AE BB DB Explorer

Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):

form_srcid: Jake

form_srcid: Jake

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

Your IP address is


form_srcid: Jake

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 = t2.member_id) WHERE MEMBER_NAME like 'Jake%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC


DB_result: Resource id #7

Date: 2006/10/30 12:38:23, Link
Author: Jake
Hello, first post from a long-time lurker, I tried to resist, but this was just too much.

I looked over the paper the UD crowd are salivating over. Not exactly stellar scientific work. It appears to consist of nothing more than a series of unsupported assertions about 'information', bolstered by a slew of nonsensical buzzwords. I kept flicking back, trying to find some actual evidence for, well, anything, but that doesnt appear to have been a priority. Nor, for that matter, does coherence.

I feel sorry for the other poor souls who have published in this online journal - hopefully they will take a look at the peer review standards before they become a laughing stock.

Date: 2006/11/07 17:28:11, Link
Author: Jake
The level of misunderstanding displayed in the 'Darwinists are Always Surprised' thread is really quite astonishing. These people think they are going to overturn the reigning paradigm in biological science, but almost without exception they betray a profound ignorance of even the most basic principles of evolutionary biology. Someone should tell them that ignorance of a scientific theory is not admissable as evidence against it.  
At least one poster (Atom) is applying the old 'hurricane in a junkyard' probability calculation to the chances of arriving at the particular mutations reached, clearly without having read the thing.

Date: 2006/11/29 03:46:48, Link
Author: Jake
It bears repeating that the default view of ID for this list is the position hammered out over a fifteen year period starting with Phil Johnson and moving through to Behe, myself, Wells, Meyer, Nelson, Pearcey, Gonzalez, Richards, and O'Leary. Any of you who have a fundamental problem with that position need to consider carefully whether you should be on this list at all.

 Best wishes,
 Bill Dembski

So OK, thats a lot clearer. The default ID position is the one espoused by Behe, a Catholic old-earther, Wells, a Moonie, and Nelson, a YEC...

Im confused.

Date: 2006/11/29 08:28:29, Link
Author: Jake
Its not only the lame level of their science that confuses me, its how 15 years of hammering could result in a position containing at least three mutually inconsistent worldviews.

Who do they think they are trying to kid?

Oh, thats right; idiots.

Date: 2006/12/12 10:41:34, Link
Author: Jake
Man, they're still banging on about Kitzmiller versus Dover. How is whining on about a year-old court decision supposed to advance the science of ID?

Recently Ive noticed more and more that the ID crowd have basically stopped producing new mathematical models, critiques of evolution etc., and have focussed more and more upon selling the ones they already have. In this respect they remind me very much of the YECs. Once a critique has been written, no matter how bad it is and how quickly is is evicerated, that critique is considered unimpeachable and totally correct in all but perhaps very minor respects. Criticism is all but ignored.

I reckon they feel they have all the arguments they need by now, and simply have to keep repeating them until people finally get it.

Date: 2006/12/13 11:09:40, Link
Author: Jake
Their whining would be more convincing if it wasn't so obvious that had the judgement gone the other way they'd be praising Judge Jones and extolling his judgement.

Very true. Sad, but true.

I just wish they would come up with something a bit better than this, you know? Something that actually required conscious thought to rebut. Its just been whinge, whinge, whinge about Judge Jones and Richard Dawkins for weeks and weeks.

To paraphrase Family Guy - 'What the #### is this? Somebody throw a pie!'

Date: 2007/01/05 02:56:21, Link
Author: Jake
Arghh, that infinite monkeys conversation is so stupid! What I especially cant stand is the way they so smugly congratulate themselves on seeing through this Darwinian obfuscation, without acknowledging for one second that it may be their understanding of the concepts involved that is incorrect.

Ill try and explain, for the benefit of any UD lurkers here, using slightly different language.

1. The phase space of 'all possible books' contains the complete works of Shakespeare (and all other books, by definition).
2. If we randomly sample this phase space for an infinite period of time, all possible results will emerge.
3. Ergo, any system (in this case monkeys typing) that randomly samples the phase space over the period of infinity will eventually produce all possible books.

For a group of people so concerned with where we are all going for infinity they sure have a shaky understanding of the concept.

Date: 2007/01/05 09:41:21, Link
Author: Jake

Such is the plot of Borges's celebrated The Library of Babel. Monks spending their lives in an infinite library, understanding that somewhere in the library exists a book that explains the library--but seemingly unaware that the library also contains an infinite number of false explanations as well. Of course, most of them never encounter a single meaningful phrase.

That sounds rather fun, Ill see if I can dig it up. It rather reminds me of the third 'Science of Discworld' book, with the librarian knuckling about in L space and getting different versions of the Origin of Species where Darwin is an ID'er.

Date: 2007/01/26 06:13:01, Link
Author: Jake
Man, there are so many fakers on that site. I think Ive just spotted another (Im not going to say who, Ill let them play as long as they can get away with it). Without exaggeration, I would guess between 10 and 15 percent of their membership is taking the ****.

Date: 2007/02/09 06:13:22, Link
Author: Jake
Mentok says...

Following his mathematical probability paradigm it is just as unlikely to get gibberish if a monkey typed on a typewriter for an hour as it is unlikely for the monkey to write a novel. Meh, it just shows to go ya, evangelical evolutionists lack critical thinking capacity.

Arghh! Seriously, what sort of dullard writes a sentence like this? And why do they keep on and on with the monkeys and the typewriters? It reminds me of Ricky Gervais interviewing Karl Pilkington - for those who havent seen it, its not a flattering comparison, (although a very accurate one.)

Date: 2007/02/09 11:19:40, Link
Author: Jake
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Feb. 09 2007,09:32)


Thats the one! I love the bit where he asks what shift pattern the monkeys are on.

Date: 2007/02/28 08:03:17, Link
Author: Jake
Jason Rennie:

The ID side is full of engineers, mathematicians, molecular biologists, computer scientists, etc, and the Darwinist side is full of ecologists, zoologists and others like that. On the one hand you have people who deal with machines and engineering for a living and on the other side you have field naturalists (in the classic sense of the word naturalist).

Umm, last time I looked, the molecular biologists were pretty much all on our side...

Date: 2007/03/03 06:07:25, Link
Author: Jake
Funniest post on OE yet.

I'll withhold further comment.

Thats amazing! How many genuine posters do people reckon there are? Id say about 15 at UD and perhaps 5 at OE? More? less?

Im actually feeling guilty laughing at it. If they were more competent at what they do I wouldn't feel guilty at all; after all, their aims are pretty nasty stuff. Its just that they are so laughably inept. Its like mocking at a child's attempts to build a rocket out of cardboard to travel to the moon.

Date: 2007/03/05 08:28:32, Link
Author: Jake
Great_Ape is a tard

I dont think he is, although I agree this post is a little hard to understand. From what I can see, he has been posting fairly decent stuff, but avoiding conflict for quite a while. AFAICT Great_Ape is one of the handful of pro-science people who have not ended up banned.

Of course, if he has gone off the deep end since I last read one of his posts then I retract this... (I don't go to UD much anymore, it seems to have degenerated a lot recently).

Date: 2007/03/05 11:23:29, Link
Author: Jake
Just when you thought it couldn't get any tardier...

Oh, Im sure it can, but its just that its getting boring. Ive been following the whole C/E debate for about 6-7 years now, and Ive seen way more interesting creationist arguments than UD is currently offering. They are just sulking, throwing up insulting articles about 'Darwinists' (whatever they are), Richard Dawkins and the US legal system, and occasionally misinterpreting a paper they havent read and don't intend to. I just wish they would come up with something new.

I accept of course that UD does not exist solely for my amusement, but even they must realise that their current ridiculous position is getting them no-where.

Date: 2007/03/05 13:24:51, Link
Author: Jake
I don't know anything about Mr. Ape. That great UD2AtBC script just puts "(commenter) is a tard" as the link name.

Where UD is concerned, thats a reasonable inference to make even if you don't know who the poster is...

It's hard to imagine any other purpose, though.

Why?  What good is it otherwise?

Good points  :) I just can't help feeling a bit frustrated by the whole sorry spectacle, though.

Date: 2007/03/06 03:03:18, Link
Author: Jake
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Mar. 05 2007,17:46)

Quote (Jake @ Mar. 05 2007,11:23)
Oh, Im sure it can, but its just that its getting boring. Ive been following the whole C/E debate for about 6-7 years now, and Ive seen way more interesting creationist arguments than UD is currently offering.

Heck, I've been in this game since 1982, and haven't seen anything new from ANY of them during that entire time.

####, what can I say, im an optimist  :)

Date: 2007/03/08 02:38:59, Link
Author: Jake

But two things: First, don’t think it is probably due to a lack of understanding of biochemistry. I am certainly not a biochemist but know enough chemistry and biology to understand arguments when they are put forth.

Jerry, a mere two posts later:

To give you a brief absurd example of the complexity involved. Consider all the possible proteins of length 40. These would be small proteins for even the simplest life forms. The number of proteins required for this set of macro molecules would exhaust the entire matter in the universe. If you doubt this, do the math. If we limit the number of amino acids to 39, including the left and right hand versions of those used in life, then we would have approximately 39 to the 40th power of different combinations.

Even if my math is off a little this means that the possibilities of one specific simple protein being formed is close to nil.

Jerry, we don't think your confusion is down to a lack of understanding of biochemistry, we know it is. Your math isnt 'a little off', it is completely inappropriate to the situation in hand. Anti-evolutionists from Hoyle to Dembski have made this same fallacious calculation, and repeating it isnt going to make it any less incorrect.

Date: 2007/03/08 09:55:16, Link
Author: Jake
further see you persist in using a strawman of intelligent design talking about godheads and demanding an explanation of how they operate... Inferring that something is designed does not require knowing how it was manufactured. You clearly can’t accept that so there’s really no reason for you to continue here.

If you can infer design, you must be able to say something about the designer. Otherwise how would you be able to tell 'purposeful design' from, say, 'anything else'?

And why is it that an actual scientist, talking about actual science, and asking actual questions about ID gets banned after 5 or so posts, while the pro-ID regulars get to wibble on about theology for multiple fifty post threads without a hint of moderator input? (Rhetorical question, I know the answer...)

Date: 2007/03/18 06:04:32, Link
Author: Jake
I see Dembski is running his class on UD principles:
(1)  Mid-term exam — 20 percent positive.  
(2)  Final exam — 30 percent positive.  
(3)  Exercises — 50 percent positive. Exercises appear at the end of each chapter in  NCM. Answers to all these exercises need to be written out and handed in each  week.  
(4) Single-page executive summary of YOU (with clearly recognizable embedded  picture of yourself) — minus 5 percent if not handed in. Due beginning of second  week of class.  
(5) Active class participation — up to 10 percent negative.  

Or, in English, active participation can't possibly help your grade, but if you participate anyway and Dembski doesn't like what you say, it will cost you grade points!

To be fair, this could also be read this as 'if you do not participate actively in class discussions, you will lose marks', which is fair enough. The course outline PDF has this written as 'full class participation', next to 'punctual attendance' - surely people arent going to lose marks for being on time!

Date: 2007/03/19 10:21:01, Link
Author: Jake
Quote (djmullen @ Mar. 19 2007,05:28)
Quote (Jake @ Mar. 18 2007,05:04)
I see Dembski is running his class on UD principles:
(1)  Mid-term exam — 20 percent positive.  
(2)  Final exam — 30 percent positive.  
(3)  Exercises — 50 percent positive. Exercises appear at the end of each chapter in  NCM. Answers to all these exercises need to be written out and handed in each  week.  
(4) Single-page executive summary of YOU (with clearly recognizable embedded  picture of yourself) — minus 5 percent if not handed in. Due beginning of second  week of class.  
(5) Active class participation — up to 10 percent negative.  

Or, in English, active participation can't possibly help your grade, but if you participate anyway and Dembski doesn't like what you say, it will cost you grade points!

To be fair, this could also be read this as 'if you do not participate actively in class discussions, you will lose marks', which is fair enough. The course outline PDF has this written as 'full class participation', next to 'punctual attendance' - surely people arent going to lose marks for being on time!

To be even fairer (and more realistic), using UD rules, any poor kid who commits science or any other intellectual activity will lose a grade point.  He'll probably have DaveScot proctor his lectures and personally escort any malefactor (at least any who are weak enough) to the door and toss him or her out (up to three feet if the perp is light enough).

You'll note that I'm assuming here that Dembski is, if not right, at least consistent.

Why on earth would you assume he's consistent?  :)

Date: 2007/03/26 12:41:13, Link
Author: Jake
Quote (wintermute @ Mar. 26 2007,11:08)
Shorter DaveScot:

"Animals live longer, if they're raised in a sterile, germ-free environment, therefore the Garden of Eden must be true!"

This got me thinking about evolution vs. design. The animals raised germ-free could not have evolved in the natural world without exposure to bacteria but they could have been designed for GF life. The fact that they live twice as long in a GF environment when eating a diet that is nutritionally complete except for being sterile seems to be favorable evidence that animals were created in and for a germ-free world.

Huh. Average human lifespan has hugely increased in the modern west compared with ancient times, due mainly to the grossly artificial environment in which we live (medicine, diet, no predation and little violence etc.). We still die eventually, though, often of diseases that would have been rare in ancient people (Alzheimers, heart disease etc.). It seems to me that this study provides a striking parallel with changing human mortality. Dave appears to be trying to argue that because some animals live longer in artificially comfortable environs they are designed. Animals generally live longer in captivity than in the wild, as well - so what?

Actually, thats not even the worst thing with his post - where does he propose all the bacteria and viruses came from, if the world was originally 'germ free'?

Date: 2007/03/26 13:06:58, Link
Author: Jake
Quote (wintermute @ Mar. 26 2007,11:43)
Quote (Jake @ Mar. 26 2007,11:41)
Actually, thats not even the worst thing with his post - where does he propose all the bacteria and viruses came from, if the world was originally 'germ free'?

The Biblical fall of man, of course!

Didn't you know he's one of those Biblical Literalist agnostics?

(Snaps fingers, shakes head)

Of course! How stupid of me to have forgotten to factor in such a central scientific theory as the Biblical fall of man!

Date: 2007/04/06 11:12:11, Link
Author: Jake
Quote (phonon @ April 06 2007,10:36)

As much as he'd like to believe so, this article is NOT pro-ID. It speaks of rational design or intelligent design, but that's not the same as Intelligent Design.

This is biomimetics. Duh. It's called directed enzyme evolution.

From the article:    
Ultimately, the objective is to make proteins perform for us as well as they perform in life.

And dig this, Dembski:    
Rational design has been mainly used in biotechnology to improve the properties (especially thermostability) of natural enzymes.
Oh noes, did we improve upon the work of the Intelligent Designer? How can that be? Well, you always said that Intelligent didn't mean perfect. I guess the Intelligent Designer makes mistakes. Can't be who you had in mind then, can it?

Another nice quote for Dembski:    
It is often said that random genetic methods to improve enzyme properties “rely on simple but powerful Darwinian principles of mutation and selection” (Johannes and Zhao 2006). We agree. It is also said that “every protein has become adapted by step-by-step improvement and refinement of its function over millions of years” (McLachlan 1987). The present theories, however, only partly explain the protein diversity, although a recent study (Poelwijk et al. 2007) shows that even the key-lock dilemma can be resolved by the Darwinian approach when the operation field for random search is within the same protein family, and the new key-lock pair closely resembles the original (ancestral).

Gene duplication and subsequent divergence as mechanisms to create natural variety and novel structures are now decade’s old theories (Ohno 1970). Basically, directed evolution approach is an application of the gene duplication concept. Gene duplication is seen as a way to avoid random sequences in evolution, because random sequences most often are not functional. Mutations in the duplicated genes explore the local sequence space and expand the number of members in a gene family.
Ohno, those theories from Ohno are decades old.

Pro-ID article? I think not, Dembski.


The article is a review of current protein-engineering processes, arguing out that while a rational, directed approach to protein engineering would be most efficient, at present we do not know enough to do this effectively and hence iterative searches of random peptides (referred to here as 'Darwinian' methods) are currently used (we have a program of this type running on my department's screensavers, apparently). The review states a number of drawbacks with this sort of method and argues that such methods are impractical in the long term. In addition, they argue that over-reliance on random search methods should not be allowed to impede progress towards a better understanding how to rationally design proteins.

No-where does this paper support the idea that evolution is flawed, although it does highlight some current areas of uncertainty, notably the question of how novel protein folds arise. No-one is pretending that uncertainties like this do not exist, and productive careers are currently being employed investigating these very problems. To suggest that this is a weakness is to misunderstand the very nature of science.

The review cites both Axe (2004) and Behe and Snoke (2004), which is probably why Dembski noticed it in the first place. I can see why he posted it; the abstract can be read in a pro-ID way (if you squint) and I would guess, oh, 0% of the pro-ID readers over there will actually take the time and effort to read the whole thing.

Date: 2007/05/08 09:00:05, Link
Author: Jake
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ May 08 2007,07:42)
For some reason I think there might still be some trolls left unpurged over there.  Will the last loki please turn out the lights on your way out?

Oh yeah, definitely. I reckon the Loki trolls currently outnumber the actual posters by a considerable margin. Im not going to name names, but there is just too much irony in some posts there for them to be from genuine posters.

Date: 2007/05/28 14:35:02, Link
Author: Jake
Quote (someotherguy @ May 28 2007,14:20)
Agreed, Steve.  That was an excellent response.  I wonder if he'll response to Dembski's latest missive.

It is an excellent response, but I wonder, what is the point of responding there any more? For days after the echo chamber had been informed of the vacuity of their initial claims, they continued to blindly repeat them, as if nothing had happened. These are people who genuinely do not listen to contradictory information.

Whilst I fully support the idea of educating people who are honestly ignorant, I am increasingly of the opinion that UD has no more of them left. All thats left at that site are bitter losers, trolls and fantasists.

Date: 2007/06/21 04:26:01, Link
Author: Jake
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 21 2007,02:54)
GilDodgen notes:  
Another enigma about the development of life: A single cell divides into two identical cells, which divide into four, etc. How do the cells, since they are identical copies of the original cell, know when and how to differentiate? Where does this information come from?

Well, even I know that one! Gradients right? You'd think that Gil would pick up a damm book before pontificating.

This is what annoys me so much about UD and its posters. They spout off triumphantly about some well understood aspect of biology (well understood by biologists, not by them) and then essentially go 'ha! how do the Darwinists explain that, then, eh?'.

Gil, a little advice: the fact that you are ignorant about a subject does not mean that everyone else is.

Date: 2007/06/25 02:48:28, Link
Author: Jake
Quote (Hermagoras @ June 24 2007,19:56)
Again I'm attempting to comment on UD.  Let's see if this one makes it out of limbo.  My response is to this.  Here's what I say:

First, your martyrdom statistics seem high. Do you have a source?

Second, the idea that Harris and Klebold targeted Christians is problematic at best: see

Third, I doubt Wicca is or will soon be anywhere near that popular, and again I ask for a source. Besides, why is that a problem? Wiccans at least are not materialists.

Finally, it’s worth noting that historically, witches have not persecuted and killed Christians. Rather the reverse.

I believe I'm being respectful, and in response to a very stupid comment.  Still  I have my doubts.  What's the over/under on this getting through?   And why should I care?  Why oh why doesn't Dembski love me?


Borne has to be a troll. There can be no other possible explanation. No-one is that dumb in real life, surely?


Date: 2007/07/24 09:46:18, Link
Author: Jake
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 24 2007,08:49)
And those critters from Island of Terror liquefy bones for the calcium.

I saw that film, it was class!

"No bones? hwhatsoever?"

Date: 2007/07/24 12:24:38, Link
Author: Jake
Acquiesce needs to understand the concept of a niche

" can NS direct for higher complexity whilst simultaneously selecting for lower fitness?", asked about five thousand times whilst ignoring Bob OH's answers.

The answer, Acquiesce, is that the environment is not uniform and 'fitness' is not a static variable. Variation may select for higher complexity (or lower complexity) if this allows an organism to colonise an available niche. So long as high complexity niches are available, high complexity organisms will evolve to fill them. Low complexity organisms will be less fit in these niches.

Date: 2007/07/25 12:12:41, Link
Author: Jake
Its sad in a way, watching Acquiesce et al. smugly demolish strawmen while Bob tries in vain to educate them. How can you begin to educate someone who is so ignorant of science as to think five minutes on the internet is enough to find gaping holes in a scientific theory that has stood 150 years of scrutiny? What does he think biologists do all day?

We all see why he is wrong, but he doesnt, and just won't accept correction. Where do you go from there?

Date: 2007/07/30 16:49:25, Link
Author: Jake
If this isnt a deep cover troll then Im absolutely gobsmacked.

"The content-free “me too” comments posted on the blog show how uninformed the blog writer/posters are. Compare those comments with the comments in just about any UD thread (like the “Prominent NAS member trashes neo-Darwinism” thread) and the difference between blogs couldn’t be clearer."

Date: 2007/10/01 16:18:01, Link
Author: Jake
Ive said it before, and Ill say it again. Borne must be one of you guys. No-one can be that stupid. No-one.

I daresay many (although probably not most) UD posters are sincere, if misguided people, but that guy? No way.

Date: 2007/10/12 05:10:07, Link
Author: Jake

...I bet that nearly all of the biological non-professionals who regularly post on this board would rate in that top 1%. If we are the cream of the crop, why don’t we buy the theory?

Hmm, perhaps its because you aren't in the top 1%?

Date: 2007/10/16 07:37:45, Link
Author: Jake
Apparently this was insufficient to chastise BA77, because he immediately follows up with a post which may be his all-time record for length and inanity. On my laptop monitor it is 23 screens long, and a mother-lode of tard of the high quality that only BA77 can provide.

Hah hah hah!

Does anyone actually read BA77's stuff, or, like me, do you all just derive amusement from the length of his posts?

Date: 2007/10/16 16:41:19, Link
Author: Jake
Quote (Bob O'H @ Oct. 16 2007,13:29)
Does anyone actually read BA77's stuff, or, like me, do you all just derive amusement from the length of his posts?

4591 words this time.  I didn't see a list of 12 reasons why materialism is wrong either.  Did anyone else spot it in there?

I tried to read it, but I think I had a neo-Darwinist experience halfway through.


I tend to just scroll down for about two seconds with the mouse wheel, read a sentence or two, and leave it at that. Too much BA77 is not good.

Im kind of hoping Ill look at a section of one of his comments one day and find the moon dust argument, but maybe Im expecting too much?

Date: 2007/12/10 08:38:24, Link
Author: Jake
Heads up!

Getawitness is a goner

Date: 2007/12/11 07:30:48, Link
Author: Jake
I wonder what happened in May 2007?

Date: 2007/12/11 11:50:28, Link
Author: Jake
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Dec. 11 2007,11:18)
Quote (Jake @ Dec. 11 2007,08:30)
I wonder what happened in May 2007?

A stupid professional simulated wrestling event.  It's an annual stupid event, which you can see stupidly peaking at the same stupid time annually if you expand the search result graph to show all years.

Thanks! I kept coming back to Terminator 2 in my mind...

Date: 2007/12/11 14:48:14, Link
Author: Jake
I had been feeling a bit sorry for the crowd over at UD - its like teasing a bunch of toddlers. This latest thread ends all the pity, however. What a contemptible shower!

Date: 2008/03/14 17:46:10, Link
Author: Jake
Edinburgh is a lovely place, although it is rather expensive and has lots of tourists. Edinburgh Uni. has an very good reputation as well. I stayed in one of the halls of residence last year when I went there for a wedding and they were fairly good (better than I got as a student, anyway...)

I dont know much about Swansea. Most of South Wales is old ex-coal and industry country, maybe not as nice as Edinburgh. Although the Uni isnt one of the top ones I think its OK. On the plus side Wales is really the place to go for the rugby.

Whatever she chooses, Britain is a cool place (although as a Brit Im biased) and Im sure she will enjoy it.

Date: 2008/03/22 06:21:04, Link
Author: Jake
Quote (sparc @ Mar. 21 2008,23:56)
After saying only    
"Hello World!"
for more than 9 months the Biologic Institute finally published managed to get a post published:  
Comments on F-type ATPase

There is no junk here.  The ATPase is made not of four amino acids but four thousand—more like an essay than a paragraph (much less a word).  Could it have started out much smaller?  Not much, in view of the two sections that have to be coupled for it to work.  Like an essay, it might withstand trimming in some places, and some of the parts might be reworded if we knew the rules of composition for proteins.  Typos can be tolerated to an extent, as with essays.  But none of this explains how random single-letter changes can produce new essays, whether from scratch or from existing essays on other subjects.  According to intuition, there’s only one way to get an essay.
Quite disappointing considering that this is supposed to be the blog of the ID research lab.

EDIT: Seemingly, comments are not welcome.

Pity, 'cos I have a comment.

AIG have been pushing this exact same argument, using the F-type ATP synthase, since at least 2005. I thought ID was supposed to be different from creationism?

Date: 2008/04/18 18:33:16, Link
Author: Jake
I really should stop reading the long threads at UD. Either of two things is bound to happen. 1. Kairosfocus joins in, or 2. The real sick scum ooze out of the woodwork.

I long ago stopped reading threads with KF in due to the fact that they dont make any sense, but for some reason I still read the occasional long KF free thread. One example just now was the Darwin and Nazis thread. What a disgrace to humanity. Hats off to Allan McNeill for lasting as long as he did; Im sure I couldnt have remained so civil in the face of all the ignorant hatred, bigotry and sneering self rightousness displayed by the mouth breathers over there.

As Ive asked before: do these people really think they are going to overturn the scientific consensus? WTF?

Date: 2008/04/26 02:41:53, Link
Author: Jake
Quote (Lou FCD @ April 25 2008,13:20)

The 'Facilities', Max Fish, Lower East Side, New York

Isnt that the toilet from CBGBs? (Before it was shut...)

Date: 2008/07/15 13:36:56, Link
Author: Jake
the persecution of fellow professionals who believe there is evidence to indicate intelligent design (God) in nature. They'll be shocked when they watch Ben uncover the stronghold an elite few with a particular worldview (Atheism) have over mainstream academia...


Wait, Im confused, I thought ID wasn't about squeezing Jesus into science?

Date: 2008/07/17 15:52:22, Link
Author: Jake
Aww, 1000 pages... I stated reading this thread just before 100, and thought that was a crazy number to reach. Still, the tard will out.

Date: 2008/08/02 15:24:35, Link
Author: Jake
Quote (Jkrebs @ Aug. 02 2008,14:23)
Quidam says,

A mathematical analysis is simply a model.  While models are extremely useful, it is important to remember that they are not the real thing and that if there is a discrepancy between the model and reality, it's unlikely that reality is wrong.

I like this way of saying this, and this is a key flaw of the creationists.  They think that if they have some math - any math - then they must be right, because math is truth!  The idea that maybe their math doesn't apply to the real world doesn't seem to occur to them.

This is so true. I remember once spending days vainly trying to point out to one guy (Jerry Don Bauer, I think his name was) that while there were no mathematical errors in his model of the evolution of a flagellum (which, predictably, "proved" that it couldn't happen), it was not in any way applicable to the real world, due to a host of inappropriate assumptions. His only response was to smugly point out that I couldn't find any errors in his math, therefore he was correct...

Edited to add: Actually, this mode of thinking (whilst antithetical to most sciency types) is probably very easy to maintain for many people. Its the sort of mindset that routinely rationalises away evidence that contradicts one interpretation of the Bible - pick a philosophy, then hold onto it in the face of all else. Its a lot more certain and easier than messy old reality. No doubt when you do it your whole life it becomes pretty natural.

Date: 2008/08/15 17:40:45, Link
Author: Jake
Quote (J-Dog @ Aug. 15 2008,14:37)
Thanks to all for the comments - my daughter decided to go to Edinburgh, not Swansea, and she leaves in early September.

So, NOW, I got MORE questions! -

During part of her time in Scotland, she will be placed with a Scottish family, and will be expected to give the family a "small gift", usually representing something form her university or city.


So, what would a Family of Scots want from an American student from Chicago?  I mean, other than money?

It's got to be small, they recommend taking only 2 suitcases, and my first idea was a Chicago Cubs baseball cap or caps, BUT I don't even know if they wear baseball caps in Scotland!

What do you all think might be appropriate and appreciated, given the parameters I outlined?

Albatrossity - You were just there - what's the story with using an American Laptop battery charger in GB?  (Yes, she does have a circuit converter.)

I think a Cubs cap is a good idea. The Cubs are pretty famous due to flms and TV, but thats not the sort of thing that you can pick up easily in the UK. Baseball isnt really popular (soccer, rugby and cricket, mainly), but everyone wears caps :-)

Date: 2008/09/16 17:42:30, Link
Author: Jake
Quote (PTET @ Sep. 16 2008,09:23)
From the front page of Conservapedia.    
Barack Obama lets the truth slip out that he is a Muslim: "John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith"[36][37]
Taqiyya allows a Muslim "to deny or denounce his faith if, in so doing, he protects or furthers the interests of Islam." [38]

These people are actually, genuinely, authentically, evil.

I think its more likely they are just idiots.

Maybe they are evil idiots, Ill grant that...

Date: 2010/05/01 07:53:05, Link
Author: Jake
Is that a common procedure (in real journals)?

Actually, it is fairly common. Most editors aren't going to know all the relevant experts for everything they get sent to review, and the feeling from most journals is that the best person to tell them who would be a good expert reviewer is the person who wrote the paper, and who presumably knows what's what in the field.

You can also send lists of people you don't want to review your paper...