of course they no longer ban people at the new 'kinder, gentler' UD either.  They just put undesirable folks' posts in the category of 'awaiting  moderation for eternity'.

and the comment feed stopped working.
       
Quote
JLT @ Dec. 13 2008,10:42:
In the moment I don't have access to any post on UD written after the 8th December and the comment feed isn't working either. Is this just me or does anyone else have the same problem?

       
Quote
stevestory @ Dec. 14 2008,18:05:
The RSS feed of the UD comments hasn't worked for days. For a group of supposed computer programmers, they have more trouble than anybody getting their website to work.


Too much conspiracy theory?

Date: 2009/07/20 13:33:24, Link
Author: JLT
Mapou:
Quote
I am a Christian but I admit that I do enjoy whacking the enemy with a two-by-four every once in a while. I think it’s funny. And I think that we should be allowed to rough them up a little before you ban them. Who says that UD needs to be fair?

Link
LOL.
UD moderation policy explained.

Date: 2009/07/21 03:51:10, Link
Author: JLT
"Let me be clear, no one has been moderated or banned except when it was deserved. The critics do speak freely, as long as they speak civilly."

 
Quote
1

Nakashima

07/20/2009

6:06 pm

Mrs O’Leary,

I like this version better than the draft that ran here at UD 10 days ago.

Also, I saw this article on Darwin and the new biology on that site. It seems to be even-handed in its misunderstanding of both evolution and ID! :)

2

jerry

07/20/2009

8:53 pm

“It t seems to be even-handed in its misunderstanding of both evolution and ID!”

I would think it is your obligation to straighten them out now that you have pin pointed the deficiencies of their knowledge. We will approve a sabbatical from UD for you of up to a year for your efforts. See you in 2010.


ETA for betterness

Date: 2009/07/24 04:26:28, Link
Author: JLT
Quote
96

Jehu

07/23/2009

10:16 pm

khan,

I understand what Woese and Doolittle are trying to say. I have been familiar with them for years. I introduced you and Mr. Charrington to their work. However, if the conclusions you are drawing were true there would be no reason for Woese to write “we need to go beyond the Doctrine of Common Descent.” But Woese did write that because what they have discovered is not as trivial as you make it out to be.


But of course.
No one would've had ever heard of Woese if it weren't for Jehu. I'm sure HE wrote the wikipedia entry on Archaea.

Archaea
Scientific classification
Domain: Archaea
Woese, Kandler & Wheelis, 1990

BTW, another short article from Woese can be found here [pdf] (originally published in Nature 2007).
I nearly fell from the chair laughing when I read this:
   
Quote
What is becoming clear is that microorganisms have a remarkable ability to reconstruct their genomes in the face of dire environmental stresses[20], and that in some cases at least[21], their collective interactions with the virosphere (and perhaps other gene transfer agents) may be crucial to this. In such a situation, how valid is the very concept of an organism in isolation?

It seems that there is a continuity of energy flux, communication, informational transfer from the genome up through cells, community, virosphere, and environment. If the interactions are strong, and collective effects dominant, then an organism cannot even be considered in isolation. Indeed, we would go so far as to suggest that a defining characteristic of life is the strong dependency on flux from the environment, be it energy-giving, chemical-giving, metabolism-giving, or genetically-giving. This inherently biocomplex perspective renders academic such debates as “is a virus dead or alive?”.

Nowhere are the implications of collective phenomena, mediated by HGT, so pervasive and important as in evolution itself. A computer scientist might term the cells
translational apparatus (used to convert genetic information to proteins) an operating system, by which all innovation is communicated and realized. The fundamental role played by translation, represented in particular by the genetic code, is shown by the clearly-documented optimization of the code[22]. Its special role in any form of life leads inexorably to the rather striking prediction that early life must have evolved in an inherently Lamarckian way, with vertical descent marginalised by the more powerful early forms of HGT[23].
Such gradual refinement through the horizontal sharing of genetic innovations would have led to the generation of a combinatorial explosion of genetic novelty, until the level of complexity, as exemplified perhaps by the multiple levels of regulation, required a transition to the present era of vertical evolution.


Here, Woese first makes clear where new "information" comes from: through interactions with the environment. Be that the presence or absence of metabolites, other energy sources like light, or other microbes or virions.
That's a concept IDists are unable to grasp.

And in the last paragraph he completely contradicts everything ID claims.



Edited for (hopefully) moar and better grammar.

Date: 2009/07/24 18:08:02, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (JohnW @ July 24 2009,21:06)
       
Quote
Further, indicate how ID is testable: what evidence would confirm ID and what evidence would disconfirm ID?

Test: Does it look designed to me?
Validation: Does it look designed to Dembski?
Peer review: Does it look designed to Behe?

IMO, you answered all questions correctly but unfortunately missed the last part of this question:

What evidence would disconfirm ID?

Obviously a trick question. Let me guess. The correct answer would've been:

Nothing can disconfirm ID, PRAISE THE LORD!

DrDrDrDrDrDembski, am I right?

Date: 2009/07/24 18:15:14, Link
Author: JLT
From the linked Halloway post:
 
Quote
The author is Robert Wright – an American journalist and scholar who was born into a Southern Baptist family. He seems to have rejected faith as a young man – leaving Texas Christian University after only one year, switching to Princeton University.


Because there's no other possible reason why someone would prefer Princeton over Texas Christian University.

Date: 2009/07/25 07:44:35, Link
Author: JLT
Very good video about the Disco'tutes religious roots. Some of it you'll probably know already but there were some useful little facts in it that I hadn't heard before:
Discovery Institute: Let the TRUTH Be Told (part 1) and (part 2)

Date: 2009/07/25 10:22:17, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (J-Dog @ July 25 2009,15:08)
 
Quote (JLT @ July 25 2009,07:44)
Very good video about the Disco'tutes religious roots. Some of it you'll probably know already but there were some useful little facts in it that I hadn't heard before:
Discovery Institute: Let the TRUTH Be Told (part 1) and (part 2)

Thanks for the post and the link!

Yeah, I knew all that, but it was good to see the presentation, the presentations was well done, and laughing and pointing at the screen shots of Luskin are always fun and good to do.

This is an outstanding source to use in educating someone new to the DI's and the ID shill game.

Any puppets - willing to accept martydom - should link and/or post about this at UD!

One of these days I'll have to register at UD...
Unfortunately, I've got only one chance for puppetry. It's very unlikely, with all their design detection methods, that they wouldn't recognise my German accent the second time around...

Date: 2009/07/25 10:25:18, Link
Author: JLT
I posted this in the Disco'tute thread but it fits here as well:
Quote
Very good video about the Disco'tutes religious roots. Some of it you'll probably know already but there were some useful little facts in it that I hadn't heard before:
Discovery Institute: Let the TRUTH Be Told (part 1) and (part 2)

Date: 2009/07/25 16:15:20, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (carlsonjok @ July 25 2009,16:31)
       
Quote (JLT @ July 25 2009,07:44)
Very good video about the Disco'tutes religious roots. Some of it you'll probably know already but there were some useful little facts in it that I hadn't heard before:
Discovery Institute: Let the TRUTH Be Told (part 1) and (part 2)


       
Quote
Forgiveness: Prescription for Health and Happiness

This ground breaking approach offers insights into the healing powers and medical benefits of forgiveness. Dr. Fred Casey Luskin offers a powerful method in which the emphasis is of letting go of hurt, helplessness and anger while increasing confidence, hope and happiness. Through these powerful techniques individuals can learn how to release unwanted hurts and grudges and open themselves to happiness, peace and love.

Did you let go of you hurt, helplessness, and anger yet?

XOX
JLT

Date: 2009/07/26 03:16:49, Link
Author: JLT
Happy birthday, Afarensis!

Date: 2009/07/26 13:25:46, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (keiths @ July 26 2009,17:50)
Clive baby:
 
Quote
Can Dr. Collins spare an hour? What would he have to lose in an honest discussion about Darwinism and ID with Dr. Meyer if his position is tenable?

An hour doing something useful.

Let me correct that for you. Even doing this



would be an hour well spent in comparison...

Date: 2009/07/27 07:48:21, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (Maya @ July 26
2009,15:11)
Jerry
brings the tard in response to BillB:
   
Quote
"the FSCI in a GA, in a pen, a rock or anything else for that matter."

There is no FSCI in a pen or a rock though I could imagine how some intelligence might make it so. I assume it is a normal pen. In a GA, just use the letters or individual units of code and do an analysis such as the the amount of variation in an English sentence.

"Methinks I am contrary" as opposed tp "ivjioe kjfe faod tm q"

or 2^21 for each. Neither would be FSCI except there exist an independent mechanism to relate one to something else. Both of these other entities (that which does the relating and that which being related to) are completely independent of the initial entity or data set which is the source of information.

Now maybe in some other language or by using some encryption technique we can relate the second string of information to something else. If that is true, then that string is also FSCI.
There is no FSCI in a pen, therefore a pen is not designed. Got it.

Jerry follows up, admitting an error! His FSCI calculation for "Methinks I am contrary" is now 27^21, presumably the number of letters in the alphabet, plus a space, raised to the power of the number of letters in the sentence. Now, he's still wrong (surprise, surprise) for at least two reasons. First, he's using both upper and lower case letters, so he should come up with 53^21. Second, the number of bits required to describe 53 different letters is approximately 5.72, so Jerry's number should be about 5.72^21 or 8E15.

So Jerry is asymptotically approaching the ability to do junior high school math. Hopefully some kind sock puppet will explain to him that the real problem lies in applying that number to an actual biological system. Going from "it takes x bits at a minimum to describe this system" to "therefore this system is designed" requires a bit more detail than his handwaving about relating to external entities.

I can't even begin to understand how he can admit that "mabye in some other language . . . we can relate the second string of information to something else . . . then that string is also FSCI" and still claim that FSCI is well-defined.

Every time someone at UD "calculates" the FSCI by simply pointing at the length of an "instruction" that cracks me up.
All this obfuscation and in the end they're back to Look how long it is, the probability of that turning up all at once is [made up reeaallly small number] ergo GOD.
The fascinating bit about this is how inconsistent they are in applying it.
Take e. g. an enzyme X that binds substrate A and with a much lower efficiency a substrate B. After a gene duplication one of the "daughter"
enzymes X1 retains the ability to bind A but the other one (X2) mutates and binds B now with a much higher efficency (while binding A with much less efficency or not at all).
By their normal method of "calculation", X1 and X2 together are longer than X was = contain more FSCI = increase in information.
But No, they say, the information to bind B was already present in X, so it's actually a loss in information (X2 lost its ability to bind A) or at least the information content stayed the same.*
So even whole genome duplications that might have provided some of the "raw materials" for diversification in the history of vertebrate evolution (if
it happened
) wouldn't constitute an increase in information content for your normal "I'm not even using my fingers to count" FSCI
professional.**
So, in all these cases length is not equal to FSCI. But as soon as someone asks how FSCI is determined they are back to Number of basepairs = FSCI.

Invariably, whenever gene/genome duplication is pointed out and they realise that they can't maintain their length equals FSCI BS or else they'd admit that evolutionary processes can form new information, they ask where the information came from in the first place.

IMO, that's the reason why Meyer wrote his book - while the alleged impossibility of OOL was always a part of creationism, for ID (at least for the part of IDists that accepts that e.g. gene duplication followed by diversification of function can happen and has happened) it's the last argument they have left.




* The same kind of "logic" allows them to accept articles that show that a gene arose from a transposon or ERV sequence (and even see it as evidence for their claim that there's no such thing as junk DNA – the logic of which I've never understood; why should pointing out the rare exceptions where these sequences did gain a function prove that they always have a function?). That's clearly gain of function but in their mind didn't constitute an increase in information because the sequence didn't appear out of nowhere.  

** BUT, humanz has moar infomashion than monkeys!

Date: 2009/07/27 09:10:19, Link
Author: JLT
Rhetorical overkill by Mapou:
   
Quote
2

Mapou

07/25/2009

6:57 pm

GilDogen @1,

I agree with you on all four points. I may be wrong about the undertone of your message but I sense a feeling of disenchantment in your prose, a suspicion that you and others are looking for someone in authority to complain to on the unfairness of it all.

My perspective is that nobody gave us (IDers) any type of guarantee that this battle would be fair. The enemy can and will use any and all weapons at their disposal. That may seem like a bad thing but consider that this is a two-edged sword and the pendulum of superiority on the battlefield can swing both ways.

In my opinion, the enemy has proven that they are tough, they believe they can win the fight they can go the distance. I think we should stop complaining that life is unfair. I think it’s a sign of weakness. Rather, we should be designing (I love this word) a powerful new weapon, one that will shift the balance of power decisively in our favor. We need a knockout left hook from nowhere.

So far, they’ve been able to withstand almost anything we could throw at them. So obviously our current arsenal and bag of tricks are inadequate. But we should not lose heart. We may not have the upper hand but we’re still standing. My suggestion is that the ID community would do well to concentrate on finding the silver bullet that will slay the beast once and for all. I believe it is out there and we can find it.


Yeah, something like the universe matter life consciousness information DNA couldn't have emerged just by chance. That'll show us.

Date: 2009/07/27 14:06:51, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (sparc @ July 27 2009,17:52)
As I've pointed out at UD the FCSI of any of KF posts is a constant that equals GOD. In the same comment I've introduced EFCSI (effective functional complex specific information). According to a quick google search KF writings did produce reactions outside of UD. Thus the EFCSI of his complete work approaches zero. However, another measure ESDFCSI (effective self delusional functional complex specific information) of his posts is big and keeps increasing.

I hope you meant KF's writings did NOT produce reactions outside of UD.  

Just imaging the amount of hot air KF would produce if anyone actually took his made-up acronyms seriously.

The horror...

Date: 2009/07/27 14:31:18, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (Lou FCD @ July 27 2009,18:01)
   
Quote (Henry J @ July 27 2009,12:56)
   
Quote (Amadan @ July 27 2009,05:13)
5. Scientific research is a conspiracy to drain the Designer of His CSI mojo in order to steal all the goodies for Evil Athiests.

So atheists are conspiring to steal something that they don't believe exists? :p

Why not? They're atheists because they're pissed off at a god they don't believe exists.

...at least that's what my cousin keeps telling me...

And here I thought atheists deny god's existence because they are morally depraved and had a bad relationship with their father. At least that's what Conservapedia tells me.

Date: 2009/07/27 16:28:34, Link
Author: JLT
DO'L:
 
Quote
In other words, why would stuff that earns applause at Panda’s Thumb and After the Bar Closes get you kicked out of Uncommon Descent?

Because you don't get kicked out of PT and AtBC for asking relevant questions, presenting scientific facts, or contradicting Clivebaby?
 
Quote
And, incidentally, Darwin and his associates would doubtless be much more comfortable at Uncommon Descent than at Panda’s Thumb or After the Bar Closes? What cultural change does this signify?

That today even delusional people can have blogs?

Seriously, it's an interesting question whether Darwin would dive into the tardmine himself or rather hang out with the peanut gallery if he lived today, but one thing's for sure - if he posted at UD he'd be banned moderated in a matter of days.

Date: 2009/07/28 06:29:38, Link
Author: JLT
Quote
2

[URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/uncommon-descent-contest-question-7-foul-anonymous-darwinist-blogger-exposed-why-so-foul-w

inner-announced/comment-page-1/#comment-327996]VMartin[/URL]

07/28/2009

12:16 am

The problem are moderators as well. For instance at Overwhleming Evidence venue. They let in darwinists to provoke - or even invite them (for instance Alan Fox). If you get upset you are banned (like John Davison and me). At the same moment darwinists disappear with some polite words. “Good job” they think for themselves.

Sometimes it is not important which language you use - polite or crude -but what you say.


VMartin proposes a new moderation policy: Ban commenter because they're "Darwinists" not because they're rude.

Oh wait...

Date: 2009/07/29 04:39:36, Link
Author: JLT
Jerry:
Quote
By the way one criteria I use for someone with a reasonable attitude is if they do not criticize FSCI. If they do, they are automatically unreasonable and are immediately written off because the concept is so simple and straightforward that trying to undermine it is indicative of their underlying attitude. It is a good way to assess someone. There are several other tests one can use to evaluate someone’s honesty in a discussion.

TARD

Date: 2009/07/29 10:04:07, Link
Author: JLT
I've never known much about the Raelians beside their claim to have cloned humans some years back. I'd put them down as just another wackaloon sect.
But, it turns out, they aren't batshit crazy at all! Their religion is in complete accordance with Intelligent Design, I'd say it's even a bit more sciencey than that (they can even Intelligently Explain miracles: all done with alien technology).
Some details:

The Intelligent Design Raelian Movement:
     
Quote
Claude Vorilhon [JLT: he later renamed himself Rael] was a French race-car driver and former pop star. But in December 1973, according to his publication The Book That Tells the Truth, he witnessed a flying saucer landing in the Auvergne region of France. An extraterrestrial being emerged from the craft and spoke to Vorilhon. This being gave its name as Yahweh, and identified itself as a member of a race called the Elohim. [...]

"Yahweh" claimed that the Elohim had created all life on Earth through genetic engineering, and that this event was misremembered by cultures throughout the world whose sacred texts speak of creator-gods that came from the sky. [...]

Interestingly, Raelism officially describes itself as an atheist religion, in the sense that it does not demand belief in supernatural beings. That said, in every other respect, it exactly resembles traditional religion, right down to miracles (done with advanced alien technology - for instance, Raelians believe that a "repulsion beam" parted the sea so that the Israelites could cross it), prayer (which is explained to put one in telepathic communication with the Elohim), and life after death (Rael claims the Elohim can recreate an entire person, including personality and memory, from a single cell of their body, and that they have already done so for several thousand people who were taken to their home planet - they also plan to recreate the wicked, so that they can be punished as they deserve).[...]

The Raelians are also enthusiastic about intelligent design, for obvious reasons, and denounce evolution as "a myth". Rael himself repeats many standard creationist cants, like this one:
       
Quote
The evolutionists are also false prophets, false informers, people who lead the majority of the population away from the truth about our creators, the Elohim. This population, which easily swallows and dumbly believes in everything said by these narrow-minded high priests in white coats... is purposely kept ignorant and so inevitably believes that which officialdom says is true. Can you begin to imagine what the Elohim feel when they see that humans attribute their masterpiece to random chance?

[Source:Daylight Atheism]


Free download of this must-have book here


[Homework appointment: Compare and contrast these two statements:
1) This population, which easily swallows and dumbly believes in everything said by these narrow-minded high priests in white coats... is purposely kept ignorant and so inevitably believes that which officialdom says is true.
2) Holdren nevertheless represents the powerful new caste of scientists who have appointed themselves the guardians of humanity and the priests of a new social order. Their agenda and pretensions would be transparently obvious except that, with the mantle of their scientific expertise, they intimidate ordinary people from asking the right questions and thereby exposing their aims.]

Date: 2009/07/29 12:34:40, Link
Author: JLT
Someone seems to feel a bit hurt by Ian's challenge...

ETA: Or maybe he didn't like Ian's verdict about his Baptist press article.. Or both.

Date: 2009/07/29 12:35:44, Link
Author: JLT
Dammit. Too slow.

Date: 2009/07/29 12:48:36, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (deadman_932 @ July 29 2009,18:39)
 
Quote (JLT @ July 29 2009,12:35)
Dammit. Too slow.

Yours was equally accurate -- yet the more concise, succinct observation.

Thanks ;)

You aren't the only one who admires Dembski's mad climatology skillz:
 
Quote
3

herb

07/29/2009

11:05 am
Quote
Some indicators continue to show the earth cooling (my home town Chicago is having the coldest summer in 65 years). Does that show the earth is cooling? Silly you, of course not. According to the Principle of Methodological Counterintuitiveness, that just shows it’s warming.

LOL—exactly! If the earth is warming, how come we had record-breaking cold temperatures in my hometown last winter?? That’s one thing the alarmists never explain.
Besides, no one knows what the correct sea level is. Maybe it’s too low right now.

Even with a touch of Joseph at the end...

Date: 2009/07/29 19:28:51, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 29 2009,22:36)
In his longest comment ever (and perhaps the longest single paragraph ever!) Clive lays it out for everyone
           
Quote
Assuming the theory of independent creation, the intuition of the scientist was that all animal life would be composed, literally, of different material, given that they were different animals . Exactly what kinds of differing material he had in mind, he didn’t say. When it was discovered that all animal life depends on dna, and that the same material components exist within all animal life, he used this counter-intuitive finding to bolster his belief in evolution. That’s it in a nutshell. I tried to find the article, but alas, no luck. It stuck with me ever since I read it because his initial intuition was so strange. In the original formulation of science, there was an expressed attempt at saving the phenomenon, because if you posited a hypothesis that explained away the phenomenon, you were no longer hypothesizing for the phenomenon. This ideal placed a higher premium on our rational faculties and powers of observation than it did to the mysteries of nature. To hypothesize something for what it appears to be, and go from there—asserting multiple hypotheses that explain the phenomenon with the least amount of assumptions—was the program of old. Instead, today, we are fond of explaining away the phenomenon as it appears to us, which is to explain away the initial rational appearance of the phenomenon, and if this is done, is now considered the gold standard of truth, for it’s very nature of being counter-intuitive means that it is more of a hard-earned discovery than an initial intuition. The effect is not a positive one. It came about as a result of methodological naturalism, to where any phenomena, no matter how it appears intuitively, must be fitted into the box of materialism. This assumes that we know nature better than we know our own minds or the validity with how we perceive phenomena. But we don’t. Our minds and intuition are known much better than nature is known. Nature is the mystery, and we shouldn’t assume that she is the starting point for all inquiries, and that nature must trump our rational faculties at every point no matter how any phenomena appears. For if our rational faculties go, our picture of nature and our philosophical naturalism goes with it. We should put first things first. But MN puts the mystery, that is, nature, first, and attempts to explain our rational ability at perceiving the phenomena second, to be explained away if it doesn’t fit in with the natural assumption. But we do not know nature by comparison to knowing our minds or our ability at the appearance of phenomena. Like Chesterton said, “We believe in bodily miracles, but not in mental impossibilities.” We fool ourselves if we begin to think that we know nature better than how we think.

Thing is Clive, it was a dream
           
Quote
I tried to find the article, but alas, no luck.

Just a dream....

I think I understand what Jerry is saying.
E.g. the phenomenon in this here YouTube video.

OH NO HIS HEAD VANISHES!*

According to Jerry we should spend our time "hypothesising"** how the YT guy makes his head vanish (while talking the whole time) rather than trying to find out why it looks like his head is vanishing. That would be just counter-intuitively explaining away of the inital rational appearance of the phenomenon. Nature is the mystery!***

After all, the only reason we try to explain the phenomenon is that fucking heads don't vanish in our materialistic worldview.
And, just a minor point, we can see that his head is actually there if we don't look at the cross the whole time.

Not that Clive'll ever find that out...

* Just to make sure you watch that video.
** in the ID sense, i.e. making stuff up
*** LOL


ETA: I don't think that Clive would lose much if he lost his rational faculties...

Date: 2009/07/29 20:20:45, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (Ptaylor @ July 30 2009,01:39)
Joseph brings on the stupid:    
Quote
MeganC,

What is the data which demonstrates completely separate pathways is a better idea?

Also if people are stupid enough to choke on their food I say it is time to remove them from the gene-pool.

As for the nervous system going way back in evolution, well there isn’t any data to support that premise.

It is very counter-intuitive that an accumulation of genetic accidents can put together a nervous system.

He learned a new word, though.

Date: 2009/07/31 04:14:24, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (midwifetoad @ July 31 2009,06:24)
It was inspired by a comment on UD, but it's a generic comment on the argument that a temporary state of the universe -- one that will probably occupy an infinitesimal percentage of the lifespan of the universe -- is designed.

According to Cornelius Hunter, pointing out that the current state won't hold for that long (in universe terms) is a religious argument while the ID fine-tuning argument (i.e. TARD) is perfectly valid.

Date: 2009/07/31 19:44:39, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (carlsonjok @ July 31 2009,23:30)
Gordon is a real piece of work isn't he?
               
Quote

172
kairosfocus
07/31/2009
4:56 pm

A few footnotes:

1] Herb, 166: maybe it would be wise for us to go the extra mile and post a complete, self-contained example of an FCSI calculation for some “real” example from biology . . .

Sadly, that would simply end in endless distractive objections.


Yes, indeed. Let us not get distracted from the discussion of FCSI in biological structures, by actually calculating the amount of FCSI in biological structures.

That is pretty lame, even by the low standards set at UD.

Man, do betta dan dat, nuh!

And then he goes on to "calculate" the FSCI of the flagellum:
             
Quote
Now, the flagellum has maybe 30 proteins and has multiple functionality, e.g. it self assembles and sets up an acid ion powered outboard motor, with an associated control system so the bacterium can use it to go where it “wants.”

A typical protein uses 300 20-state elements, each coded for by 3 DNA bases.

So, we are looking at 30 x 300 x 3 = 27,000 bases on a raw estimate. 4^ 27,000 ~ 4.17 *10^16,255. We may argue redundancies and mods to proteins all we will and this is not going to go below 1,000 bits worth of storage. And no probability or calculus required.

Funny thing is, the calculation is not at all different from a probability calculation*. 1/4x10^16,000 is a rough estimate of the probability of the coding regions for all flagellum proteins to appear at once out of nowhere. Which is something even Behe doesn't argue anymore.

So, the old discarded ID argument was "1/4x10^16,000! Look how improbable it is that the flagellum with all it's protein-coding genes appeared out of nowhere at one fell swoop."
and the shiny new ID argument is "4x10^16,000! Look how much FSCI must have appeared all at once when the flagellum appeared out of nowhere, how improbable is that?"

And he can't understand why people object?
IT'S STILL A BLOODY STUPID ARGUMENT!

They simply put another layer of obfuscation on top of their idiotic probability argument in the hope that no one would notice.

* One could even go so far and say, that it IS the damn same calculation.

/rant


ETA: I know that you all know that. Sue me.

Date: 2009/08/01 06:21:33, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 01 2009,03:16)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 31 2009,15:42)
Uncommon Descent Timeline:


I'm thinking of making one here:

http://timerime.com/page/timeline/739/

Could be a fun, graphic tool.

I already have an ID and a log in, or can invite co-authors.

PM me if interested. No double agent socks!  :angry:

To tickle your fancy...

http://timerime.com/timeline/128563/

A praiseworthy task.
A very important timepoint in UD history:
Jan. 16 2006,17:43: Uncommonly DenseI was started

Next step: An ID timeline. Including links to Waterloo declarations, Baylor cafeteria banninations, and last updates of important ID sites like ISCID...

Date: 2009/08/01 11:08:36, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (damitall @ Aug. 01 2009,16:33)
 
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Aug. 01 2009,10:28)
Snip pure awesomeness

POTW, surely!

Seconded!

Date: 2009/08/02 03:48:28, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 02 2009,05:34)
I fail to see what's counterintuitive about children being near perfect copies of their parents. (Or near perfect intersections.)

Shouldn't we be demanding that ID proponentsists present a documented case of a new function coming into existence via multiple simultaneous mutations?

In the absence of a documented case of saltation*, conjecture about possible histories is rationally constrained to processes that have been observed.

Without the assumption of uniformity, we have no reason to believe we can extrapolate the positions of the planets to the past, nor can we be justified in convicting people of crimes based on forensic evidence.

Edit: *polyploidy being sort of an exception.

The problem with the whole intuitive/counter-intuitive thing is that it strongly depends on your experience and/or prior knowledge what your intuition tells you.
IIRC, some people thought that the notion of a round earth is counter-intuitive because people on the other side would just fall off. I don't think that anyone at UD would take that as an example for how science/scientists cherish counter-intuitiveness.

IMO, in science it depends a lot on your level of knowledge what you'll find intuitive or not.
I read the first pages of a discussion at talk rational about Sanford's genetic entropy. The creationist argues that DNA is like a blueprint and an organism is like a car. If a mutation happened that would make a wheel bigger, the car would stop working because it wouldn't fit inside the wheelhouse. So, new/altered function through mutations is counter-intuitive to him.

But that's because he doesn't have the slightest clue how embryonic development works. He probably thinks there must be a gene that determines the size of the wheel and another gene coding for the wheelhouse. But it's more likely that the "instruction" is "built a wheelhouse around the wheel". (See e.g. signalling by Sonic hedgehog, scroll down to "patterning the limb"). There's a lot of feedback regulation going on in every single cell that determines which gene is expressed when depending on what's going on inside and around the cell. Creationists tend to think that that makes the whole thing easy to break but in reality it often does the opposite: it makes the system more plastic.
So, while the idea of altered and new functions through mutations may seem counter-intuitive to a lot of creationists it is perfectly plausible if you have some background in biology/biochemistry.

Date: 2009/08/03 06:46:44, Link
Author: JLT
How's this for an entry:

Dembski, as all good scientists do when asked about predictions resulting from their hypotheses doesn't provide any but asks for predictions on his blog: ID predictions? I can haz loads but I won't tell. YOU tell me yours.
This led to 220 comments and a follow-up post by Denyse with her own "predictions" (the horror), demonstrating that not one of the UD regulars does have the slightest clue what a scientific prediction is.
Hint: It is not enough to start your comment with "I predict".

Demsbki didn't respond to any one of them.

But one month later, in the comments section of a completely unrelated post, after being bothered about it for the last 4 weeks, he finally blesses us with his answer.  
Hint: While it sounds slightly better than "I predict", "ID predicts" doesn't turn your assumptions magically into scientific predictions, either.

His "predictions" (slightly paraphrased):

- Most organs will have a function.
How controversial.

- Most Junk DNA will have a function.
Most likely wrong (depends on what you define as "most" and "function") and based on an assumption about the designer. After all, "Was the Ford Pinto, with all its imperfections revealed in crash tests, not designed?"

- My prediction is that cells look designed, therefore they ARE designed. And that is my prediction.
No, that's still a meaningless analogy.

- Scientists can't explain everything, therefore ID predicts design.
And that's all Dembski can come up with after more than a decade of ID promotion.

In the 200 comments that followed he responded only once:
Buy my book. "That said, I don’t like your tone, so unless you find another way in, you won’t be posting at UD any longer."


Or, much shorter:
14th February 2008
Finally: Dembski publishes ID "predictions" in the comment section of his blog. No one cares.

Or completely different or not at all....

Date: 2009/08/04 10:26:39, Link
Author: JLT
Whenever an IDist cites something....

"Exerpts" by idnet.com.au
     
Quote
Genes may be freely shared around, but where did they come from is the first place?

Collectivist revolution in evolution Mark Buchanan Nature Physics 5, 531 (2009) doi:10.1038/nphys1352 excerpts

“A coming revolution in biology, may go so far as to unseat Darwinian evolution as the key explanatory process in biology.

The evidence for this radical turnabout has been accruing at an accelerating pace. A fair fraction of most bacterial genomes have been acquired not solely through inheritance from earlier generations, but also through horizontal gene transfer. DNA flows readily between bacterial chromosomes and the external world.

Such gene flow exerts an enormous influence on evolutionary dynamics. This was first suspected when a number of bacteria around the world rapidly gained resistance to multiple antibiotic drugs. Such resistance spread too fast to have been ‘invented’ independently by distinct species, but clearly seemed to have spread from one species to another.

The clear impact of horizontal gene transfer on bacterial evolution has been established only fairly recently.

Horizontal gene exchange may have been the dominant force in an earlier era of evolution. The conjecture is that horizontal gene transfer was indeed required for the present genetic code to take the form it has.

Exploring that point in greater detail will be a task for a new kind of biology, one that breaks with many of the presuppositions of traditional evolutionary thinking.”


The original:
     
Quote
Physics in the past few decades has become increasingly focused on collective phenomena — on the fundamentals of phase transitions and other ordering phenomena in condensed-matter systems, on pattern formation out of equilibrium, and on the rich cooperative dynamics of granular and glassy systems, polymers and other forms of 'soft matter', or charge carriers in high-temperature superconductors and other exotic materials. Maybe this was the inevitable second act following the heroic development of the standard model of the fundamental forces in the 1960s and 1970s.
It now seems clear that biology may also have a second act linked to the widespread importance of collective phenomena. The explosion of genetic and proteomic data, of course, has ushered in the era of systems biology, as biologists have come to recognize the need to gain a more holistic understanding of the functioning of organisms. But this may not be the most radical transformation in store for biological science. A coming revolution in biology, some suggest, may go so far as to unseat Darwinian evolution (in its modern form) from its position as the key explanatory process in biology, and may just bring back some form of Lamarckian evolution — that old idea of the inheritance of acquired characteristics.
The evidence for this radical turnabout has been accruing at an accelerating pace. Nearly a decade ago, a review in Nature already surveyed broad evidence showing that the genetic diversity of many bacteria has arisen not solely through inheritance from earlier generations, but also through so-called horizontal gene transfer — the direct bacterial acquisition of new gene sequences from other contemporary organisms (H. Ochman et al. Nature 405, 299–304; 2000). For example, the traits that distinguish the bacterial species Escherichia coli and Salmonella don't seem to have derived only from a long history of genetic mutation following the divergence of these species from their common ancestral lineage — the typical image of evolutionary differentiation. Rather, the differences seem to have been driven by different genes entering individual bacteria from the environment and spreading within populations, which have subsequently remained genetically distinct.
It seems that a fair fraction of most bacterial genomes have been acquired this way, and that DNA flows readily between bacterial chromosomes and the external world. How does it happen? Apparently, by at least three mechanisms known at present, the simplest of which is 'natural transformation', in which bacteria under ordinary conditions simply take up foreign DNA from their immediate environment — DNA that has been either actively excreted from other bacteria, or that comes from decomposing cells or viral particles. A wide range of bacteria, including human pathogenic bacteria, such as Staphylococcus and Streptococcus, do this routinely, typically in response to environmental cues such as altered growth conditions or starvation, which trigger a physiological change to a state known as 'competence'.
A bacterium can also take up new genetic material more indirectly when infected by a bacteriophage, which can introduce random DNA fragments from another organism it has previously infected. Or genes can be transferred during physical contact between a bacterium and a cell of some other organism, including many plants. Further research will no doubt explain other mechanisms of horizontal gene transfer.
But whatever the mechanism, it is clear that such gene flow exerts an enormous influence on evolutionary dynamics. This was first suspected even in the 1950s,when a number of bacteria around the world rapidly gained resistance to multiple antibiotic drugs. Such resistance spread too fast to have been 'invented' independently by distinct species, but clearly seemed to have spread from one species to another. Recent studies show that bacteria exploit pools of available genetic material in a variety of ways, including the discovery and adoption of new genes required for establishing virulence in specific organisms. This seems to be a crude analogue of social learning, in which one species can learn the good tricks already discovered by another.
And what we know now is presumably only a beginning. The clear impact of horizontal gene transfer on bacterial evolution has been established only fairly recently using large-scale genome sequencing, and in the context of a small number of bacteria. Biologists have only begun exploring the various environmental factors that promote or limit horizontal gene transfer, and know almost nothing of how this mechanism of genetic sharing influences the overall logic of the evolutionary process itself.
After all, the apparent ubiquity of horizontal gene transfer implies that microorganisms have an impressive capacity to actively alter their genomes in response to environmental stresses or opportunities, and this capability is intimately linked to their involvement in a larger community in which the diversity of genetic material resides. Consequently, as some authors have suggested (N. Goldenfeld and C. Woese, Nature 445, 369; 2007), the basic concept of an organism as an isolated biological entity with a unique genetic make-up makes little sense in the bacterial world, as the genetic repertoire of an entire population, as well as foreign species, is available to any individual within it.
This profound difference also raises the interesting possibility that horizontal gene exchange may have been the dominant force in an earlier era of evolution. A host of empirical studies suggest as much, and the need for such a perspective has also arisen from careful consideration of the genetic code and its optimality. Some suggest that the structure of the code can be understood as having an optimal character, but not if considered from a perspective based on standard vertical evolution with genes only flowing downwards through inheritance (K. Vetsigian, C. Woese and N. Goldenfeld Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 103, 10696–10701; 2006). The conjecture is that horizontal gene transfer was indeed required for the present genetic code to take the form it has, and that the emergence of life most likely went through a series of stages, with the early stage more Lamarckian in character, and only the latter stages becoming more Darwinian.
Exploring that point in greater detail will be a task for a new kind of biology, one that breaks with many of the presuppositions of traditional evolutionary thinking, and explores the potential for rich and surprising dynamics in a collective setting. It will almost surely benefit from the ideas and experience of physics, which has already experienced its own collectivist revolution.

["exerpts" bolded, interesting ellipses in red and two nice Woese references in blue]

It's more interesting to consider why idnet left out the bits I highlighted than what he actually posted.
It seems that he doesn't like the fact that HGT was known to happen for quite a while and only the whole impact of HGT was discovered recently (because whole genome sequencing became possible).
He also doesn't like references to empirical research and/or evidence in earlier studies. That's understandable, he being an IDist and all.

Date: 2009/08/04 17:00:49, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (Maya @ Aug. 04 2009,20:07)
DLH skips directly to incoherence.

I've got to leave the straight tard to those of you who have already burned out whatever neurons act as a fuse for this stuff.  As near as I can tell, DLH is saying "People use language, therefore ID is true."

I need a lie down.  Maybe even a stuffed animal.

Oh no, he even mentions Werner Gitt, Creationist Information Scientist. The guy is completely bonkers. At least he doesn't pretend to be anything else than a full blown creationist.

Date: 2009/08/04 18:13:20, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (khan @ Aug. 04 2009,23:44)
New page?

I couldn't see my own comment for a while. It showed up in the overview and I could see it in the preview but not the page with the comment itself.
Interesting....

Date: 2009/08/05 14:20:59, Link
Author: JLT
Looks like Afarensis needs a bit of encouragement and a new computer.

Date: 2009/08/05 17:06:00, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 05 2009,21:31)
 
Quote (JLT @ Aug. 05 2009,14:20)
Looks like Afarensis needs a bit of encouragement and a new computer.

You can donate here:

http://scienceblogs.com/afarensis/


he promises not to spend it all on womens clothes.

Done. That'll show him.

Date: 2009/08/06 17:43:36, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (khan @ Aug. 06 2009,22:03)
Quote (dvunkannon @ Aug. 06 2009,17:00)
 
Quote (khan @ Aug. 06 2009,14:26)
I'm back, more or less.

BTW, are you Khan on UD right now?

That's not me.

I hope you feel better!

Date: 2009/08/28 05:59:06, Link
Author: JLT
Egnor's latest:
 
Quote
It’ll be interesting to see how the struggle between the new atheists and the framing atheists works itself out. I have no doubt that the new atheist approach is of considerable help to the ID movement. New atheism is an amalgam of all that is odious about atheism: self-aggrandizing arrogance, ignorance of even the rudiments of philosophy or theology or history, and the inexorable recourse to censorship, professional destruction, and other totalitarian methods. The only way in which the new atheists make the theist job harder in this debate is that the new atheists are so radically explicit that they’re difficult to satirize.

Framing atheists are much more difficult to deal with. They are less likely to be practicing scientists, but they are much savvier about the effective advancement of their ideology. The only way that atheism can advance is if it is implicit in cultural change, not explicit. That is why Darwinism has been atheism’s most powerful engine, bar none. The assertion that there is no God and therefore no teleology in nature is, to thoughtful men, transparent nonsense; it can only be advanced by cloaking it in ‘science’ — ill-defined concepts such as ‘evolution’ serve nicely, and have been remarkably effective.

LOL.

Date: 2009/09/26 07:43:17, Link
Author: JLT
Whoa. I just caught up with you guys after being away for a while. I've got a slight tard overdose just by reading the quoted bits.

Date: 2009/09/26 08:21:55, Link
Author: JLT
Naturally, being a tard addict an' all, I couldn't stay away from the real source. And what do I find? A comment from DO'L in which she implies* that the Irish blasphemy law was instated because the Irish are afraid of Islamists.

mikev6 asks:

   
Quote
So you feel that Catholics in Ireland opposed this bill and it was passed despite that opposition by a strong Islamic movement? You also feel that only Islam is upset with blasphemy and Christians are immune to it? In that case, why the post here on UD?


DO'L answers:

   
Quote
I haven’t researched the situation in Ireland, but I do know that Islamic-dominated nations are the main group interested in official blasphemy laws. And the religion they mean to protect is Islam, not Catholic Christianity.

That means, explicitly, protecting it against criticism by Muslims and others who are angry about injustices perpetrated in its name. [...]

If the Irish follow suit with the Islamists, they should be ashamed of themselves.

Is it possible they are afraid of Islamic fascists? Lord knows, after 9-11, 7-11 and the Tube bombings, some people may just be quietly selling out.


* At least that is what my DO'L parser came up with. It must be broken. Even DO'L couldn't come up with something that ridiculous.**

** I've been away for too long. Nothing could be too ridiculous to believe in for someone who buys into ID.

Date: 2009/10/05 13:10:49, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (csadams @ Oct. 04 2009,00:55)
Sorry, Floyd, I just can't trust you to provide accurate information about textbooks.  That's why I'm asking for you to provide a page scan rather than an FTE cite.  

I found a quote of the relevant passage here (quoted by Nick Matzke):
 
Quote
   Joe Levine and Ken Miller, 1991 college textbook Wrote:

   [begin p. 152]

   SUMMMARY OF NATURAL SELECTION AS PRESENTED BY DARWIN

   The evolutionary process as Darwin envisioned it can be summarized as follows:

   1. Organisms alive today were not specifically created as we see them but have descended from species that lived before them. This concept of common descent links plants and animals together into groups descended from ancestors they share.

   2. More organisms are produced than can possibly survive, most die before reaching sexual maturity, and many that do survive fail to reproduce. Individual organisms are constantly struggling against each other, and often against hostile environmental conditions, for the necessities of life.

   3. The physical characteristics of individual members of each species vary a great deal, and much of this variation can be inherited.

   4. Some variants in each generation are better suited to life in their environment – that is, better adapted – than others.

   5. Better-adapted inviduals are more likely than others to survive and reproduce; hence the phrase “survival of the fittest.”

   6. Over time, natural selection can both produce changes in existing species and create new species from pre-existing ones.

   Scientific and Philosophical Significance

   Evolutionary theory has profound practical and philosophical repercussions that make it essential for all educated people to understand the essentials of Darwinian thought.

   Philosophical ramifications Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that matter is the stuff of all existence and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its by-products. Darwinian evolution was not only purposeless but also heartless – a process in which the rigors of nature ruthlessly eliminate the unfit.

   Suddenly, humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us. The great human mind was no more than a mass of evolving neurons. Worst of all, there was no divine plan to guide us. These realizations troubled Darwin deeply, for in his day, materialism was even more outrageous than evolution (Figure 8.14). Some scholars speculate that fear of being branded a heretic for his materialism contributed to Darwin’s 21-year delay in publishing his theory. The same antimaterialistic reasoning also drives much modern-day opposition to evolutionary thought.

   Yet as pointed out by evolutionary scholar Douglas Futuyma, seldom do the detractors of the Darwinian world view take note of its positive implications. In Darwin’s world we are not helpless prisoners of a static world order, but rather masters of our own fate in a universe where human action can change the future. And from a strictly scientific point of view, rejecting evolution is no different from rejecting other natural phenomena such as electricity and gravity.

   Darwin remained to the end a devout, if somewhat unorthodox, Christian. “I see no good reason why the views given in this volume should shock the religious feelings of anyone,” he wrote. Like religious scientists of many faiths today, he found no less wonder in a god that directed the laws of nature than in one that circumvented them.

   Darwin and politics Political theorists have always had a field day with Darwin’s materialistic world view, although different individuals have interpreted and extended its message in diametrically opposite directions. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, for example, saw in evolution both justification for the overthrow of the aristocratic order and proof of the inevitability of the class struggle. Yet Henry Ford, American’s preeminent capitalist, found in Darwinism the perfect rationale for the free-enterpriser system.

   Herbert Spencer championed the twisted logic of social Darwinism, which had nothing to do with Darwin himself.

   [end p. 152]

   [bolds and italics original]

Date: 2009/10/10 07:14:50, Link
Author: JLT
Stuart Harris
 
Quote
We can see a similar result caused by Western nations’ welfare states. Women become dependant on the state, essentially marrying the government to provide them with material sustenance and security. Men in the welfare culture live outside a culture that needs marriage, and become superfluous loners with a vastly greater likelihood of committing crimes and joining gangs as a substitute for family.

The welfare state destroys marriage therefore men become criminals?

Ah, yes. Just stop giving out welfare cheques and crime rates will drop. That'll work.

Date: 2009/10/10 07:32:30, Link
Author: JLT
Quote
29

Clive Hayden

10/10/2009

7:06 am

Well, if you adhere to the materialistic framework that evolution explains our existence, then it must explain our whole existence, in which case you can put the blame for everything squarely on the shoulders of evolution.


HAHHHAHAAAA!
Clive,baby you didn't think that through, do you.
   
Quote
Well, if you adhere to the materialistic Christian framework that evolution God explains our existence, then it must explain our whole existence, in which case you can put the blame for everything squarely on the shoulders of evolution God.

At least, in a "materialistic framework" things just happen to be the way they are, nobody wanted them to be exactly as they are.

Date: 2009/10/14 10:13:48, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (FrankH @ Oct. 13 2009,14:43)
Speaking of scientific illiteracy.

Hello people, long time, no posting.

I've many "antis" at my work site.  One of the biggest "anti" is Global Warming.  Is there a good website to use as a resource for the "Heat Islands of cities skewing the results", "Solar Cycles mean the Earth is cooling", etc?

Yes, I live in the South.

How to talk to a climate skeptic
An answer to almost anything climate "skeptics" come up with, e. g. urban heat islands

Date: 2009/10/14 13:23:32, Link
Author: JLT
I probably shouldn't do this but I can't help myself:

 
Quote
3

spark300c

10/13/2009

12:29 pm

in this vid I clam that 2nd law encourages genetic decay

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpApuOy-3v0


OMG,

we're doomed, DOOOMED! Waterloo is imminent! Just watch the video and realise that the really intelligent people are all in favour of ID.

(he's got even a PART II! I love his illustrations, e.g. at 2:05)

I'll now stand in the corner and think about what I've done.

ETA: OMG ONOZ

Date: 2009/10/14 13:39:31, Link
Author: JLT
Quote
10

Bilboe

10/14/2009

12:26 pm

I was able to get the book at Baker Book House last Friday. I think the retroactive effects of the Fall would explain it. We could just say that creation had been subjected to futility from the beginning, because Adam and Eve rebel in the garden of Eden (an island paradise in a fallen world). If Behe’s argument is correct, then things like the malaria parasite were actually designed, not just devolved. In that case, Satanic design seems the most likely explanation. Prof. Dembski suggests that Satan was given authority of the Earth retroactively, because of the Edenic Fall. I think C.S. Lewis would have offered a different explanation of why Satan had authority over Earth. But either way, we have a planet that in some way is under the dominion of a fallen angel, which would explain designed natural evil. I applaud Prof. Dembski for adopting Lewis’s view, which is certainly against today’s “mental environment.”


"In that case, Satanic design seems the most likely explanation."

...


Date: 2009/10/14 13:41:38, Link
Author: JLT






Date: 2009/10/14 14:13:37, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (midwifetoad @ Oct. 14 2009,20:05)
You guys aren't even a little bit troubled by the destructive power of radaition?

I'm more concerned about the fact that natural secletion isn't 100 % efficient.

Date: 2009/10/15 11:53:11, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (JLT @ Oct. 14 2009,19:41)



My very first POTW.
I'm so proud.

<sniff>

Date: 2009/10/15 12:00:02, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (KCdgw @ Oct. 15 2009,14:24)
You have to love this:

Doomsday Smith:

     
Quote
Whatever the actual reason, though, there’s still nothing in thermodynamics for either you or ID in general to latch onto and that poor horse is still stone-cold dead. If it seems like it’s still twitching a bit, that’s only because you keep whacking on it so much.

eric B answers:
   
Quote
In short, “mechanisms which can produce biological complexity derive power from the sun.” is a bogus concept, a fiction. There is no support whatsoever, either empirical or theoretical, for supposing there could be such a mechanism in an undirected prebiotic universe.


Funny. I always thought we knew such a mechanism....

Date: 2009/10/17 03:42:48, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (Dr.GH @ Oct. 12 2009,18:09)
Molecule by molecule, mutation by mutation with full selection

Behe and Dembski have both made famous demands for what they would accept at an evolutionary explanation;

Jamie T. Bridgham, Eric A. Ortlund & Joseph W. Thornton
“An epistatic ratchet constrains the direction of glucocorticoid receptor evolution” Nature Vol 461|24 September 2009

So, I guess they will become good Darwinists now.

Thornton responds to Behe's take on his work.

A very good take-down of Behe that shows not only how Behe misrepresents Thornton's current work but also why Behe (and ID) suck in general.

 
Quote
Finally, Behe erroneously equates “evolving non-deterministically” with “impossible to evolve.”  He supposes that if each of a set of specific evolutionary outcomes has a low probability, then none will evolve.  This is like saying that, because the probability was vanishingly small that the 1996 Yankees would finish 92-70 with 871 runs scored and 787 allowed and then win the World Series in six games over Atlanta, the fact that all this occurred means it must have been willed by God.

Date: 2009/10/17 04:22:49, Link
Author: JLT
Marvel at this wonderful example of persecution complex:
Rude:
   
Quote
Prof. Dembski is right to bring this up. In the Thirties most nice, modest people did nothing. Is this déjà vu? Could it be the Thirties all over again?

Today a thick anti-right-wing-Christian (and anti-right-wing-Israeli-”settler”) fog saturates the air, much like the virulent anti-Semitism of the Thirties. Then it was biology—a Darwinian inspired racism. Now it’s nihilism—which again you can trace directly back to that same source—you dare make any truth claims today and you will be hated passionately.

DO'L eats it up, of course:
   
Quote
Rude at 12, yes, it is the 1930s revisited.

We cannot change it; we can only endure it, face it, and decide how to fight back.

Note: Most of what is said about “right-wing Christians” today is either not true or not important.

Rude's follow-up:
   
Quote
But I’m not saying anything about Darwin’s intentions—it’s the universal acid with which he is credited that has erased meaning and morals from the academy and the world.

All the time now we see traditionalists bewildered when they make some logical argument and are met with anything but. I don’t think it’s that our postmodernist critics simply sizzle with evil, rather they have been taught that there is no logic, no truth, no purpose, and that language is a only political tool and that feelings and power and prestige are all that matter.

Yes, O’Leary, let’s face it and fight back before it is too late.


Date: 2009/10/17 15:50:51, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 17 2009,18:14)
There is no doubt of water covering the earth--even mountains (e.g. shells on Everest as mentioned earlier)--but you guys choose to interpret it as tectonic uplift or receding oceans. How you betray your arguments by not allowing the same latitude for the flood.  You need to read Baumgardner

I figured it all out!
First the earth contracted*, so that the existing water covered it. No need for extra water. It probably also rained a lot, but maybe it was just bad weather season.

Then, Noah, boat, etc.

Finally, the earth expanded** again!

Makes as much sense as Baumgardner's stories.

* Could be, that a big gas bubble inside the earth burst***
** and gas built up again.
*** We all know that the earth is hollow on the inside, don't we.

Date: 2009/10/18 10:25:26, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Oct. 18 2009,16:17)
Keiths/Ravemo

There seems to be a bit of sleight of hand in the Ravens/Marbles example to which intuition also objects, and I'd be interested in your thoughts on same. (I'm thinking aloud).

Consider the marbles. In your example you drew a marble from the truck and found that it was a non-cracked red marble. That supplied incremental evidence for the proposition that all blue marbles are cracked because there is now one less opportunity for disconfirmation of the cracked-blue hypothesis.

However, suppose you draw more red marbles and some are cracked. Each draw of a cracked red marble also reduces by one the number of opportunities for disconfirming the cracked-blue hypothesis. Therefore it seems to me that information regarding the crackedness or red marbles (or the yellowness of bananas) is entirely superfluous - drawing any red marble will do, cracked or not, and we needn't observe whether is is cracked.

Knowing that any draw of a red marble (cracked or not) increases the probability that our cracked-blue hypothesis is correct to an equal degree, and having time to kill, we proceed to draw only red marbles. Per above, we needn't observe whether they are cracked. We simply remove them and discard. With every removal our excitement grows, as with each (per the logic above) it is becoming more likely that all blue marbles are cracked. Ultimately we are left with an unknown quantity of blue marbles, only. We can't be sure every blue marble is cracked, but the probability of same has incrementally increased, because the number of possible disconfirming observations is reduced.

Something is obviously wrong with the above. Having removed all red marbles from the truck we are no closer to knowing whether all blue marbles are cracked than before we started. What has happened (still thinking aloud) is that when we are able to select marbles on the basis of color, a deliberate draw of a red marble is not observation with relevance to the cracked-blue hypothesis, and therefore does not reduce the pool of such possible observations by one. A given draw is in the pool of observations relevant to that hypothesis - one that could possibly disconfirm the cracked-blue hypothesis - only so long as the we draw marbles blindfolded. Similarly, vis ravens and non-ravens, a given observation of an object remains in the the class of observations that are potentially relevant to the black-raven hypothesis (therefore, upon making it, reducing the pool of observations by one) only so long as we remain ignorant of whether or not the object is a raven prior to making the observation. But, at least vis bananas versus ravens, that level of ignorance is implausible.

What am I missing?

Your marbles?




ETA: I'm soo sorry, I tried to resist, honestly. Here, let me help you:

Date: 2009/10/23 11:48:02, Link
Author: JLT
As a service to all those who think that their religion isn't compatible with reality and therefore need to pick a new one:



HTH

Date: 2009/10/26 05:29:52, Link
Author: JLT
Corny Hunter's new book was reviewed by Creation Ministries:
   
Quote

In considering Hunter’s ‘moderate empiricism’, some hard questions need to be faced. Is it possible to put aside all preconceptions? [...]
In evaluating ‘moderate empiricism’, we should recognize that it is impossible to actually abandon all presuppositions in favour of completely open possibility—impossible to do that and still live with the results, that is. For instance, suppose one gave up the presupposition of regularity in the universe. There would then be no reason to suppose that the experiment you did yesterday would turn out the same today, or that the sun would rise again. All prediction would be destroyed. The fact of the matter is that a host of presuppositions is required to even carry on a rational conversation: presuppositions about the nature of logic, about the existence of other minds, and about the regularity of nature, to name a few. Hunter could never advocate an abandonment of all presuppositions.

Interesting. Regularity of nature is a required presupposition, says a YEC? One of those who pretend that radioactive decay was much faster at some time in the past, who claim that you can't say anything about historical facts if nobody was there to witness it?
   
Quote
A presuppositional analysis can prevent Christians from making an unwise choice between rationalism and empiricism. But a new question can be raised at this point. What is the actual position of ID on this issue? Hunter’s comments about ID are not particularly analytical, and often could be read just as easily as either describing ID as it as, or prescribing what ID ought to be.
[...]
Creationists should, and generally do, appreciate ID for the good it has done, even if we wish it did not stop where it has. That position applies very well to Science’s Blind Spot. This book is a very helpful contribution to the literature on naturalism, and does a fine job placing the naturalist dogma in historical perspective as dogma. It is an easy and enjoyable read, even if its large-scale structure could have used a bit of tightening up to avoid some internal repetition. Its fault lies in its overly generalized treatment of axioms, failing to distinguish, appreciate and adequately deal with the more foundational issue of presuppositions. Like the rest of ID, Science’s Blind Spot is a very useful resource, but is, at the same time, a resource that should be used with caution.

LOL. That must hurt.

Date: 2009/10/26 14:24:54, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (JLT @ Oct. 17 2009,09:42)
   
Quote (Dr.GH @ Oct. 12 2009,18:09)
Molecule by molecule, mutation by mutation with full selection

Behe and Dembski have both made famous demands for what they would accept at an evolutionary explanation;

Jamie T. Bridgham, Eric A. Ortlund & Joseph W. Thornton
“An epistatic ratchet constrains the direction of glucocorticoid receptor evolution” Nature Vol 461|24 September 2009

So, I guess they will become good Darwinists now.

Thornton responds to Behe's take on his work.

A very good take-down of Behe that shows not only how Behe misrepresents Thornton's current work but also why Behe (and ID) suck in general.

     
Quote
Finally, Behe erroneously equates “evolving non-deterministically” with “impossible to evolve.”  He supposes that if each of a set of specific evolutionary outcomes has a low probability, then none will evolve.  This is like saying that, because the probability was vanishingly small that the 1996 Yankees would finish 92-70 with 871 runs scored and 787 allowed and then win the World Series in six games over Atlanta, the fact that all this occurred means it must have been willed by God.

And now Behe responds to Thornton's response to Behe's reaction to Thornton's work.... in several posts!
I'm soo excited. More TARD to come!

ETA: and tard it is, here and here.

Date: 2009/10/27 07:44:20, Link
Author: JLT
Happy birthday, Dvunkannon!

Date: 2009/10/27 16:41:25, Link
Author: JLT
I <3 Mark Frank
 
Quote
It is curious that those who think the difference between humans and other species is immaterial should be so concerned to find material differences to justify the difference.


StephenB OTOH...
 
Quote
—-seversky: “We have no need of the opinion of some deity about what is our aim or purpose or our worth. And we can – and have – worked out morality for ourselves.”

Yes, indeed. The atheist life ethic may be summed up as follows: When we want them, babies may live; when we don’t want them, they must die. Further, because humans have no inherent dignity, their official worth shall be calculated in terms of their potential to provide a return on the money invested by the state. Thus, those between the ages of 0 – 15, and those over 40, are worth far less than those between the ages of 15 and 40.


This guy is truly disgusting.

ETA: Even cats don't like him.



Oh and yes, this artwork was made with PAINT, why do you ask?

Date: 2009/10/27 17:46:08, Link
Author: JLT
Drama at UD!
BA^77:
 
Quote
Well tragic,
The bad design argument is basically a “religious argument” as Cornelius Hunter has amply pointed out many times. A religious argument that can be debated endlessly as such, and really has no bearing on the empirics at hand. Namely that, despite extensive studies, mutations to DNA have NEVER shown an ability to significantly effect Body Plans on their own. Though to be fair to your “Genetic Reductionism” position a “all or nothing” ability is noted for DNA by Venter for individual bacteria cells:

Of course, then he goes on to quote bible verses.
tragic mishap:
 
Quote
Well I’m sorry for implying the bad design argument. I did not of course complete it because I do not agree with it. I’m just wondering if you understand the implications of your belief. You still haven’t answered my other question about the lizard egg.

I’m a YEC. That means I believe God finished, finished, his creation in six days. Since then it’s been winding down like a great big wind-up toy, functioning through residual energy given to it at the beginning by God. If you wish to believe that God is stepping in wherever we do not know any material cause, well that is a classic example of god-of-the-gaps. You could be right, but there’s no point in doing further science if you are.

A YEC is lecturing an OEC about using the god-of-the-gaps-argument? I'm not sure I can take this. Luckily, I threw out my last irony meter years ago. The explosion might've killed me.

In response, BA^77 throws bible verses at tragic to prove that every single human being is created by god in the womb.
Somewhere in there (you didn't think that I had actually read all of what BA^77 wrote, did you) he must've mentioned some quantum woo, because he gets schooled by tragic:
 
Quote
You know Ken Miller uses the quantum mechanics argument as well. Funny thing is, if God uses quantum mechanics to “hide” his divine intervention from science, he could affect pretty much everything without ever being detected. In other words, ID is pointless since God pretty much acts in a way that is undetectable. This is why Ken Miller uses that argument.

LOL. You know, tragic, if you hadn't been brainwashed into believing this 6 days creation stuff as a child you might've had become an AtBC regular.

Predictably, BA^77 doesn't like that and links to 4 youtube videos in his answer:
 
Quote
Well, I don’t know, or really care, what Ken Miller thinks from what little I’ve seen of his work, but for him to say God is “undetectable” in quantum mechanics is the height of denial of reality for quantum mechanics clearly shows that reality IS “supernatural”.
[snip random quotes and links]


tragic: BA^77, you're a moron.
 
Quote
You know BA, I appreciate all the information you post, but I often fail to see the relevance.


BA^77: I don't play with you anymore.
 
Quote
Well tragic I’m sorry I guess you aren’t interested, at least take a look at the Euler’s Number video, I’m pretty sure that will lift an eyebrow.

Date: 2009/10/27 18:26:51, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (Texas Teach @ Oct. 28 2009,00:18)
 
Quote (khan @ Oct. 27 2009,18:06)
 
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 27 2009,18:40)
StephenB:
     
Quote
The atheist life ethic may be summed up as follows: When we want them, babies may live; when we don’t want them, they must die.

So no "believer" has ever had an abortion? According to StephenB I guess not.

Anybody fancy asking him? I've not been able to stand the stink over there lately...

Abortion is one of the most common medical procedures in the USA. Lying cretins try to ban abortion while they have them.

By the numbers, it's either that or not only are we being atheists on a daily basis, we are also having multiple abortions each day too.

Female and male atheists...

Date: 2009/10/30 08:49:19, Link
Author: JLT
Quote
11

Clive Hayden

10/27/2009

10:40 pm

PaulBurnett,
 
Quote
Centuries ago, millennia ago, essentially all mysteries of physics, chemistry and biology were attributed to divine powers, because humans had no science – “divine powers” were the best or only explanation for the mysteries of nature.

Divine powers are still the only explanation for nature. Science can only detect descriptions, not explanations.

 
Quote
12

StephenB

10/27/2009

11:47 pm

—Paul Burnett:
 
Quote
Eventually there will be no need to invoke “divine powers” at all, as science continues to narrow the gaps where they are still the only explanation – where mysteries still exist.

It is not just the origin of nature that must be explained but also its continued existence. God didn’t just make the universe appear in the past, he continues to sustain it in the present. Materialists/Naturalists look for ways to dismiss the first point without even taking into account the second point.


ALL SCIENCE SO FAR!

Date: 2009/10/30 15:31:28, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (Reg @ Oct. 30 2009,19:58)
Darwin was Wrong! About a particular geological problem over 20 years before publishing On The Origin. See? See? Darwin was totally wrong! So there, thus evolution is wrong too.

The ID crowd would have people believe that Darwin is an unchallengable and hallowed saintly figure who nobody dare criticise. But the post shows an example of Darwin's theorising and conclusions being entirely open to debate and to being overturned by better explanations. Almost as if some methodical and open process (let's provisionally call it "sci-ence") were at work.
         
Quote
I suspect Darwin’s biggest blunder will prove not to be his interpretation of the Parallel Roads at Glen Roy, but his Theory of Origins. I don’t think we’re very far away from this day.

That's always the way isn't it? The great Collapse Of Evolution is always just not very far away, real soon now and imminent at any moment... but never seems to happen. It must be terribly frustrating.

Actually, the title of that post is: Darwin Was Really Wrong!
Next post is gonna be: Darwin Was Really Totally Wrong!
Or, if DO'L writes it: Darwin Was Like Really Totally Wrong!!!
     
Quote
We who find Darwinian theory unconvincing have to ask ourselves: “Was Darwin capable of ‘convincing himself’ that all the evidence pointing against his theory could be left to the one side, just as Col R2 was swept to the one side at Glen Roy?”
I suspect Darwin’s biggest blunder will prove not to be his interpretation of the Parallel Roads at Glen Roy, but his Theory of Origins. I don’t think we’re very far away from this day.


As if the last 150 years didn't happen.
What does PaV think? That Darwin is using mind rays from out of his grave to make everyone else ignore contrary evidence, too?



BEWARE! Darwin is using mind rays!

Date: 2009/11/08 07:57:55, Link
Author: JLT
I've always wondered how YECs explain things like this:



That is a simplified version of the layers of rocks in the Lulworth region (Dorset, UK). If you just look at the part with the tree trunks in it (Purbeck formation). Below it is a layer build from oolitic limestone. Oolites are small (around 1mm) calcite spheres, which are formed in tidal areas:
 
Quote
Oolites form today in warm, supersaturated, shallow, highly aggitated marine water. [...]
The mechanism of formation is to begin with a seed of some sort, perhaps a shell fragment. The strong currents wash this seed around on the bottom where it accumulates a layer of chemically precipitated calcite from the supersaturated water. [...]
The concentric layers is formed as the oolites are alternately exposed to pick up a concentric layer, and then buried to set the layer. The next exposure then adds another layer.  

Source
So, we know how and where they form and how long it takes to form it. This layer alone took much longer to build than 6000 years.
But after it formed, trees grew on it. Which means that it wasn't a tidal area at that time. This is an example of an eroded tree trunk from this tree layer:



The tree trunk itself is gone but the surrounding thrombolite is still there. You know what thrombolites are?
 
Quote
Thrombolites are clotted accretionary structures formed in shallow water by the trapping, binding, and cementation of sedimentary grains by biofilms of microorganisms, especially cyanobacteria (commonly known as blue-green algae).

They build very slow and they are only build in tidal areas.
So, at one point this area was in a tidal area, then it was elevated long enough for trees to grow, and then it was again under water. The layer on top of it is limestone:
 
Quote
Limestone is a very common sedimentary rock of biochemical origin. It is composed mostly of the mineral calcite. Sometimes it is almost pure calcite, but most limestones are filled with lots of other minerals and sand and they are called dirty limestones. The calcite is derived mostly from the remains of organisms such as clams, brachiopods, bryozoa, crinoids and corals. These animals live on the bottom of the sea and when they die their shells accumulate into piles of shelly debris. This debris can then form beds of limestone. Some limestones may have been derived from non-biogenic calcite formation.

So, during the formation of this layer the area must have been well below the water line.
And this is how the tree layer looks today:



It's again high above the water line.
So, even if you ignored all the other layers on top or below and looked only at these three layers (under the tree layer, the tree layer, and the one above it) you've got a succession of under water, above water, under water, and above water (today).

How do you explain a formation like that in a 6000 year time frame?

Date: 2009/11/08 08:57:00, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 07 2009,02:37)
 
Quote (rhmc @ Nov. 06 2009,21:28)
 
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 06 2009,13:29)
I originally learned Forth on, I shit you not, a TI 99/4a in about 1983.

damn.
laserwriters and ti 99/4a

back when the hottest personal computers were the ibm pc and the apple iii.

then LISA.
then the mac in '84

ahhhh.  those were the days my friend....

resistance was futile.  we've all been assimilated.



Notice the powerful mass storage device to the left of the console.

Aaaah. My brother and I spent hours copying code in TI BASIC for games like Frogger and Asteroids. Storage device was a normal cassette recorder. The loading process took anywhere between 20 and 40 minutes and failed half of the time....

The joystick:

Date: 2009/11/10 13:52:16, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 10 2009,11:13)
   
Quote (JLT @ Nov. 08 2009,07:57)
I've always wondered how YECs explain things like this:



That is a simplified version of the layers of rocks in the Lulworth region (Dorset, UK). If you just look at the part with the tree trunks in it (Purbeck formation). Below it is a layer build from oolitic limestone. Oolites are small (around 1mm) calcite spheres, which are formed in tidal areas:
         
Quote
Oolites form today in warm, supersaturated, shallow, highly aggitated marine water. [...]
The mechanism of formation is to begin with a seed of some sort, perhaps a shell fragment. The strong currents wash this seed around on the bottom where it accumulates a layer of chemically precipitated calcite from the supersaturated water. [...]
The concentric layers is formed as the oolites are alternately exposed to pick up a concentric layer, and then buried to set the layer. The next exposure then adds another layer.  

Source
So, we know how and where they form and how long it takes to form it. This layer alone took much longer to build than 6000 years.
But after it formed, trees grew on it. Which means that it wasn't a tidal area at that time. This is an example of an eroded tree trunk from this tree layer:



The tree trunk itself is gone but the surrounding thrombolite is still there. You know what thrombolites are?
         
Quote
Thrombolites are clotted accretionary structures formed in shallow water by the trapping, binding, and cementation of sedimentary grains by biofilms of microorganisms, especially cyanobacteria (commonly known as blue-green algae).

They build very slow and they are only build in tidal areas.
So, at one point this area was in a tidal area, then it was elevated long enough for trees to grow, and then it was again under water. The layer on top of it is limestone:
       
Quote
Limestone is a very common sedimentary rock of biochemical origin. It is composed mostly of the mineral calcite. Sometimes it is almost pure calcite, but most limestones are filled with lots of other minerals and sand and they are called dirty limestones. The calcite is derived mostly from the remains of organisms such as clams, brachiopods, bryozoa, crinoids and corals. These animals live on the bottom of the sea and when they die their shells accumulate into piles of shelly debris. This debris can then form beds of limestone. Some limestones may have been derived from non-biogenic calcite formation.

So, during the formation of this layer the area must have been well below the water line.
And this is how the tree layer looks today:



It's again high above the water line.
So, even if you ignored all the other layers on top or below and looked only at these three layers (under the tree layer, the tree layer, and the one above it) you've got a succession of under water, above water, under water, and above water (today).

How do you explain a formation like that in a 6000 year time frame?

This creationist sees the k-t line as the biblical flood line.
so if all these layers are below this line then they were all fossilized during the flood year.
I understand your looking at sequence but probably the trees and the other sediments were just collected and sorted en masse and has nothing to do with original living arrangements.
different layers just indicates to us different flow events within the flood year.

You really honestly believe it possible that trees (which were btw mostly in the upright position in that area, i. e. most likely in an in situ position) would settle down sooner than all that other stuff on top of it? Trees, made from wood? Wood, that stuff that floats? If you know what I'm hinting at...

We know how long it takes e.g. for thrombolites or oolites to form. They're still formed today! They don't settle down, they grow in the place where they are found (e.g. around tree trunks...). There's no reaction mechanism that could build tons of thrombolites all at once.



Edited: moar bettar English (hopefully)

Date: 2009/11/10 13:56:27, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (Quack @ Nov. 10 2009,19:38)
 
Quote
the average citizen in this country has no idea what science is, beyond pocket protectors.

Sig worthy?

Definitely.

Although I've never seen a pocket protector in real life. Maybe I should get one. THIS one:



AND the glasses.

Date: 2009/11/10 15:05:35, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (Maya @ Nov. 10 2009,20:20)
 
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Nov. 10 2009,11:02)
http://www.uncommondescent.com/evoluti....respond

Just when I think I can kick the habit and stop visiting UD, something like this makes me see red.

Is Dembski really deluded and ignorant enough to believe that nonsense or is he simply utterly dishonest?  Surely he has had the evidence for evolution pointed out to him on numerous occasions?

At least bornagain77 and Joseph have the excuse of being proven morons.  Dembski seems to be just a scummy excuse for a human being.

Dembski:
 
Quote
Thus, when I got involved with the evolution controversy 20 years ago, I naively thought that any Christian, given sufficient evidence against Darwinism, would immediately jump ship.

Scientists, whether they're Christians or not, would jump ship IF given sufficient evidence against "Darwinism".
As Dembski himself is saying between the lines it would be much easier for Christians to be Christians if there were undeniable evidence of design. The most straight forward explanation of the fact that most scientist (with some clue of biology), regardless of their belief or non-belief in deities, are accepting evolutionary theory is that they're convinced by the evidence in its favour and that there's NOT enough evidence against it.
Dembski's explanation of this conundrum:
 
Quote
Having convinced themselves that design is an outdated religious dogma, they embraced Darwinism as a form of enlightenment. And having accommodated their faith to Darwin, they became loath to reexamine whether Darwinism is true at all.

Christian scientists embraced Darwinism as a form of enlightenment and therefore stopped examining the evidence? That's his explanation?
So, accepting evolutionary theory is like buying an iPhone to appear hip although you make only one phone call per week and never use any of its other functions*?

I strongly believe that there's a LOLcat out there that adequately depicts how I feel about this explanation but in the moment I'm unfortunately unable to find it.



* and wouldn't know how to use them anyway because you've lost the manual...

Date: 2009/11/13 19:16:06, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 13 2009,09:49)
Evolutionary biology does not study biology since anything its talking about is extinct and only a cast of it remains.
Its speculation and most of evolutionary biology would make the same conclusions if it never saw anything move or squirm.
I say biology is about moving life and not just pictures of it. Not the same thinking or tools of actual biology.
So evolution can not claim the knowledge and prestige of modern biology to make its case. Same genus? but surely different non breeding species.

AAAAAAAAAaaaaaaahhhhhhh.
That hurt.

Good grief, if you had the slightest idea what you're talking about ...
 
Quote
Evolutionary biology does not study biology since anything its talking about is extinct and only a cast of it remains.


AAAAAAAAAaaaaaaahhhhhhh. It still hurts.
Have you ever heard about evo-devo? Molecular clock? All this molecular evolution stuff? Speciation in plants, natural selection, all the evidence that underlines the basic principles of evolutionary theory: All that was and is shown with (material form) living organisms!

Please, I can cope with nonsensical remarks like this
Quote
So since the strata levels here and  there are hugh. Then we can infer great chunks of areas were moved and deposited all about. A few areas therefore include trees in that sediment and placed on top of other sediment laid a few hours earlier.
There is no reason to see collected materials as anything other then collected materials. The great force collecting just kept doing it from other areas with other flow power.

but this other stuff - that's just too much. There're people here who actually have brain cells that could get damamged.
My speciality is immunology and altough my research doesn't have anything to do with evolution I know some things about the evolution of the immune system. Do you know why? Because a lot of the articles that deal with functions of the immune system mention sharks and lampreys.
They've got a much simpler immune system than we do, but because we're related and we still have the simple immune system we inherited from our common ancestor with sharks (plus some more sophisticated parts), we can learn a lot about our immune system if we look a shark, lampreys et al.
We can understand our immune system better by looking at our (extant) family members and how their immune system works. We can understand the flaws of our immune system better by the succession in which new features arose through evolution. And we can only look at extant animals for this kind of research because you can't look for immune reactions in fossilised bones.

Date: 2009/11/17 15:44:29, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 16 2009,21:12)
Well, back when I actually socked over there, my favorite moment was, when the some of the contributors over there were deciding that Poachy, who was me, was a troll, I threw them off the scent by outing Leo Stotch as a troll. Of course, Leo was also another one of my socks.

That was epic.

But I also had much fun with Hugh Jass. It took me too long to get the Jack Inhofe joke to really enjoy it. How am I supposed to know how an American would pronouce that name *and* know all these collocial colloquialisms dirty words.

Date: 2009/11/17 16:13:42, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 15 2009,10:38)
Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life.
Anyways it and plants etc are biological saubjects if the subject is a thing here and now within a living system.'
Yet fossilized casts of former life is not biology or open to the processes and tools of biology.  So evolutionary biology is not biology.
Its not doing it to its subject.
Its history analysis.
I don't see how past and gone life is open to the scientific method in making conclusions about its intimate biological relationships with other life before and after it.

Beautiful. I was hoping for a tardiful reply but this really exceeds my expectations. Thank you so very much.

Date: 2009/11/20 13:00:17, Link
Author: JLT
Happy birthday!

Date: 2009/11/20 13:09:38, Link
Author: JLT
I realize I might be a tad late but... anyway:
I hope you two did have the magical birthday you deserve....

Date: 2009/11/20 13:34:27, Link
Author: JLT
Dembski has invited a new contardibutor, someone named David Anderson:
     
Quote
This is my first post at UD, so I’d better say “hi”, and thanks to Dr. Dembski for inviting me. Rather than an intro, I’ll just send you to my home page, here.

Yeah, let's look at his home page:
     
Quote
David Anderson's Homepage
Church


   * I am a member and elder of and accountable to Grace Baptist Church, Eldoret. Postal address for the church is PO Box 170, 30100 Eldoret, Kenya.
   * Grace Church, Belper (evangelical) - this was my church when I lived in the UK.

Writings and Sermons

   * My Blog: "More Than Words"
   * Theological Writings
   * Sermons
   * Creation or evolution - do we have to choose? (Dr. Denis Alexander) - an extended review

For Christianity, Against Atheism

   * Is belief in divine creation rational? (responding to atheist claims)
     An in-depth audio presentation, with slides.
   * Does Richard Dawkins exist?
     A skeptic investigates.
[LOL!]
   * The British Centre for Science Education - Revealed
     The results of an investigation exposing a bogus group of "science educators" - arose out of this blog, "BCSE Revealed".

In other words, another high profile ID scienticist!

We're doomed, I tell ya.

Date: 2009/11/20 14:26:48, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (Reg @ Nov. 20 2009,20:13)
On the other hand, now that the imminent decline of evolution has been explained in turkey carcass form it's all much clearer to me.

Sigworthy!

Date: 2009/11/20 16:25:37, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (RDK @ Nov. 20 2009,21:21)
The newest addition to the ID Team, Dave Anderson, takes up the Good Fight, tackles the big questions, and comes out looking like shit:

           
Quote
No, Richard Dawkins does not exist. I have never seen him. Science has given a full and satisfying explanation of the book alleged to be his handiwork. It is but a collection of fortuitously ordered a's, b's and c's, recombined from previous patterns. There is the alphabet, there is a book of nursery rhymes and there is "The God Delusion" - and one developed from the other, though some of the details of which is the most primitive remain to be sorted out. The links between them may still be missing, but Science will have that worked out at any moment. Anyone who doubts this fact is either lying, mad or stupid (or wicked, but I'd rather not think about that possibility).


There's more, but I'll spare you the details for those with weak constitutions.  Let's just say that TARD ensues:

TARD ensues? ENSUES? That's already full-blown TARD right there!

Dawkins wrote his book himself therefore this is a valid hypothesis about how new genes arise?!

Date: 2009/12/02 09:49:04, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (Quack @ Dec. 02 2009,15:08)
I just stumbled over this

Quote
The purpose of intelligent design, according to the Wedge Document, is:

   * "To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies"
   * "To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God"

If that sounds like it is motivated by religion and politics rather than science, then tack on "or aliens", and move on.

LOL

Date: 2009/12/02 11:04:27, Link
Author: JLT
From "Is backwards or forwards time travel really possible?"
 
Quote
2
Gods iPod:
Yes. And I can prove it from the Bible alone :)

 
Quote
5
Gods iPod:
Denise, I’d love to share my theory here, but since I am fairly certain that I am the only person that has ever seen this in the Word, at least among the living and posting thoughts online, I am keeping it to myself for a future book.

I know, sounds like a cop-out crackpot*. I would be open to sharing it with you privately.

For those that missed my first post. I believe there is a crystal clear example of time travel in the Bible. So clear that when I explain it to you you’ll slap yourself for not having seen it before. I have shown it to about a dozen people, and the reaction is the same each time**, and no one needs to be “convinced” It’s just obvious.

Time travel is possible because there's an example of it in the bible. ALL SCIENCE SO FAR. And he is the only one who has ever seen it although "it's just obvious" and "crystal clear". Right.


* fixed that for him

** they very carefully back away?

Date: 2009/12/03 02:03:52, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (MichaelJ @ Dec. 03 2009,02:24)
Could it be that using historical markers from within the text that 2 gospels have Jesus being born in two different places and quite a few years apart.

That a pretty good piece of time travel. Not to mention that the resurrection gospels has Jesus, the women and the apostles doing all kinds of different things at the same time.

I googled "bible time travel" and there were some pretty nice examples of batshit insaness among the results. I liked this one: Time travel might be possible with cold fusion, shown by using the bible code. Not too bad, either: Evidence of time travel. In his World Breaking Discoveries book the author reveals e. g. how the bible is really talking about computers:
 
Quote
1230 BCE   Moses   Egypt   He was given two tables of stone, and utilized a miraculous staff.

The miraculous staff = a computer's mouse & cable.
The two tables of stone = two compact disks, being the same two 'Tablets' named in earlier Mesopotamian Creation Accounts as the Tablet of Destiny and the Tablet of Fate.

These named 'tablets' = the Ancient Civilizations and Grolier Encyclopedia cd-roms respectively.

FINDINGS
Exodus 35:11-18 describes 'boards, sockets, pins, and cords' of a computer.

Numbers 7:84-86. The 'dedication of the altar' and the 'silver vessel' descriptions chronicle the dimensions of a plastic jewel case base (130 x 7 mm) and a compact disk (120 mm).

Genesis 6:14-16. (Noah's) 'Ark of Gopher Wood' was a computer carry box - not a boat !

Genesis 1:1-27 is describing the start up sequence of pictures from the Ancients cd-rom.

The Angel & Burning Bush story is about two images in one picture from the Grolier cd-rom.


Details: pp 34-38, 42-45, 109-114, World Breaking Discoveries E-Book.


But the best proof of Jesus time travel is (of course) a Youtube video: Jesus and time

Date: 2009/12/03 05:00:43, Link
Author: JLT
Michael Egnor crows about a figure by ClimateAudit:

   
Quote
Real climate scientists are sifting out the details of the data to which CRU director and warmist Phil Jones applied fellow warmist Michael Mann's ‘Nature trick…to hide the decline…’.

The hidden data is that of Keith Briffa, a fellow climate scientist (and warmist) at East Anglia. Briffa compiled tree-ring data to obtain global temperature estimates back to 1400. But there was a problem with the tree-ring data, from the warmist perspective. The tree ring data showed pronounced cooling beginning in the mid-20th century. [...]
What to do?
Simple. Delete the tree rign data beginning in the mid-20th century, when the cooling became pronounced, and use (already CRU 'modified') ground station data more supportive of the warmist hypothesis in it's place.[...]
So here's "Mike's Nature trick...to hide the decline":
The warmists switched the source of the data at the end of the graph, just at the point where the data contradicted their hypothesis, and replaced it with manipulated different-source data that supported their hypothesis. They deleted the original contradictory data from the published report and from the public database. When pressed by years of Freedom of Information Act requests to release the original raw 'supportive' data, they finally admit that they threw it out and it can never be checked.


I found an explanation of the data in question here.

Apparently, what ClimateAudit shows is something called maximum latewood density. These data match the actually measured temperatures quite nicely up until the 1960 but fail to match up after that. Instead of hiding that fact, the scientists wrote an article about it*, where you can find this figure (figure 5 of the article shows the data from 1400 - 2000):


The maximum latewood densities that were deleted are hidden in the thick black line.



* Briffa et al. (1998). Trees tell of past climates: but are they speaking less clearly today? Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 1998 353, 65-73 [pdf; free access (LOL)]

Date: 2009/12/03 05:03:53, Link
Author: JLT
BTW there's a good editorial in this week's Nature. The first couple of paragraphs:
 
Quote
The e-mail archives stolen last month from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (UEA), UK, have been greeted by the climate-change-denialist fringe as a propaganda windfall (see page 551). To these denialists, the scientists' scathing remarks about certain controversial palaeoclimate reconstructions qualify as the proverbial 'smoking gun': proof that mainstream climate researchers have systematically conspired to suppress evidence contradicting their doctrine that humans are warming the globe.

This paranoid interpretation would be laughable were it not for the fact that obstructionist politicians in the US Senate will probably use it next year as an excuse to stiffen their opposition to the country's much needed climate bill. Nothing in the e-mails undermines the scientific case that global warming is real — or that human activities are almost certainly the cause. That case is supported by multiple, robust lines of evidence, including several that are completely independent of the climate reconstructions debated in the e-mails.


ETA: Science does have something about it, too.
Quote
Four e-mail exchanges have received most of the media attention. The first regards a research finding considered by most scientists as a canonical fact: that the globe warmed by roughly 0.7°C in the 20th century. That fact derives in large part from global temperature data recorded by stations on land and sea, as analyzed independently by groups at East Anglia, NASA, and the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Referring to requests for climate data from critics, CRU Director Phil Jones wrote in 2005 that "I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone." In May 2009, Jones told Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University, University Park, to "delete any emails" to a colleague about their work on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report and to ask a third colleague to do the same. (Mann says he conveyed the message but deleted no messages himself.) Through a spokesperson, Jones declined an interview request. But in a statement he said that "no record" has been deleted amid a bombardment of "Freedom of Information requests." CRU acknowledged in August that it deleted old data on digital tapes to make space for a move.

A second message relates to a chapter in the 2007 IPCC report that Jones edited. In 2004, he suggested that two recent papers on temperature trends didn't deserve to be published in a peer-reviewed journal. "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report," he wrote Mann. "Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is." But Trenberth, of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, says the papers were indeed considered. Thomas Karl, director of the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, North Carolina, an official reviewer for the chapter, says the IPCC's peer-review procedures "were sacrosanct." Both papers wound up being cited.

A third message is viewed by critics as an acknowledgement that global warming has ceased. "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't," wrote Trenberth in October. Contrarians have noted the lack of record new highs in global temperature since 1998 (Science, 2 October, p. 28). But Trenberth was actually bemoaning something else. "The observing system we have is inadequate for tracking energy flow through the climate system," he observed, affecting the forecasting of year-to-year climate changes.

A fourth message, about assembling a diagram for a 1999 World Meteorological Organization report, has been misinterpreted, says Trenberth (see graphic). Scientists believe proxy data such as tree rings are valuable for reconstructing past climates, but certain tree-ring data became unreliable midway through the century. So scientists used proxy data for all but the final 40 years of the millennium before switching to instrumental data in 1961. "Reasonable people," writes Stephen McIntyre, a retired industry consultant and prominent blogger, might conclude that the decision not to show the divergence of the two data sets was "simply a trick" to avoid giving fuel to skeptics.

Date: 2009/12/03 05:25:21, Link
Author: JLT
God does have a feminine site but other than that he He is of course a masculine manly man. Just like Barry and Brent, I'm sure...  
 
Quote
30

Barry Arrington

12/02/2009

2:45 pm

Timm, thank you for your kind words. I think you may have misunderstood me regarding the “emasculation of God” issue. I do not maintain that God is a man, but I do maintain that he exhibits perfectly all of the manly virtues. In The Shack Williams makes God into a wimpy new age scone baker. It is his uni-dimensional feminine-only god with which I disagree.

31

Brent

12/02/2009

7:20 pm

God must encompass feminine traits or He wouldn’t be infinite—something would necessarily have to exist outside of Him otherwise. Nonetheless, He determined to reveal Himself as masculine. I don’t think He needs us to come to His defense on this matter.

Sorry if this reads terse. It isn’t in any way meant to be.

Date: 2009/12/03 10:31:02, Link
Author: JLT
Quote
The small differences in bone structures or reproduction, as in the case of the marsupials, that are used to separate same-shaped animals are not convincing or even prompting evidence of different original ancestors. Instead these changes are only an adaptation to local areas by the same creatures from the same parents from the Ark. Different areas produced different results and this affected all the animals in that area. The animals in that area are not related by their adaptation but only had similar adaptation.  

Hi Robert,
it's a shame that you don't realize just how mind-blowingly wrong you are. No one with the slightest clue about biology would ever think that a different reproductive system is a minor adaptation.
I bet you don't even know HOW different the reproductive system is. E. g. the minor difference of female marsupials having two vaginae instead of one. I wonder, which environmental factor could lead to that kind of adaptation in all Australian animals (but not humans).  
 
Quote
Anatomy of Reproduction

The reproductive anatomy of marsupials also distinguishes them from Eutherian mammals. The female reproductive system is very unusual in that it is almost entirely doubled. Females have a posterial urogenital sinus which recieves two lateral vaginae and the urethra. One of a pair of uteri and then a cervix leads from the top of each vagina. Fertilisation occurs via either of the vaginae. At the time of birth the two vaginae fuse to form a 'median vagina' or 'pseudo birth canal'. In some species, e.g. the brushtail possum, the septum which was breached during birth reforms; in others, e.g. the grey kangaroo, this median canal remains open permanently.
The reproductive system of the male is much more similar to Eutherian mammals than that of the female. The main differences in the male are external rather than internal and comprise a bifurcate penis which is posterior to the scrotum. When flaccid, the penis is held in an S-shaped curve withdrawn into the body.

See, there are a lot of different dog breeds with different shapes. They're all dogs of course, but they can have thick fur, with or without undercoat, thin fur, curly hair, short hair, long hair, fur in almost all colours, long or short legs, they can be very muscular or very lean, with a massive head or a slim long one. All these dog breads, despite their different shapes, have identical skulls, identical numbers of teeth, an identical reproductive system and so on.
With only a few changes in a few genes the shape (or fur) can change a lot (e.g it is known that only a minor difference in one gene is responsible for short legs in some breeds; the same is true for curly hair), but to alter e. g. the position of the tear duct (which is positioned differently in placental mammals and marsupials) you need to alter the whole developmental "programme" of the tear duct. And that is only one of the "small differences in bone structure" you were talking about.

Here you can find some slides where the skull of a Tasmanian wolf is compared first to dog and wolf skulls and then to the skulls of two other marsupials.
Look at it and then tell me that Tasmanian wolf and wolf are more similar then Tasmanian wolf and opossum:

Date: 2009/12/03 10:43:42, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (Raevmo @ Dec. 03 2009,15:25)
 
Quote
IOW, 10^200 as an expression is computable only by intelligence, not by the physical universe. You can’t even write the number out because there aren’t enough quanta in the known universe to do so.

Brilliant

 
Quote
72

R0b

12/03/2009

11:20 am

William:

   IOW, 10^200 as an expression is computable only by intelligence, not by the physical universe. You can’t even write the number out because there aren’t enough quanta in the known universe to do so.

100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

000000000000000000000.

(There are 200 zeros there, even if your browser doesn’t show them all.)
I just pwned the universe and violated the SLoT at the same time. All before breakfast.

R0b FTW!

Date: 2009/12/04 02:26:58, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (dvunkannon @ Dec. 04 2009,02:01)
Collin unwittingly pokes Joseph on the Contest 15 thread.
 
Quote
When and if scientists find life on other planets, I predict that they will use ID principles like complexity and the presence of a blueprint code like DNA to determine if it is really life.

Well, I predict that they'd first look for reproduction, growth, and metabolism before they all point fingers, declare how unbelievably complex that thing is and that god must've done it.

Date: 2009/12/04 04:00:59, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 03 2009,23:20)
Yeah that definitely begs the question. I prefer to look at the empirical evidence to support my conclusions. In reference to the empirical evidence, what are your thoughts on where the empirical evidence leads? Can we safely say that material mechanisms are responsible for all that we observe in our universe? Is there any room for some kind of mechanism that is immaterial or at least contrary to natural selection? I know these are rather broad questions. Maybe give me what you (anyone in this forum) think are the best arguments for your view either way.

Was that a slip of the tongue?
Because, natural selection is an empirical fact.

To the rest of your question: That doesn't make sense.
Empirical facts stem from repeated observation.
Let's say I conduct a simple experiment and add a substance X to some cells and measure the growth rate. I find in repeated experiments that compared to cells that I left alone the cells grow faster after I've added the substance.
So, "substance X makes that cell type grow faster" is an empirical fact - but only, if I accept that the same would happen everytime someone would do the same. If a supernatural entity can interfere at random then I can never say that "substance X makes that cell type grow faster". I could only say that "substance X makes that cell type grow faster if the supernatural entity allows it". If someone repeated my experiments and those experiments failed to show a faster growth I could say that the supernatural entity had hindered the cells from growing in those experiments.
Sounds ridiculous? Definitely.
Because it's only possible to generalise observations if those observations are based on a "material" mechanism that works the same at all times.
Does that exclude that there's a supernatural entity around or specifically, that in my hypothetic experiment it wasn't a supernatural entity that makes my cells grow faster whenever substance X is around? No. But for all practical purposes we're better off if we assume that there is no supernatural entity or if there is that it doesn't interfere. How would you even go about testing a hypothesis if your results could either mean your hypothesis is right/wrong or a supernatural entity messed with your experiment?

All science procedes as if there isn't an interfering supernatural entity. It has to. Otherwise generalisations were impossible. Hypothesis testing were impossible. And the thing is - it works. Again, that doesn't mean that there isn't a supernatural entity or that the supernatural entity, if there is one, never interferes. You can't prove a negative.
But, it is an empirical fact that experiments are repeatable. All of science shows that. So, the parsimonious explanation for the time being is that there is no interfering supernatural entity.

Date: 2009/12/04 10:30:32, Link
Author: JLT
Quote
7

GilDodgen

12/03/2009

10:20 pm

Quote
Might it not equally describe those who reject fragments of modern science that they perceive to conflict with deeply held religious beliefs?


Very good point. I was once a deeply religious atheist who rejected the fragments of modern science that I perceived to conflict with my devout beliefs (e.g., the fine-tuning of the laws of physics which suggested long-term teleological cosmological design for life, and the information-processing machinery of living systems).

As a result, I concluded that my religion of atheism required more faith, in the light of the evidence, than I could muster.

It's people like GilLOLgen that make it almost impossible to parody creationists.

Date: 2009/12/04 15:28:07, Link
Author: JLT
Quote

FtK | December 4, 2009 2:02 PM | Reply | Edit

In your face evo boys.…

onald_p.html]http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/1[…]onald_p.html

There’s your audio of the debate…straight from the Discovery Institute.

Your sorry theory will be going down the toilet soon enough…first we’ll wait until global warming has been completely flushed. YOUR NEXT.…


Oh, look who turned up at PT!

I looked hard for a fitting LOLcat. IMHO this one is just perfect.

Date: 2009/12/04 16:02:43, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (fnxtr @ Dec. 04 2009,20:44)
Y'all know where this "inquiry" is head, dontcha.

I expect this:
- He'll ignore everything that was said.
- He'll whine about how mean and unfair it is that supernatural explanations are not allowed and how people who dare to suggest them are laughed out of the building expelled.
- After all, what is if the evidence suggest that the supernatural explanation is correct? Shouldn't we be allowed to follow it where it leads.
- Therefore, GODDIDIT.

Extra points for including Meyer's new book as "evidence".

Date: 2009/12/05 17:03:38, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 05 2009,15:20)
Do you hold to Darwin’s definition of natural selection: “This preservation of favourable variations and the rejection of injurious variations, I call ‘natural selection.” Including the idea that this process eventually brings about a new species? I would agree that we see this within a species. So I appreciate that being brought up, I should have been more specific. If you believe that this accounts for new species coming into being can you give me the empirical evidence for that view?

I accept current evolutionary theory if that is what you're asking. That's more than just natural selection. You do realise that Darwin published his theory 150 years ago and science moved on a bit since then? Actually, for speciation to occur, natural selection wouldn’t even be strictly necessary. Genetic drift alone could, over time, lead to a build up of genetic and/or behavioural incompatibilities in geographically separated populations of a species that might result in reproductive isolation, i.e. they’d become two separate species. Of course, natural selection can contribute to or accelerate this process (once there is a geographical separation).
In plants, speciation frequently involves neo- or allopolyploidy (change in chromosome number), which can result in “instant speciation” (<a href="[URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senecio_cambrensis" target="_blank">Example</a>).]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senecio_cambrensis]Example[/url]).[/URL] Again, no natural selection required.
Anyway.
You don’t really expect me to collect articles and books from the last 80 years or so, that describe the evidence we have for speciation? Why don’t you go look for articles about reproductive isolation or speciation at  PubMed yourself?  
   
Quote
I should have defined what I meant by supernatural since this can be a rather messy term. By supernatural I mean a being or beings that are in some sense beyond nature acting on nature that cause certain things to come into existence. I don’t think these entity/entities would have to be beyond nature in order to impact nature. Further I don’t think this being/s would necessarily interfere but could work along with natural laws. So there wouldn’t be an obstacle for arriving at generalizations.

If it works along with "natural laws" it is indistinguishable from them. In that case, it is not necessary to invoke such a being as the natural laws on its own are sufficient to explain whatever it is you are investigating. You can assume that it is there, but you can't test for it. As far as science goes, it is a superfluous addition.
   
Quote
To use the example given of conducting an experiment on a cell, you as an individual transcend the cell (you’re beyond it) and act as a cause to create an effect, the cell type growing faster. So you’re manipulating matter, and you are outside of the matter you’re manipulating. But of course you’re still in the realm of the physical world with physical qualities working with natural laws.

Well, I’m pretty certain that there’re some tests that would prove that I’m actually there and that it’s me putting stuff on the cells I’m working with. I’m a materialistic cause, AFAIK, and I haven’t violated any natural laws so far. So, what’s the point? No one denies that physical things can interact with other physical things.
But you say that your entity is supernatural, but not beyond nature? What does that even mean?
If it had some physical properties, we should find evidence of its existence. I wouldn’t hold my breath.
And as I said, if it is supernatural but works in accordance with "natural laws" it is indistinguishable from them.
 
Quote
Now I wouldn’t necessarily attribute all acts to this supernatural source, but when it comes to living organisms, do natural laws account for their existence? Or like the building, house, etc. does there have to be something beyond the natural (as defined above) that brings those things into existence? Whatever the nature of that thing is, is more of a philosophical question. But the probability of such a being/s within the universe is I think an important scientific question.

Humans are not beyond the natural, even if they build houses. That doesn’t violate any laws of physics.
“when it comes to living organisms, do natural laws account for their existence”
I think that chemistry and physics are fully sufficient to explain the origin of life.

Date: 2009/12/05 19:47:21, Link
Author: JLT
WTF.



World Magazine: About us
       
Quote
We stand for factual accuracy and biblical objectivity, trying to see the world as best we can [Their eyesight can't be very good, tho. I mean, just look at that photo!] the way the Bible depicts it. Journalistic humility for us means trying to give God's perspective.

Stephen Meyer: Daniel of the Year*
   
Quote
Stephen C. Meyer, director of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, fights to show that all lives have eternal value because they are the work of a Creator and not the product of chance.


* DANIEL of the year. That's an anagram of DENIAL. Coincidence? I think not.

Date: 2009/12/06 07:32:01, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (MichaelJ @ Dec. 06 2009,11:20)
   
Quote (Cubist @ Dec. 06 2009,17:03)
   
Quote (MichaelJ @ Dec. 06 2009,01:45)
John,

I might have misinterpreted your argument but I can't see why there can't be a god who is a meddler. I agree with Dembski and Behe in this. These guys are dishonest turds but say someone did find a biological structure that had NO possible evolutionary pathways? Or something less subtle such as the stars lining up and saying "Dawkins is wrong".

John wasn't denying the possibility that a meddling, trickster-type god could exist; rather, he was speaking of whether or not this "god"-thingie is something us puny humans can use science to investigate.

We can study god, we are already doing it in a negative way. Over the last couple of hundred years we have knocked out a whole raft of possible gods.
If there is any positive evidence that will give us a whole raft of information about god.

If we disprove that god created the earth 6000 years ago, we haven't disproved the existence of god and we haven't disproved that a god created the earth. We have disproved simply that it happened 6000 years ago. If we disprove a worldwide flood we haven't disproved that there's a god and we haven't proved that he can't, in principle, cause a world-wide flood. We have simply proved that a world-wide flood didn't happen.
Of course, if someone thinks that either his god created the world 6000 years ago and caused a world-wide flood or he doesn't exist, then we have disproved HIS version of god.
But that doesn't mean that we've disproved the existence of a god who, in principle, would be able to both create an earth or cause a world-wide flood. i.e. we haven't disproved the subcategory of earth-creating, flood-causing gods, we have just shown that this subcategory didn't do it at a proposed time or hasn't done it, yet.
At least, that's how I see it.

Date: 2009/12/06 07:41:39, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (Reg @ Dec. 06 2009,13:28)
Uncommon Descent is fast becoming an aggregator for the best informed climate change opinion, with both Sarah Palin and Camile Paglia.

Potholer54 made a nice video about "climategate".
The only thing he doesn't mention is that the "hidden decline" in the tree ring proxies was published by Keith Briffa e.g. here:
Briffa et al. (1998). Trees tell of past climates: but are they speaking less clearly today? Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 1998 353, 65-73 [pdf; free access]

Date: 2009/12/06 14:10:08, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (Badger3k @ Dec. 06 2009,17:09)
   
Quote (JLT @ Dec. 06 2009,07:32)
     
Quote (MichaelJ @ Dec. 06 2009,11:20)
         
Quote (Cubist @ Dec. 06 2009,17:03)
           
Quote (MichaelJ @ Dec. 06 2009,01:45)
John,

I might have misinterpreted your argument but I can't see why there can't be a god who is a meddler. I agree with Dembski and Behe in this. These guys are dishonest turds but say someone did find a biological structure that had NO possible evolutionary pathways? Or something less subtle such as the stars lining up and saying "Dawkins is wrong".

John wasn't denying the possibility that a meddling, trickster-type god could exist; rather, he was speaking of whether or not this "god"-thingie is something us puny humans can use science to investigate.

We can study god, we are already doing it in a negative way. Over the last couple of hundred years we have knocked out a whole raft of possible gods.
If there is any positive evidence that will give us a whole raft of information about god.

If we disprove that god created the earth 6000 years ago, we haven't disproved the existence of god and we haven't disproved that a god created the earth. We have disproved simply that it happened 6000 years ago. If we disprove a worldwide flood we haven't disproved that there's a god and we haven't proved that he can't, in principle, cause a world-wide flood. We have simply proved that a world-wide flood didn't happen.
Of course, if someone thinks that either his god created the world 6000 years ago and caused a world-wide flood or he doesn't exist, then we have disproved HIS version of god.
But that doesn't mean that we've disproved the existence of a god who, in principle, would be able to both create an earth or cause a world-wide flood. i.e. we haven't disproved the subcategory of earth-creating, flood-causing gods, we have just shown that this subcategory didn't do it at a proposed time or hasn't done it, yet.
At least, that's how I see it.

Which is the point of a lot of the scientist/atheist books on the subject (like Stenger) - we can disprove the actions of certain god concepts (or certain gods if you want to call it that), but there are some kinds that are immune to all investigation.  However, if you have a god who leaves no evidence, how is that different than no god at all?  Without positive evidence for such a being, why should we take such an idea seriously?  

That reminds me of this:



:)
 
Quote
That's the way I see it, at least.  When Inquiry is asking about this god of his (it does seem he has a specific one in mind), I'd second the call for "what evidence do you have that would ask us to consider such a being?"  As a thought experiment it's fine, but if you want to consider it as a scientific question, let's see the evidence.

I fully agree.
In my previous post, I just wanted to point out what's a scientifically warranted conclusions and what isn't. If it had been shown that there was a catastrophic flood some thousand years ago, I bet a lot of people would've taken that as "scientific" proof that the biblical god exist. But it would've been their personal conclusion not a scientific conclusion.
That's all.

Date: 2009/12/07 11:08:24, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 07 2009,15:05)
 
Quote (JLT @ Dec. 05 2009,17:03)
I accept current evolutionary theory if that is what you're asking. That's more than just natural selection. You do realise that Darwin published his theory 150 years ago and science moved on a bit since then? Actually, for speciation to occur, natural selection wouldn’t even be strictly necessary. Genetic drift alone could, over time, lead to a build up of genetic and/or behavioural incompatibilities in geographically separated populations of a species that might result in reproductive isolation, i.e. they’d become two separate species. Of course, natural selection can contribute to or accelerate this process (once there is a geographical separation).
In plants, speciation frequently involves neo- or allopolyploidy (change in chromosome number), which can result in “instant speciation”

I could see where this may be possible. Two populations that are isolated from one another could/would go through genetic changes as they adapt to their environment. This could possibly lead to an inability for these populations to interbreed (because of geographical and genetic separation). Also smaller populations tend to genetically drift from the original genetic traits they possessed. And there is more potential in smaller populations for random genetic events. While this is okay in theory there are no known facts to support this theory.


LOL. So, you agree that this is hypothetically possible but for you it is still more likely that a supernatural entity( for which we don't have any evidence) brings new species into being (for whic we don't have any evidence) by an unknown mechanism?

But I'm sure that you'll rethink your position after you realise that we of course DO have facts to support this theory. Go to Pubmed and search for "drosophila reproductive isolation". On the right hand site you can filter your results for free full text articles.
Unfortunately I'm at work and I've got a visitor this week, so not much time to look trough the articles and do your work for you, but I skimmed a few articles and found this one that is available for free in fulltext: Sexual conflict and reproductive isolation in flies.
They found reproductive isolation after only 41 generations of Sepsid flies. But that wasn't actually the point of the article. They tested the hypothesis whether sexual conflict increases the reproductive isolation between larger populations (of flies). It is not a question anymore that reproductive isolation occurs after few generations, that is an often shown fact, the question has already shifted to the factors that might accelerate or slow down this process.

Btw, Jerry Coyne (the author of Why evolution is true) researches speciation of Drosophila in the wild. In his book he has a chapter about speciation and not surprisingly he talkes mainly about Drosophila in it. With the search terms I mentioned you can also find this article (unfortunately not open access):
INTRINSIC REPRODUCTIVE ISOLATION BETWEEN TWO SISTER SPECIES OF DROSOPHILA.
Matute DR, Coyne JA.
Evolution. 2009 Nov 5. [Epub ahead of print]

The theory of allopatric speciation generates a lot of predictions that can be tested and have been tested successfully both in the lab and in the wild.

IMO it's disingenuous to assert that there aren't any supporting facts if you've never bothered to look for them. I suggested that you go to Pubmed and search for reproductive isolation in the post you quote. Why didn't you do it if you're honestly interested in "where the evidence leads"? How do you think you'll get to know the evidence for the evolutionary theories if you never try to learn anything about it?

 
Quote
Granted the example of plants is an example of speciation. But this type of speciation does not result in a new species. In order for the current evolutionary theory to hold there has to be evidence that a species came to be by splitting off from previous species.

Where else do these new plant species come from if not from pre-existing plant species?

Interesting article in PNAS: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/08/05/0811575106.abstract
 
Quote
By combining information from the botanical community's vast cytogenetic and phylogenetic databases, we establish that 15% of angiosperm and 31% of fern speciation events are accompanied by ploidy increase. These frequency estimates are higher by a factor of four than earlier estimates and lead to a standing incidence of polyploid species within genera of 35% (n = 1,506).


So, probably one of the most important speciation mechanism in plants doesn't count because you don't like and/or understand it?

Date: 2009/12/07 12:33:55, Link
Author: JLT
[quote=Lou FCD,Dec. 07 2009,17:20]  
Quote (JLT @ Dec. 07 2009,12:08)
Unfortunately I'm at work and I've got a visitor this week, so not much time to look trough the articles and do your work for you, but I skimmed a few articles and found this one that is available for free in fulltext: Sexual conflict and reproductive isolation in flies.
They found reproductive isolation after only 41 generations of Sepsid flies. But that wasn't actually the point of the article. They tested the hypothesis whether sexual conflict increases the reproductive isolation between larger populations (of flies). It is not a question anymore that reproductive isolation occurs after few generations, that is an often shown fact, the question has already shifted to the factors that might accelerate or slow down this process.

Oups, I should've said "It is not a question anymore that reproductive isolation can occurs even after few generations..."
Quote
Aside:

Interesting that you should mention that paper. I just came across it over last weekend while doing some research of the literature for social behavior in Pan paniscus. It was linked or referenced or something in a recent article that was also discussing a paper in PLoS ONE: Reproductive Behavior Evolves Rapidly When Intralocus Sexual Conflict Is Removed, Bedhomme, Prasad, Jiang, and Chippendale, 2008.

Flies are never far away, as are articles about them  ;)

Date: 2009/12/07 14:37:46, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 07 2009,17:59)
 
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Dec. 07 2009,09:15)
   
Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 07 2009,09:05)
But this type of speciation does not result in a new species.

Does any part of that statement seem odd to you?

By new species I was referring to new in nature (kind) That plants produce plants is one thing. Reproduction within a species is empirically verified. I'm not asking for proof of that.

Good grief.

Date: 2009/12/07 18:30:05, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (MichaelJ @ Dec. 07 2009,19:23)
 
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Dec. 08 2009,03:48)
   
Quote
But this type of speciation does not result in a new species.


I'm dazzled.

Inquiry, you do realize that this is what you're actually saying?:

   
Quote
When a new species is created, it doesn't result in a new species.

I think that he means biblical 'kinds'. So, harking back to the other discussion what 'kind' is a tasmanian wolf? A Kangaroo kind or a wolf kind and please show working.

If all plants are the same kind, then, I'm afraid, marsupials, wolfs, dinosaurs, octopi, and probably sponges all belong to one kind, too.

Date: 2009/12/09 09:36:20, Link
Author: JLT
Quote
8

jerry

12/09/2009

9:16 am

“Now I am puzzled:”

You shouldn’t be. Everything I said was obvious. You point out an anti intellectual anomaly where a iron fisted dictator has some strange ideas. Yes he was atheistic and and an extreme socialist. That does not make him the model for all socialism. Current socialism is also atheistic as it tries to produce a heaven on earth and in doing so must go with the most extreme anti theistic ideology currently available. Darwinian evolution is that ideology despite the obvious implications of it as far as class.

Yes European socialism is atheistic as well as most other variants. You live there so you must know that.

WTF.



ETA: Still doesn't make sense.

Date: 2009/12/13 02:42:38, Link
Author: JLT
Happy birthday Wolfie!

Date: 2010/01/22 10:05:11, Link
Author: JLT


PZ Myers at NUI Galway! Just got my ticket.

Date: 2010/01/26 10:48:06, Link
Author: JLT
Floreano D, Keller L (2010) Evolution of Adaptive Behaviour in Robots by Means of Darwinian Selection. PLoS Biol 8(1): e1000292
 
Quote
Ever since Cicero's De Natura Deorum ii.34., humans have been intrigued by the origin and mechanisms underlying complexity in nature. Darwin suggested that adaptation and complexity could evolve by natural selection acting successively on numerous small, heritable modifications. But is this enough? Here, we describe selected studies of experimental evolution with robots to illustrate how the process of natural selection can lead to the evolution of complex traits such as adaptive behaviours. Just a few hundred generations of selection are sufficient to allow robots to evolve collision-free movement, homing, sophisticated predator versus prey strategies, coadaptation of brains and bodies, cooperation, and even altruism. In all cases this occurred via selection in robots controlled by a simple neural network, which mutated randomly.

Date: 2010/01/29 10:27:19, Link
Author: JLT
Quote
Natural selection, which has often been portrayed as all-powerful and capable of building exquisitely complex structures, has failed to provide the giant panda with any enzymes for digesting plant food.

Therefore, pandas can't exist. Oh wait -
 
Quote
Although the panda cannot make enzymes for digesting plant food, communities of gut microbes are the most likely explanation of its continuing survival.

So, pandas don't need special enzymes to survive on plant food but that they don't have any still
 
Quote
testifies to the failure of Darwinian mechanisms to overcome problems caused by mutations.

It is not, however, an instance of bad design, because pandas were of course designed to eat meat and were only forced to eat plants because of mutations.
 
Quote
From the perspective of design, we have a story of how a superbly designed carnivore has managed to survive the effects of genetic degradation.

In other ID news:
Whales don't have gills, another failure of Darwinian evolution. Genetic degradation led to the loss of their legs, so these superbly designed land living animals are forced to swim.

Date: 2010/02/15 09:34:31, Link
Author: JLT
While looking for something completely different I stumbled upon this web traffic analysis site and, of course, had to look up "uncommondescent.com".
The profile includes common search terms:

So, 11 % of all who find UD via Google can't even write Darwinism.
I LOL'd.

Date: 2010/02/16 14:31:10, Link
Author: JLT
Quote
100

Bantay

02/15/2010

5:33 pm

Update from Bantay @42

Mr Zimmerman (from the Clergy Letter Project site) finally replied to me today. Instead of acknowledging that “scientists on call to help clergy” is condescending, he merely scoffed at my idea to make a web page entitled “clergy on call to help Darwinists”, and he had the gall to accuse me of being “crass and insensitive”.

The front page of the Clergy Letter Project website advertises compatibility between religion and science…but not intellectual equality for each position. There is some blurb on the same page advertising how this site will “elevate the quality of the debate”.

No, I don’t think so. Websites like the Clergy Letter Project do not elevate the quality of the debate. It just demonstrates the gullibility of a few clergymen.

Exactly. Because
accepting scientific findings = gullibility.

BTW, that's the email he sent:
 
Quote
“Dear Mr Zimmerman

I happened to run across the Clergy Letter Project website page advertising “Scientists On Call for Clergy”. My forthcoming suggestion is highly politically incorrect, yet in light of recent current events, necessary. Please, in the interest of good science, and our safety from scientists with the moral constitution of one of your listees, Amy Bishop, create a web page on your site entitled…

“Clergy On Call For Darwinists”


IMO, "crass and insensitive" is an accurate albeit understated description of it.

Date: 2010/02/16 15:16:40, Link
Author: JLT
DO'L in her post:
   
Quote
Of course you can’t be a Darwinist and a Christian, because Darwinism is about survival of the fittest and Christianity is not.

DO'L in comment #4 at the same post:
   
Quote
4

O'Leary

02/16/2010

11:44 am

What always makes me suspicious is claims like, we don’t “have to choose between religion and science.”

First, sometimes we do have to choose. Happens all the time.

Euthanasia is scientifically easy to arrange, and statistically sound arguments can be made for its utility, yet traditional doctors took an oath against the practice, usually for religious reasons.

In this case, it is not a “false dichotomy.” It is a choice.

But that is a special case.

In general, I almost never hear religious people claiming that we “have to choose between religion and science.” Atheists and agnostics, however, often do say this.

The reality is that almost everyone is pro-science when there are demonstrated public benefits, like better cancer treatments. The problem with Darwinism is, among other things: No demonstrated benefit.

Argh. This woman can't hold a thought for the lenght of a comment.

Btw, I wonder, which "statistically sound arguments can be made for [euthanasia's] utility"?
How is euthanasia a choice between science and religion? It's an ethical question that doesn't have anything to do with science as far as I can see.
Does DO'L ever know what she's talking about?
Of course not. Forget that I asked.



I bet a brainscan of DO'L would look quite similar.

Date: 2010/02/16 18:47:48, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (Zachriel @ Feb. 16 2010,21:49)
   
Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 16 2010,15:43)
LMAO.  In response to Allen's consternation that Sal proffers up another out-of-context quote mine:
   
Quote
124
efren ts
02/16/2010
4:35 pm

Allen MacNeill:

     
Quote
   Sal, it seems difficult to believe, but you have stooped even lower with comment #116.

Personally, I am holding out to see if he quotes Darwin (out of context, of course) about beating a puppy. It would be the Triple Axel of quote mines. I don’t believe one has ever been landed in competition before.

scordova's quote-mine is not even the complete sentence.

   
Quote
Darwin: I may here also confess that as a little boy I was much given to inventing deliberate falsehoods, and this was always done for the sake of causing excitement.

The trifecta!!

   
Quote
Why wouldn’t it be more in Darwin’s steps to do some of what he did?

   1. Get a gun and shoot birds like Darwin did just for fun

   “I do not believe that anyone could have shown more zeal for the most holy cause than I did for shooting birds” –Darwin

   2. lie for the thrill of it like Darwin did as kid (and likely as an adult)

   3. beat puppies like Darwin did when he was boy

Regretably, it looks like the Darwin Day Slayer, Amy Bishop had her own ideas of how to spend Darwin Day.


I'm impressed.
If it wasn't Slimey Sal I'd think he's a Poe/troll. So, I just think he's a repulsive creep.

Date: 2010/02/17 12:50:14, Link
Author: JLT
BarryA:
Quote
Quote
“Thou shall not resort to immaterial causes for the explanation of natural structures, functions and events”.

I will ask you to consider this though. Suppose Craig Venter succeeds in creating an artificial life form. Suppose further that the life form is handed to a researcher who is tasked with coming up with a theory of its origins. If the researcher is bound by the rule “intelligent causes are ruled out of bounds prior to the investigation” will he not be bound to reach an erroneous conclusion? The answer is “yes” BTW. Write that down.

According to BarryA Craig Venter is an immaterial cause,
Quote
2. That said, ID does not posit non-natural causes (unless you think Craig Venter is a supernatural being).

but not supernatural. That's somehow comforting.
OTOH, that the designer is not a non-natural cause will be news for a lot of people, e. g. StephenB in the same thread, three comments earlier:
Quote
Yes, indeed. What kind of evidence would satisfy them short of a DNA molecule signed, “built by Yahweh.”

Date: 2010/02/17 16:58:36, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (Lou FCD @ Feb. 16 2010,19:05)
Bob O'H sends his love via Twitter, and says this:

     
Quote
RT @kejames OMG! Just stumbled across a potential creationist paper in press in 'Peptides'! http://bit.ly/cT1a0T


From the abstract:

     
Quote
Peptides. 2010 Feb 10. [Epub ahead of print]
Protein information content resides in rare peptide segments.

Kanduc D.

Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, University of Bari, Italy.

Discovering the informational rule(s) underlying structure-function relationships in the protein language is at the core of biology. Current theories have proven inadequate to explain the origins of biological information such as that found in nucleotide and amino acid sequences; an 'intelligent design' is now a popular way to explain the information produced in biological systems. Here, we demonstrate that the information content of an amino acid motif correlates with the motif rarity. A structured analysis of the scientific literature supports the theory that rare pentapeptide words have higher significance than more common pentapeptides in biological cell 'talk'. This study expands on our previous research showing that the immunological information contained in an amino acid sequence is inversely related to the sequence frequency in the host proteome. Copyright © 2010. Published by Elsevier Inc.

PMID: 20153390 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]

PZ wrote a post about it and the author turned up in the comments.
It looks as if she didn't know what she was getting into when she used "intelligent design" in the abstract and she promised to remove it. Remains to be seen whether she'll actually do it.
I believe her that she didn't want to write a stealth ID paper. No ID proponent would ever turn up in PZ comments and answer to criticism.

Date: 2010/02/18 12:26:53, Link
Author: JLT
Happy birthday!

Best wishes from Bill too!

Date: 2010/02/20 03:28:29, Link
Author: JLT
Quote
I don’t find anything in the 10 commandments, for example, that is not straight forward and clear.

Linky

I'll never understand how they can pretend that the ten commandments are a sufficient guide line to decide ethical questions.
Take "You shall not kill."

Completely straightforward, isn't it. Apparently not. Apparently what that really means is "You shall not murder" which means that killing is allowed if it is in self defence or in war times. The death penalty is allowed, too, although it is neither self defence nor war but OT "an eye for an eye" which was IIRC explicitly overturned by Jesus: Turn the other cheek.
Some at UD probably think that the murder of Dr. Tiller was not only morally defensible but that it was a moral act although it is clearly murder. And I'm pretty sure most of them would agree that killing Hitler would've been a good thing. But it would've been in direct contradiction to You shall not kill.
Kill one to save many is clear cut utilitarian reasoning. It doesn't square with moral absolutes like You shall not kill.
If they were right that there're objective moral absolutes than there couldn't be such a thing as a moral dilemma - we all should answer them in the same way and give the same reasons for our answers.

Date: 2010/02/21 08:11:03, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 21 2010,11:08)
Also your all forgetting about "Professor John A. Davison's work", he is definitely not in either "camps". furthermore the unlikelihood that Darwinian evolution can explain the appearance of the formation of NEW information in the cell.
 We need a more scientifically fulfilling mechanism, one that takes in account advances in paleontology, genome analysis, genetics and embryology. The present model simply doesn't meet that standard however a "preexisting genomic mechanism" could.

So, you're a med student. Then you might've heard about something called antibodies. Our immune system can produce antibodies against almost everything that invades the body although our genome doesn't code for every possible antibody. Instead, during the maturation of B cells (the antibody producing cells) in each B cell precursor the antibody-coding gene is randomly assembled from some gene segments. There're about 10000 possible combinations, plus variations in the binding regions between segments.
Whichever B cell binds however weakly to a specific invader (= an antigen) gets a signal through that binding to start proliferating. The progeny inherits of course the newly assembled antibody gene but in addition a gene that's also activated in the proliferating B cell introduces random mutations in the antibody gene so that each progeny cell gets a slightly modified version. This new version can bind better or worse to the antigen than the original version. The better the binding the stronger the survival signal for the daughter cell - so, if the binding is more efficient in one cell than the other, the cell with the better antibody will produce more offspring than the other. With each proliferation cycle this step is repeated until in the end only B cells survive* that produce high-affinity antibodies against the antigen.

At which point did the intelligent antibody designer inject the information about how to produce high-affinity antibodies against this antigen? Since this information isn't contained in the genome it must be new information that according to you can't come about by mutation and selection. So, where did it come from in your opinion?


* Or more specific, B cells with high-affinity antibodies outcompete the rest.

Date: 2010/02/23 06:11:08, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 23 2010,11:31)
     
Quote (BWE @ Feb. 23 2010,05:24)
jon, I like the cut of your jib but you are just here to whine. Can you at least take a time out at being mad at other people because they don't want to hear your ideas any more?

Try to be decent for a day or 2 and see haw it is. Y'now, baby steps, right?

That is wonderful. I guess anyone who denies your failed hypothesis will be accused of being Professor Davison. The problem is staring you right in your eyes. The inability to accept the evidence. Hate it as much as you like but creative evolution is a phenomenon of the distant past and, like ontogeny, was always emergent and autoregulated with little reference to the environment.

Which evidence?

All I've read from you so far are unsubstantiated claims.
Take your last statement. What I'd refer to as evolutionary changes are in your opinion "emergent and autoregulated with little reference to the environment."
How do you explain then that, for example, sharks and dolphins do have a similar form while dolphins look different than land-living mammals if the environment doesn't have that much to do with it?
I assume you accept that dolphins are mammals and more closely related to land-living mammals than to sharks and are descendent from land-living mammals.

If you don't like my example, how about you provide a concrete example that shows how your hypothesis better predicts what we see than evolutionary theory?

BTW, I've asked you a question earlier. I'd be very interested in your answer.


ETA: I'm a working scientist, too.

Date: 2010/02/23 14:20:01, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (Tom Ames @ Feb. 23 2010,05:10)
On the off chance that any of Dembski's Philo 4483 students wander over into this Swamp of Immorality, I made an offer to answer their questions on this thread. However, I'd also like to direct a few questions in return to these Dembski students. Here goes:


Dear Student,

[snip excellent questions]

If there's anything you genuinely want to know (and if you're not engaged in a drive-by for grades) I, and many others here, will do our best to address your questions respectfully.

I'd suggest that any one who wants to talk about scientific questions states first,

- what s/he thinks the age of the earth is
- whether he accepts common descent (including humans)
- what kind of background he has in biology*

That would make it much easier.


* I actually mean biology, not whether he thinks he "knows" evolutionary theory. I want to know if he knows anything about e.g. genetics.

Date: 2010/02/23 19:19:42, Link
Author: JLT
Quote
—-“But if Law and Chance are themselves a product of Agency, then nothing in our universe is not the product of Agency, which invalidates the argument for ID.

ID can detect that the products from the first Agency cause [God if you like] that manifest themselves as law-like regularities [and its cooperation with chance] are different from the products of the first Agency cause [God] that manifest themselves as designed objects [DNA patterns] and [human agents] by examining the design patterns IN the DNA and those left BY the humans and recognizing [a] that they are similar and [b] that natural laws have never been known to produce anything like them. Once the nature of those patterns have been established, ID can then distinguish between the law like regularities designed by the first Agent, which have no such patterns, and the designed entities from the first Agent which do.


Do you [the AtBC denizen if you wish] think that it makes a [circular argument] [a] more convincing and [b] less circular IF you are using these [nice] square brackets AND write some words in CAPS?

Date: 2010/02/25 08:40:39, Link
Author: JLT
Happy birthday Amadan!

Date: 2010/02/27 06:14:12, Link
Author: JLT
Happy birthday!

Date: 2010/03/02 04:40:22, Link
Author: JLT
Quote
This is the first of probably three posts on applied Intelligent Design. This is not an extensive list of applications of ID concepts, but I thought that giving people examples of how ID can be not only interesting and informative but actually useful in solving both biological and engineering problems.
[snip drivel]
So, that is application #1 – to be able to tell when additional information sources are feeding evolution. The next two applications of ID will not be biological at all, but rather related to software design and engineering.

Linky

So, the first and only practical application of ID to biology is to be able to say that what was designed was designed?
That must sound pathetic even to people who believe in that nonsense.

Date: 2010/03/09 14:36:12, Link
Author: JLT
Classic exchange at UD starting here:
DO'L mocks something that "Darwinists" allegedly believe:
 
Quote
Also, the primitively evolved “reptilian brain” guarantees that the cow alligator shows no* concern for her eggs.
Oh, wait … if you decide to test that last one, make sure you have left your legal and financial affairs in good order, and have a Cadillac health plan.
Darwin and his supporters are, of course, always right, except where they are simply wrong. But that doesn’t matter if they have got the law and the tax funding on their side.

* link to her blog where she links to this site at McGill's where the "conventional science explanation" (according to her) is given:
 
Quote
The most efficient model for understanding the brain in terms of its evolutionary history is the famous triune brain theory developed by Paul MacLean. According to this theory, the following three distinct brains emerged successively in the course of evolution and now co-inhabit the human skull:
The reptilian brain, the oldest of the three, controls the body's vital functions such as heart rate, breathing, body temperature and balance. Our reptilian brain includes the main structures found in a reptile's brain: the brainstem and the cerebellum. The reptilian brain is reliable but tends to be somewhat rigid and compulsive.[...]

Even if you didn't realize that this is a very simplistic pop science explanation it still should be obvious that this isn't a statement about the brains of reptiles but rather about the functions these evolutionary oldest structures in the human brain have in humans.

0815hrun calls her up on her equivocation:
 
Quote
Or… one has to take the term reptilian brain and try to understand it better (something that is most likely done in that particular lecture at McGill). Maybe they are not talking at all about the brain of any particular reptilian but about a particular aspect of the brain where memory formation is not necessary.

DO'L responds by linking to a lot of snippets that all pertain to the "reptilian brain" in humans and not to the brains of reptiles. Her main claim:
 
Quote
I do not claim that all or most reptiles show concern for their offspring. Probably, the majority do not, as there is no need. Many young reptiles are live born replicas of their parents.
But if any reptiles do, claims for the “reptilian brain only” as preventing the show of emotion must be appropriately qualified.

Again, she confuses what the reptilian brain in humans does and what reptiles do.
In her next comment she treats us with this beautiful non sequitur:
 
Quote
“Maybe they are not talking at all about the brain of any particular reptilian but about a particular aspect of the brain where memory formation is not necessary.”[quoting hrun]
[Wake up, hrun! Many people have got themselves killed or maimed trying to outsmart an adult breeding reptile in its own territory, so I would not suggest that anyone count on the idea that reptiles do not have memory.]

WTF?
And continues to ask hrun:
 
Quote
By the way, just so I know, are you funded by taxpayers? I'm not.

Hrun is puzzled:
 
Quote
How does this matter? Have my arguments more or less merit if I am funded by taxpayers? Does it matter to your arguments who funds you?

DO'L nonswers:
 
Quote
2. Like many pop authors, you need to believe in a construct called “the reptilian brain.”
I don’t care, as long as it does NOT find its way into public policy, as it threatens to do. As understood in popular culture, it is a myth, period.
Also, hrun at 11: It matters to me because I must shortly file my tax return. I resent paying for publicly funded nonsense about the natural world – on behalf of all good citizens of the Western world, only to support the worthless ideology of Darwinism and fund the persecution of dissenters.
ARE you funded by my – or any citizen of a liberal democratic society’s – taxes?
Yes, it DOES matter.

Again, WTF? In the comment preceding this one she argued that some reptiles do care for their young which in her mind apparently proves that neuroscientists are wrong in talking about a reptilian brain when referring to the brainstem and cerebellum. Which public policy depends on reptiles not caring for their young? Or on neuroscientists calling that part of the human brain "reptilian"? Or that in humans emotions are apparently not located in this part of the brain?
Batshit77 chimes in with something completely irrelevant:
 
Quote
hruno815,
If you are trying to ultimately establish consciousness “emerged” from a material basis, you may want to carefully consider this following evidence:

DO'L is reduced to incoherent muttering:
 
Quote
hrun0815, whoever you are, if you live in my country (Canada) and you are funded by taxes, you eat, sleep, and clothe and entertain yourself at my expense.
Be warm, well fed, sleep well, and enjoy yourself.
But don’t ask ME to take your opinions seriously. I just got another demand letter from the government, NOT a cheque from a government-funded agency like a university.
Do YOU get that? Wow …
And if anyone does not understand what the difference means, … they need remedial arithmetic.
Anyway, exploding this point: It means the government forces me to support all kinds of people who are contrary to my interests and welfare. That’s okay, until the government starts demanding support for worthless causes and projects like Darwinism, recovered memories, and human-caused global climate change, which are obviously ill-founded and could cause misery to thousands or millions.

My brain hurts. All parts.
But DO’L isn’t finished, yet. Her next comment:
 
Quote
“Is my argument more or less valid if I am funded by taxpayers? Is your argument more or less valid if you are not?” Nothing else should matter as far as this discussion is concerned.”
Okay, hrun [why don't these people use names and locations?]: Are you a Canadian citizen?
Yes or no?
Surely no Canadian would refuse to answer.
I myself would rather be a Canadian than have five earned doctorates and ten honorary doctorates.

Go read the rest of her comment if you want to kill some more brain cells.
At this point: Congrats to Hrun. The last 4 comments of his were just variations of this:
 
Quote
If I am funded by your tax dollar or not does not matter. Your argument is false. As simple as that.

That's efficient DO'L baiting. And it ends with DO’L flouncing:
 
Quote
hrun0815 at 27, who does not wish to reveal name, citizenship, or tax burden status (obviously not a proud Canadian, but probably a tax burden somewhere):
No one would pull off their boots to walk any distance across pack ice, if they hoped to save their toes.
Also, it is unwise to assume that we can run faster than all types of animals. Many have died assuming they can run faster than a bear or an alligator. The fact that the animal appears sluggish when he is at rest and unchallenged is NOT a good indicator.
Anyway, I must now leave this discussion, due to work-related issues – with the following observations:
- Tax funding matters a great deal to the question of whether nonsense can be retailed as sense.
The “reptiles show no care for young,” thesis due to tri-partite evolution of the brain – as a blanket statement – is a good example of Darwinism-based nonsense, easily refuted by an Internet search.
Again, I implore all to beware the alligator death roll and also the king cobra family, whom you do NOT want to visit any time near the natal day.
Or any time at all, actually, but especially not when they are hatching dozens of young cobras.

I apologize for any brain damage these DO’L quotes might’ve caused. But by reading this exchange I realized that this is how most of the discussions at UD go, it’s just usually not that obvious:
Some statement in a pro-ID post/comment is criticised.
Instead of answering the criticism the criticised statement is repeated, or it’s declared a joke, or all answers focus on some minor point in the criticising comment, or the commenter is drawn into a discussion of absolute objective morals/computer programs/frozen toes, or treated with 20 links to irrelevant YouTube videos. All in the same comment if it is KF.
But the initial criticism is never ever EVER answered. Never ever.

Date: 2010/03/10 03:30:12, Link
Author: JLT
Quote (CeilingCat @ Mar. 10 2010,05:56)
O'Leary:        
Quote
Also, hrun at 11: It matters to me because I must shortly file my tax return. I resent paying for publicly funded nonsense about the natural world – on behalf of all good citizens of the Western world, only to support the worthless ideology of Darwinism and fund the persecution of dissenters.
What a coincidence!  I too must shortly file my tax return and I resent paying for publicly funded nonsense about the supernatural world and supporting the worthless ideology of right-wing religionists who fund the persecution of just about everybody in the whole damned world!

Say, how do you make your living?  Don't you write for publications that are sold to those publicly funded supernaturalists with their worthless ideology of right-wing religion who persecute just about everybody in the whole damned world?  I'll bet they pay for your crap with the money they save deducting their church donations from their income tax, you damned socialist!

Even if you leave all that aside:
It's interesting to know what DO'L really thinks about academic freedom. Apparently, if you're being paid directly or indirectly by government funds you shouldn't have any. And all of that in the comments of a post that starts like this:
Quote
Why I Care About Teaching the Controversy
johnnyb

I realized after my previous post about Academic Freedom legislation that I did not mention why it is that I care about the ability for teachers to “teach the controversy”.

Date: 2010/03/11 06:35:17, Link
Author: JLT
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...

Date: 2010/03/12 03:32:29, Link
Author: JLT
As a follow-up to my previous post:

DO'L is still at it!
She's now established that hrun is not a proud Canadian, who is probably funded by DO'L and therefore has a personal financial interest in ... um ... something.
 
Quote
hrun0815 does not wish to say if he a Canadian. If so