AE BB DB Explorer


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


form_srcid: Zachriel

form_srcid: Zachriel

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is 50.17.162.174

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

form_author:

form_srcid: Zachriel

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

DB_err:

DB_result: Resource id #4

Date: 2006/09/04 08:03:26, Link
Author: Zachriel
Richardthughes: "It wasn't my intent to scare Dave away."

The topic of that thread was banning at Uncommon Descent. Most of the comments were reasonably on-topic. I did not wish DaveScot to run away, but nothing was posted that could not have been simply ignored. But run away he did.

After having my posts 'disappeared' without comment — by DaveScot's own admission — and a very dishonest action — he needs to seriously rethink how he interacts with others.

Date: 2006/09/04 10:58:10, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote
Arden Chatfield: Hey, Zachriel, welcome!


Thanks!

     
Quote
Since I'd never seen your name here before, I was wondering if you were already posting here under some other name.


I have lurked on AtBC for quite some time, but never commented. I usually post on the newsgroup talk.origins, or other such venues where people might be misled about the sciences and where I think I might be able to make a difference.

I was hoping that DaveScot would actually engage in a substantive discussion. Corporate Kate at UDoJ set up "a thread about that thread" just for that purpose.

   
Quote
I think Dave bailed from UDOJ for the pretty obvious reason that he cannot defend his actions and ideas in a free forum where his opponents are not heavily censored.


What DaveScot apparently fails to realize is that in order to convince people, he has to leave the protective walls of Castle Uncommon and engage the issues. Who knows? He might even learn something, if he did. Instead, he confirmed that he has no actual evidence or arguments to support his views.

--
Zachriel, angel that rules over memory, presides over the planet Jupiter.
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/

Date: 2006/09/10 04:38:39, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote
Carlos is no longer with this forum. –WmAD

Comment by William Dembski — September 10, 2006 @ 1:19 am


I had been reinvited to post on Uncommon (after being twice banned). I had considered it, but it appears that there is no way to have any extended scientific discussion there.

Carlos was posting on-topic and politely. It must have been the off-hand comment about "notions of 'informational complexity and probability'”  Considering Dembski's bold proclamation to debate anyone anywhere anytime, this constant stifling of dissent on Uncommon Descent is quite ironic.

It might be interesting if someone were to compile a history of bannings on Dembski's blog.

Date: 2006/09/19 06:05:21, Link
Author: Zachriel
DaveScot: "Because of the frequency of such claims here I asked that he back them up before he comments here again. As of now the result of my request is the sound of crickets chirping. To be fair, perhaps trrll didn’t see my last response. If not he’s sure to see this."

Trrll put in a box and forced to fight strawmen to make his escape.

Date: 2006/09/19 10:31:26, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote
DaveScot: "Because of the frequency of such claims here I asked that he back them up before he comments here again. As of now the result of my request is the sound of crickets chirping. To be fair, perhaps trrll didn’t see my last response. If not he’s sure to see this."

Zachriel: Trrll put in a box and forced to fight strawmen to make his escape.


And now that our valiant champion has been muffled in a dungeon of straw, the triumphant rhetorical challenge is proclaimed!

bFast: "Gentlement in the contingency camp, it is time for you to quit providing the 'sundayschool answers' as provided by your prophets, and engage in a thoughtful discussion of the challenge that convergence delivers to the view of contingency."

Date: 2006/09/19 11:51:59, Link
Author: Zachriel
At Uncommon Descent, DaveScot's latest attempt to beat up on someone (trrll) who has been tied and gagged.

Is Evolution Repeatable?

I always find it very interesting when Intelligent Design Advocates cite scientists who have developed strong evidence contradictory to Intelligent Design, and strongly supportive of the Theory of Evolution.

DaveScot cites Dr. Loren H. Rieseberg, a plant evolutionary geneticist who specialises in the mechanisms of speciation. In a recent paper, Major Ecological Transitions in Wild Sunflowers Facilitated by Hybridization, his team concludes "Our results corroborate the view that hybridization can play an important creative role in adaptive evolution, and suggest a simple genetic mechanism (complementary gene action) by which this may occur... Entry into discrete niches is theoretically difficult, because it may require simultaneous changes at multiple traits and/or genes. Hybridization offers a means by which this difficulty may be overcome because, unlike mutation, it provides genetic variation at hundreds or thousands of genes in a single generation."

Then Joseph cites Unified physics theory explains animals' running, flying and swimming, that states, "you couldn’t predict exactly what animals would look like if you started evolution over on earth", precisely the opposite of the position Joseph is advocating.

Of course, the fact is that convergence exists and is explainable in the Theory of Evolution, as Darwin pointed out; however, convergence "so closely as to lead to a near approach to identity throughout their whole organisation" would not be predicted. And the usual example of marsupials and mammals illustrates this partial and functional convergence quite well, with organisms adapting within similar environmental constraints.

Date: 2006/09/20 05:41:15, Link
Author: Zachriel
DaveScot: "Alan Fox is no longer with us. His email to Rieseberg said his finding were being used to dispute evolution."

DaveScot has banned Alan Fox for having the temerity to contact the evolutionary biologist, Loren Rieseberg, whom DaveScot cited. Apparently, Alan used the term "evolution" to refer to the Theory of Evolution. DaveScot claims he doesn't dispute "evolution", so his conflation allows him to accuse Alan of dishonesty. In fact, Alan provided a link to the discussion for Rieseberg, and Rieseberg responded directly to the point about Natural Selection and parallel evolution.

Very sad. It speaks volumes about DaveScot and Uncommon Descent.

Date: 2006/09/20 05:51:47, Link
Author: Zachriel
Then DaveScot wrote a very misleading and embarrassing note to Rieseberg claiming he doesn't dispute "evolution", but only the very limited role of chance. What he means, of course, is an Intelligent Designer is involved, something he neglects to mention.

Date: 2006/10/01 03:36:11, Link
Author: Zachriel
DaveScot said at Uncommon:

Tom English

I understand your frustration and but I’m not going to allow your ad hominem attacks to stand. Two were deleted. Knock it off.

I’m growing very frustrated by you and others’ inability to grasp the fact that models of reality need to be testable.



Of course, DaveScot is off-topic. The accuracy of the model is not the question. The question is the independence of the model from the substrate. And for DaveScot to suppress comments because of ad hominem attacks is absolutely hilarious in light of his own past behavior.

Date: 2006/10/03 01:35:52, Link
Author: Zachriel
As is typical for DaveScot, he continues to pretend to make arguments after he has booted his adversary and therefore the adversary can't reply.

I can only assume that any comments DaveScot offered after that point have no merit. That includes whatever bragging rights he has to 80486 technology. Sorry, DaveScot, you lose.

Date: 2006/10/03 01:55:02, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (Zachriel @ Oct. 03 2006,06:35)
As is typical for DaveScot, he continues to pretend to make arguments after he has booted his adversary and therefore the adversary can't reply.

I can only assume that any comments DaveScot offered after that point have no merit. That includes whatever bragging rights he has to 80486 technology. Sorry, DaveScot, you lose.

Argh! Now DaveScot is citing articles that demonstrate he was wrong.

In any case, the main point of the thread was that GilDodgen and others were conflating the simulation with the substrate. That is obvious, and GilDodgen now says he was just kidding.

Date: 2006/10/03 02:44:03, Link
Author: Zachriel
The Ultimate Ban:

This Account Has Been Suspended
Please contact the billing/support department as soon as possible.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/

Date: 2006/10/03 05:56:27, Link
Author: Zachriel
I usually prefer to discuss the scientific issues, but Uncommon Descent is becoming Uncommonly Silly.

After having banned most everybody who disagrees, GilDodgen is now triumphantly declaring, "Defending the indefensible is a difficult task that requires a great deal of passion."

Meanwhile, DaveScot fights strawmen.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1679

Date: 2006/10/03 09:51:12, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (GCT @ Oct. 03 2006,13:43)
Quote (Zachriel @ Oct. 03 2006,10:56)
I usually prefer to discuss the scientific issues, but Uncommon Descent is becoming Uncommonly Silly.

Is becoming?  Oh, that point is long since passed.

Um, but, er, ah, ok.

Date: 2006/10/03 16:15:43, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (steve_h @ Oct. 03 2006,17:11)
 
Quote (Zachriel @ Oct. 03 2006,17:56)
After having banned most everybody who disagrees, GilDodgen is now triumphantly declaring, "Defending the indefensible is a difficult task that requires a great deal of passion."

I didn't realise Gil banned anyone.


I understand that the intricacies and personalities of Uncommon Descent is of some interest to this forum. I might have been more precise. "After the moderators at Uncommon Descent banned almost everybody who disagrees, while cowing those who would object ..."

However, GilDodgen is an Uncommon Descent blogger, and it was his own thread. Having others do the dirty work and then remaining silent does not absolve him. The problem is endemic to the blog, and that includes all of those who represent the community.

Having a closed forum is more than acceptable, but inviting comment, while banning reasonable argument, then crowing how no one has an answer, is beyond the pale.

Date: 2006/10/04 00:17:35, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (Bob O'H @ Oct. 04 2006,01:20)
Church Lady Admits Cluelessness
...
Bob


Rather interesting as she calls Beckwith a "law prof" after Anonymous had already politely informed her otherwise, then she calls Anonymous a vulgar name even as she admits Beckwith is not a law professor.

Date: 2006/10/04 06:18:47, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (Zachriel @ Oct. 03 2006,21:15)
   
Quote (steve_h @ Oct. 03 2006,17:11)
       
Quote (Zachriel @ Oct. 03 2006,17:56)
After having banned most everybody who disagrees, GilDodgen is now triumphantly declaring, "Defending the indefensible is a difficult task that requires a great deal of passion."

I didn't realise Gil banned anyone.


I understand that the intricacies and personalities of Uncommon Descent is of some interest to this forum...

That is not meant to denigrate the fine work at documenting those "intricacies and personalities" and their descent into an uncommonly silly moderation policy.

Date: 2006/10/04 06:39:11, Link
Author: Zachriel
PaV at Uncommon Descent: "How else can you possibly interpret your rejection of the phrase: 'Of course evolution can’t produce IC, because no mindless Darwinian process can ever produce IC.' In rejecting this phrase, you’re making absolutely no distinction between the world of biology and the world of computer simulation. You’re, in fact, equating them. This is patently clear, no matter how much you protest it isn’t so."

This is a misstatement and therefore a strawman. Rather, biological evolution is an *instance* of a specific set of mathematical structures called evolutionary algorithms. They are not being equated.

Careful construction of the set of evolutionary algorithms allows one to explore the capability of such systems, in general; which can then be applied to biological evolution, in particular.

Date: 2006/10/07 04:54:03, Link
Author: Zachriel
One of the regular posters at Uncommon Descent, Joseph a.k.a. joe g runs a blog Intelligent Reasoning. He moderates it, of course, but usually publishes comments. (I have asked him to quit the moderation and use Word Verification to limit spam, instead. He hasn't responded yet.)

joe g has cross-referenced his blog on the Skell essay, Why do we invoke Darwin?  I have pointed out that 1) Skell is not a biologist, and provided a cite to valid authority. 2) Skell is factually wrong.

Date: 2006/10/07 10:35:17, Link
Author: Zachriel
Thanks, Bob O'H. I was only aware of the assay, which is the most cited. I'll update my post at Intelligent Reasoning.

Date: 2006/10/13 12:50:17, Link
Author: Zachriel
Uncommon posted a link to Bergman's Select List of Academics, Scientists and Scholars Involved in Various Creationist Movements and Intelligent Design.

Dr. Mary Schweitzer is on the list. She works with Jack Horner and researches the "Evolution of physiological and reproductive strategies in dinosaurs and their bird descendants."

Scheweitzer is a Christian but certainly understands and accepts the voluminous scientific evidence in support of the Theory of Evolution. Her inclusion on this list is highly misleading. She has said about Creationists, "They twist your words and they manipulate your data.”

Date: 2006/10/14 16:02:51, Link
Author: Zachriel
Joe G has a blog, ironically titled Intelligent Reasoning. Joe G is a frequent commenter as Joseph at Uncommon Descent. Just for the record, Joe G purposefully delays comments, and suppresses others. He then claims to have provided a level playing field. Quite similar to Uncommon Descent.

Of course, this just demonstrates the weakness of Joe G's argument.

Date: 2006/10/15 03:25:59, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (Drew Headley @ Oct. 15 2006,00:15)
 
Quote (cogzoid @ Oct. 14 2006,23:43)
Allen MacNeil schools Dembski check it out before the thread disappears.

I was just going to post this. Allen is really shining in that thread.


Which of course means Allen is threatened with being booted.

Dembski: For your fatuous remarks above, I should boot you from this forum, but that would only confirm your delusions.

That would be a #5 with a threat of a #6 by a #8.

Date: 2006/10/16 01:59:21, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (argystokes @ Oct. 15 2006,18:43)


And a note for the newly registered Zachriel:
Dude, don't bother trying to debate over at OE.  You'll get banned even faster than at UD, and the tards over there aren't as funny.


Thanks for the warning. I'll still take it as far as I can, though. When they ban reasonable commenters, they only damage their credibility even more.

Date: 2006/10/16 06:56:35, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (carlsonjok @ Oct. 15 2006,09:17)
Meanwhile over at UD, TroutMac is expanding the repertoire of devastating arguments.  In addition to Mount Rushmore and the Rosetta Stone, he now offers up crop circles.

Attention Darwinians!  The end is nigh.  They have a trinity of metaphors that you can't respond to.


I have pursued the discussion at Overwhelming Evidence. The latest is that DNA is an actual language rather than a metaphor. (It has letters, you see.) Anyway, for support TRoutMac provides these, and other references:

   "Robert Pollack ... takes the popular metaphor of DNA as language."

   "Let's continue with the metaphor that DNA is a language."

It's as if he can read the words, but can't understand the meaning, presumably some sort of mental block as to content contrary to his position. It's a metaphor!

Date: 2006/10/17 01:37:17, Link
Author: Zachriel
Well, I've been banned at Overwhelming Evidence. They have every right to create whatever community they choose. They can  continue to pretend to have and win discussions all they wish. Their conduct concerning banning reasonable and open discussion is publicly available.

However, apparently Uncommon Descent has accused me of "bad behavior". This is a falsehood and unacceptable. I do expect a retraction from both Uncommon Descent and Overwhelming Evidence. I have always endeavored to argue the points, and to add positively to the discussion.

Zachriel

Date: 2006/10/17 06:04:27, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 17 2006,10:27)
LOL yeah. I'm sure he'll give you that retraction next time he presents at an Information Theory conference.


Heh, heh.

I was originally banned at Uncommon Descent for pointing out to DaveScot that Scientific American was not a peer-reviewed scientific journal (comment #17). Disagreeing, even when wrong, is hardly "bad behavior" and was in response to DaveScot's own assertion (comments #2, #4) in support of his own thread topic.

Again, they have every right to create whatever community they choose. But they shouldn't pretend otherwise, or cast untrue accusations.

Date: 2006/10/20 05:04:35, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote
kairos: Why RM+NS would have produced (provided that this could be possible at all, and I think it didn’t) something like the human brain, with all its powerful abstraction features? After all evolution had only to produce people who were able to hunt a bit better that lions or tigers.



This is a typical misunderstanding. People don't merely have to find food, but are in competition for limited resources. People compete for food, influence and mates. They use their minds, their social skills, even their poetry, in this competition.


--
Niels Bohr and Albert Einsten were taking a walk in the woods, vigorously debating the philosophical underpinnings of quantum theory, when a gigantic bear suddenly burst out of the underbrush and raced toward them. Niels immediately whipped out his fine running shoes and began lacing them up.

Einstein, furrowing his brow at Bohr, said: "Niels, there's no way you can outrun that bear."

"That's true," Bohr calmly replied, "but I don't need to outrun the bear. I only need to outrun you."

Date: 2006/10/20 07:57:28, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (2ndclass @ Oct. 20 2006,12:38)
Once again DaveScot enlightens us on physics:
   
Quote
A computer is an unlikely arrangement of matter that 2LoT works against even in an open system.

Fortunately for Dell, the 2LoT is no match for Dave.


Ah. There's your problem. You gotta plug it in the electric.

Date: 2006/10/23 06:00:30, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (2ndclass @ Oct. 23 2006,10:27)
Another one bites the dust for trying to talk some sense into Dave.  When will we ever learn?


DaveScot: Due to his refusing to recognize that snowflake patterns derived from looking at snowflakes is self-referential DharmaBum is no longer with us. He’s done wasting our time here.

There are any number of ways to "specify" snowflakes, starting with their hexagonal structure.

     
Quote (2ndclass @ Oct. 23 2006,10:27)
What voices of reason are left there?  Chris Hyland, Carlos, ... anyone else?


And still another:

DaveScot: Don’t bother responding, DvK [David vun Kannon]. I’ve reached the limit of how much time I’m willing to spend correcting your comments. You’re history here.

--

DaveScot: Since the consensus view of science is that humans are animals...

Well, duh. People ingest food. Humans are animals

Date: 2006/10/26 16:03:50, Link
Author: Zachriel
DaveScot (to Jerry): As to your request that I ban you too. No problem. It’s done.

Incredible.

Date: 2006/10/29 02:50:15, Link
Author: Zachriel
DaveScot: Snowflakes don’t look designed... Anyone who thinks a snowflake looks designed has no understanding of engineering or design.

As the Greeks are universally considered great engineers and designers who thought that storms and even the winds were made by sky-gods, this is clearly a false statement. Let's start with the Parthenon, Temple to Athena.

Chione, Goddess of Snow, Nymphe consort of Boreas, the North Wind.

Date: 2006/10/29 03:13:11, Link
Author: Zachriel
DaveScot: One way would be to first measure “chance” then take the reciprocal to get the design metric.

Which begs the question, of course. What are the "chances" that all the molecules in a crystal will line up just-so?

Date: 2006/10/29 03:45:06, Link
Author: Zachriel
DaveScot: ScaryFacts is no longer with us. After looking at his blog I determined that he isn’t the kind of person that belongs in our community.

Date: 2006/10/29 11:41:01, Link
Author: Zachriel
DaveScot: Designs have purpose. When a snowflake is first observed it looks designed for what?

More question begging from DaveScot. What is the purpose of the bubonic plague bacillus? What purpose can be scientifically demonstrated for humans? Worm-food?

Addendum: Snowflakes are obviously meant to create a sense of wonderment in little children who catch and melt them with their tongues.

Date: 2006/10/30 01:37:59, Link
Author: Zachriel
frisbee  
Quote
There are plenty of for “what’s” behind a snowflake. Life on earth would be a heck of a lot different if snowflakes weren’t “designed” the way they are.

So, are they designed, or not?


DaveScot  
Quote
Frisbee has been weeded out.


Incredible as it may seem, asking a respectful question about detecting design results in a ban. As Joseph would claim that the entire universe is designed, including the planetary orbits, it certainly isn't outside the realm of reasonable questions.

Date: 2006/10/30 02:24:41, Link
Author: Zachriel
Joseph
 
Quote
What research program does the ToE have?


Joseph, you can start with these journals recommended by the Biology Department at Utah State Some Evolution Journals

Meanwhile, Joseph continues with his usual strawman.

Joseph
 
Quote
What research is being condusted to see whether or not suingle-celled organisms can “evolve” into anything but single-celled organisms?


At least he is consistent, albeit ill-informed. He continues by responding to frisbee even though frisbee has been banned. Frisbee's question remains unanswered.

Date: 2006/10/30 02:43:59, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Oct. 30 2006,08:27)

It follows that DS listens to a JS Bach two part Invention and concludes that it was not designed.  


Is that outside the Universal Probability Bound? Better go with a Bach Fugue, just to be sure. ;-)

Date: 2006/10/30 03:58:51, Link
Author: Zachriel
Joseph
 
Quote
Those “experiments” assume common descent and then set out to find what those scientists would consider confirming data. However that is bass akwards. IOW there isn’t any experiment that would verify the “conclusions” of the experiments to speak of.


Joseph almost actually states the scientific method just before handwaving it away. It is correct that the theory (of common descent, in this case) is "assumed". From this assumption a specific and tentative assertion is proposed, called the hypothesis. From the hypothesis, predictions are made and data is sought to either "confirm" or falsify the prediction. At this point, the theory is either confirmed, modified or discarded, and additional tests are proposed to refine the theoretical understanding.

--

theory, a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/theory

hypothesis, hypothesis, a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences.
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/hypothesis

test, the procedure of submitting a statement to such conditions or operations as will lead to its proof or disproof or to its acceptance or rejection.
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/test

Scientific Method
 1. Observe some aspect of the natural world.
 2. Form a consistent generalization (theory) about those observations.
 3. Make a prediction (hypothesis) from the generalization.
 4. Test the prediction with new observations. Attempt to falsify the assertion.
 5. Confirm, modify or discard the generalization.
 6. Publish so that others can replicate and extend your findings.
 7. Repeat.

Date: 2006/10/30 04:14:23, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (argystokes @ Oct. 30 2006,09:55)
     
Quote
As Joseph would claim that the entire universe is designed, including the planetary orbits, it certainly isn't outside the realm of reasonable questions.


Really?  Do you have a link for this one?  Is good ole Joe G a gravity denier as well?



Joseph is heavy into a misguided Anthropic argument. Everything, from earthquakes to the Moon's orbit are by design.

Joseph: Did we win the “cosmic lottery”? Or is intentional design, design with the purpose of having said design be understandable and ensuring beings exist that can grow to understand it, the better explanation?

Joseph rejects Common Descent and geology — except when it suits him. When prodded, this leads to this:

Joseph: IOW chance and necessity are all that is required to explain snowflakes

DaveScot: What are snowflakes necessary to? The vast majority of snowflakes are irregular. Patterned flakes aren’t even necessary for skiing. You’re babbling. Stop.

(Conflation of terminology abounds.)

Date: 2006/10/30 04:40:07, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 30 2006,08:53)
   
Quote (Zachriel @ Oct. 30 2006,08:43)
   
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Oct. 30 2006,08:27)

It follows that DS listens to a JS Bach two part Invention and concludes that it was not designed.  


Is that outside the Universal Probability Bound? Better go with a Bach Fugue, just to be sure. ;-)

didnt we discover recently that "music, art, sculpture" etc etc mean simply nothing to DS? He's a total black hole as far as anything other then "real life" goes?


Which leads to some interesting results.

DaveScot
 
Quote
There must also be detachable specification in the pattern. In all cases except for works of art specification is simply a functional purpose. In possibly man-made objects like firepits, arrowheads, and potsherds there is detachable specification in each case. The same holds true for biological objects like genes, ribosomes, and cell walls. All have detachable specification. They conform to an independently given function. [emphasis added]


So what is the "function" of the bubonic plague bacillus? And how do you rigorously define specification that includes cell walls, but excludes snowflakes?

Date: 2006/10/31 02:09:06, Link
Author: Zachriel
Todd at Uncommon Descent, with some help from DaveScot, and under the auspices of Uncommon Descent, lifted an Article in Press from the publisher's website in order to evade their copyright and security.

 
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Oct. 30 2006,21:12)
   
Quote
Self-organization vs. self-ordering events in life-origin models


A quick read leaves one with the impression that this paper is more than a little suspect, and a wee bit looney as well.  


Quite so. They use a special definition of "organization", and complain when others use it in the standard manner. For instance, they state, "Dissipative structures (e.g., hurricanes, tornadoes, candle flames) are not true organizational systems." Yet, meteorologists and specialists in the study of complexity use the term "organize" when referring to these phenomena. It isn't rational to blame others for not using your own special definition.

They refer then to "cybernetic organization". They challenge anyone to find examples of such spontaneous organization in nature, "Self-ordering phenomena cannot generate cybernetic organization." But they have defined "cybernetic organization" (vaguely) in such a way that they have presupposed their answer. As no one has a valid theory of abiogenesis, all they have done is redefine the question.

Consider that they are attempting to study concepts of organized complexity, but don't provide any mathematical arguments. Frankly, their assertions are so vague, repetitively so, that I still do not see where they have unambiguously defined "organization" or "cybernetic organization".

Finally, in response to various comments at Uncommon Descent, the paper admits that it doesn't even attempt to consider evolutionary algorithms.

"true organization", "bona fide self-organization", "true Scotsman".

I'm surprised it's been accepted for publication as it includes no new ideas and puts forth a strawman as falsification. It's a simple rehash of their previous (largely uninfluential) articles. But keep in mind that peer review is only the first step in the scientific process. It's kinda of funny they make so much of a single article that merely mentions Dembski.

Date: 2006/10/31 09:41:34, Link
Author: Zachriel
This is a most entertaining thread:

P. Z. Myers — does he have a clue how bad this looks?

Yeah, how bad did PZ Myer look? What terrible thing did he do?

Mike Adams was to give a speech "How to Win Friends and Irritate Feminists.” For some reason, he felt this topic might result in an unfriendly reception. According to Adams, "Professor Myer simply leaned against a door post with his arms crossed and said nothing. He arrived late, stood by the door and didn't say a word." Nevertheless, Adams was intimidated by the mere presence of Professor PZ Myer whom he then accuses of cowardice.

This particular comment at Uncommon Descent is most hilarious, "That is a good model to follow when dealing with those who choose the 'rant and rave' approach, such as PZ," considering that PZ didn't say anything, but stared "blankly".

Rant and rave?! I didn't know PZ Myers knew Jujitsu. Ha!

Date: 2006/10/31 10:47:19, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (Zachriel @ Oct. 31 2006,08:09)
Todd at Uncommon Descent, with some help from DaveScot, and under the auspices of Uncommon Descent, lifted an Article in Press from the publisher's website in order to evade their copyright and security.


Update: Todd removed the non-authorized copy, and, in effect, apologized.

Date: 2006/11/01 02:50:11, Link
Author: Zachriel
Joseph
 
Quote
Common descent doesn’t make any predictions.


On Joseph's Blog, I have pointed out a wide variety of different and specific predictions from Common Descent, including from genetics, phylogenetics, microbiology and paleontology. Though genetics is considered the strongest evidence, the easiest to understand, and often the most dramatic, is the paleontological evidence.

From Common Descent (and the existing data of the nested hierarchy), we can hypothesize that whales evolved from land mammals. Hence, we would predict there were once whales with intermediate characteristics (e.g. hind-limbs) about 40 million years ago. So, Philip Gingerich walks out into the Egyptian wastelands and finds just such an organism. Could Joseph predict this? Of course not. He's not even interested and perversely claims it is not a valid empirical prediction.

Date: 2006/11/01 04:48:49, Link
Author: Zachriel
Todd
Quote
what we do see is a range of acceptable change, which has never crossed the form boundary


"Acceptable change"? "Form boundary"?

In fact, we can predict that the directly observed rate of morphological change must be greater than or equal to the rate of change seen in the fossil record. This prediction has been confirmed in a variety of studies, including hominids, finches, guppies, etc.

The entire concept of "form" is nebulous, in any case. An elephant tusk is just a tooth; it's trunk, a nose. A wing is just a modified arm. Legs are just modified fins, and intermediates have been identified.

It's not that the organisms Gingerich found in the Egyptian wastelands were swimmers with hind-limbs, but that the morphology of those hind-limbs fit the nested hierarchy with specific land-dwelling ancestors.

It's not just a particular trait, though, but the nested hierarchy. We can examine tetrapod ankles to determine their unique nested hierarchy and then note that this matches the nested hierarchy of their vertebrae or skulls or phalanges or genomes. Even endogenous retroviruses match the same nested hierarchy.

Date: 2006/11/01 05:37:23, Link
Author: Zachriel
I always find it especially odd when Intelligent Design advocates cite literature that directly contradicts Intelligent Design.

Joseph
Quote
That said there have been at least a few specific mechanisms mentioned- front end loading; built-in responses to environmental cues (Dr Lee Spetner in “Not By Chance”); and a similar type of goal-oriented program put forth in a Feb 2003 SciAm artcle titled “Evolving Inventions”.


From Evolving Inventions: Evolution is an immensely powerful creative process. From the intricate biochemistry of individual cells to the elaborate structure of the human brain, it has produced wonders of unimaginable complexity. Evolution achieves these feats with a few simple processes-mutation, sexual recombination and natural selection-which it iterates for many generations.

Date: 2006/11/01 10:21:51, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (ScaryFacts @ Nov. 01 2006,10:57)

Thank you for patiently addressing Joe's claims.

He really fell apart about half way through and just fell back on name calling and denial.


Speaking of Joe G.

Joe G: "With ID ALL we have is the artifact. That is just the way it is".

I considered this from the angle that perhaps Joe G thinks this can be deduced a priori, or perhaps it is a happenstance of the evidence. I attempted to begin a discussion of this distinction thusly, "You are claiming that there is no knowledge concerning the artisan or of the art, i.e. the manufacturing process. That is a claim which can't be reached a priori..."

Joe G: "Umm, no. I said in the absence of direct observation or designer input- some people claim the Bible is designer input..."

I'm not sure what this means, but perhaps he is conflating the Biblical narrative with God, or that God is directly providing such "designer input". Maybe that we do have knowledge of the artisan, after all! But this appeared to contradict his previous statement. At that point I requoted Joe G: "With ID ALL we have is the artifact. That is just the way it is."

Joe G responds in his usual fashion: "This proves my point that you are a decptive [sic] moron. Don't post out-of-context snippets again- last warning."

It's not terribly interesting or insightful, but for context, follow the link above.Of course, Joe G's "warning" is rather ridiculous as he already holds back comments for his approval, often for days, sometimes forever.

Joe definitely does not know what constitutes valid scientific evidence, and no understanding as to why the multiply-supported nested hierarchy of morphology, biogeography, genetics and paleontology is considered strongly indicative of Common Descent by nearly all scientists in the relevant fields.

Just for fun, here is an interesting computer simulation of a nested hierarchy derived by random mutation and random culling of populations.

Zachriel’s Nest of Letters

Date: 2006/11/01 12:41:37, Link
Author: Zachriel
Cartman: We have no choice. We have to kill Kyle.

Date: 2006/11/02 06:32:11, Link
Author: Zachriel
Question.

Joe G has started a new thread "Alternatives to Common Descent" over at his blog, ironically titled Intelligent Reasoning. He starts out with a strawman (made of used straw at that).

Quote
And finally that evidence for Common Descent relies heavily, if not solely, one the similarities observed but says nothing about the differences, except to note they exist.


His suggested explanations for biological diversity includes this gem.

Quote
Colonization by an existing and perhaps dying civilization- including various modes of terra-forming.


I have no illusion about convincing the inconvincible, and Joe G has not shown himself capable of learning or even carrying on an extended discussion. In such a situation, I only post when a blogger has some possibility of misleading others. Is Joe G so far off the deep-end as to exert no influence on others?

Date: 2006/11/06 08:53:58, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (GCT @ Nov. 06 2006,10:23)
 
Quote (Altabin @ Nov. 05 2006,15:38)
It would be a good idea, I think, to compile a "greatest hits" of UD over the last year or so: all the idiocy and cluelessness, all the venom and, above all else, all the naked religiosity.  Before it gets disappeared.  A pamphlet which presented the true face of ID would be a great weapon against "let's just teach the controversy," "There is nothing religious about ID; it is a scientific theory, supported by the scientific arguments of, er, scientists doing science" crap.

I nominate the following:

DaveTard falling for the marines praying hoax.  Also, when he told us all that gravity is the strongest fundamental force.

Dembski accusing others of quote mining him, only to be shown that he did indeed write that which was attributed to him.  Also, when he called DHS on someone.

GilDodgen and Sal for anytime they've said anything about any GA.

And Doug Moron when he told us that Xtians can be intellectually honest because science can't point to or away from god, but atheists must be intellectually dishonest because they must ignore all the science that points to god.

<sigh> Those were good times.

Date: 2006/11/06 16:32:41, Link
Author: Zachriel
On Uncommon Descent, Joe G drops my name. The thread Joe G links to does not include all my responses as Joe G delayed them even after making a point of directing people to the thread.

Joe G    
Quote
I have one guy (see Zachriel 2nd to the last post) telling me about whales with hands!


The question originally raised was whether biologists consider the homologous structures found in cetaceans to be limbs, arms, legs, ankles, feet, hands. And I provided a large number of cites that indicate exactly this.

--

Origin of Whales from Early Artiodactyls: Hands and Feet of Eocene Protocetidae from Pakistan

Can't get much more direct than that.

Or the Journal Science on Cetacean, feet. Or the Journal of Systematic Biology with a number of excellent cites for Cetacean "hands", "feet", "ankle",

I already pointed out the homologous limb buds on modern dolphin embryos. And they just discovered a dolphin with vestigial hind limbs.

--

Joe G    
Quote
Does that mean primates are now considered a common ancestor to whales?


Joe G, you have been around long enough to know better. Monkeys and whales have a common ancestor. They are both Eutheria, i.e. placental mammals. As such they have a large number of homologous structures, including well-developed cephalization, skull, vertebrae, ribs, placenta, lungs, muscular diaphragm, enucleate erythrocytes, mammaries, skin. Whales also have a vestigial pelvis, even hair follicles.

Date: 2006/11/07 06:36:44, Link
Author: Zachriel
Touchstone
Quote
One has to wonder: what appendages might possibly appear that *would* represent a “shred of hard evidence” that creative evidence _wasn’t_ taking place??

Thinking… thinking….

Well, I can’t come up with *anything* we might find that would count.


Touchstone issues a faux-challenge. The answers, of course, have been bound and gagged (banned). No one responds. Victory is declared.

Touchstone
Quote
How dense do IDers suppose the rest of us are?

Date: 2006/11/10 09:45:58, Link
Author: Zachriel
The latest from Uncommon Descent, Lee Spetner responds (briefly) to Tom Schneider

Consider an analogy with a population of words. Suppose a word can evolve by <i>random</i> point-mutation or by <i>random</i> recombination with other words in the population. If a mutant forms a valid word, it is added to the population. If not, it is ruthlessly eliminated. The population is limited to a few hundred of the longest words.

So, starting with the single-letter word "O", a population might evolve like this:

 o
 to
 tow
 row
 rot

Under these conditions, can words as long as even ten-letters evolve in a reasonable period of time? Using Spetner's method, how long would it take?

Date: 2006/11/10 09:55:33, Link
Author: Zachriel
Any reason why I can't edit my comments? Just wanted to fix the html in my previous post.

Date: 2006/11/12 11:45:43, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 10 2006,13:45)
   
Quote (Zachriel @ Nov. 10 2006,10:45)
o
 to
 tow
 row
 rot

Under these conditions, can words as long as even ten-letters evolve in a reasonable period of time? Using Spetner's method, how long would it take?

I got to seven letters by hand in five minutes from your starting point:

trot
trout
tout
pout
lout
lost
lose
loser
closer
closers

so i bet it'd be an easy thing for computers to get nearly everywhere in the vocabulary in a short amount of time.

Ah, but you used your mind to navigate the lexical reefs and vocabulary shoals.

Let's apply Spetner's methodology. The chance of the each addition letter being fixed is 1/26. And for each letter, we multiply by 1/26. So, that's 1/(26^10) ~ one in a hundred trillion total mutations. If our computer tried a million mutations per second, it would take a few thousand millennia to evolve — according to Spetner.

Date: 2006/11/12 21:57:36, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (jeannot @ Nov. 12 2006,12:19)
 
Quote (Zachriel @ Nov. 12 2006,11:45)
Let's apply Spetner's methodology. The chance of the each addition letter being fixed is 1/26. And for each letter, we multiply by 1/26. So, that's 1/(26^10) ~ one in a hundred trillion total mutations. If our computer tried a million mutations per second, it would take a few thousand millennia to evolve — according to Spetner.

That's why Darwin proposed the hypothesis of gradual evolution (i.e. not saltation) by natural selection.

That was more than 150 years ago, but some people (namely Dembski) haven't understood it yet.  ???

Result posted on Uncommon Descent

We would want to calculate the number of mutations in the entire population, or the number of mutations per individual in the population (roughly equivalent to generations).

Let’s apply Spetner’s methodology. The chance of the each addition letter being fixed is 1/26. And for each letter, we multiply by 1/26. So, that’s 1/(26^10) ~ one in a hundred trillion total mutations. If we tried a million mutations per second, it would take a few thousand millennia to evolve — according to Spetner.

In fact, with a population of 1000, it typically requires an average of ~286000 total mutations, an average of 286 per individual. This is less than the calculated result by many, many orders of magnitude.

Date: 2006/11/12 22:22:25, Link
Author: Zachriel
They've taken to calling Allen MacNeill a liar, and apparently some of his comments have been deleted. It's truly pathetic.

Allen MacNeill  
Quote
Indeed, Darwin did not propose any mechanism for the origin of life, nor did he speculate about it (beyond a single sentence fragment in the Origin of Species).


Of course, Darwin may be presumed to have privately considered the subject. That certainly wasn't the intent of Allen's statement, but a reference to Darwin's public statements and proposals.


j then starts out the rampage by pointing to one of Darwin's private letters.  
Quote
Making false claims about what Darwin wrote is getting to be a habit of yours, Dr. MacNeill.


Note that even in this private correspondence, Darwin is very careful to qualify his conception.  
Quote
But if (and oh! what a big if! ) we could conceive in some warm little pond


Then JasonTheGreek insists on a retraction.    
Quote
Be the gentleman you constantly claim to be….make a reference to how you’re an avid fencer and move along.


Which Allen provides,    
Quote
So, I amend my earlier assertion thusly: Darwin did not speculate on the subject of the origin of life in any publication during his lifetime, and as the later quotation I provided above indicates, he regretted ever having done so at all, and believed that the subject was as far beyond the reach of science as speculation about the origin of matter itself.


Then JasonTheGreek, having received the asked for clarification, delivers the final insult,
 
Quote
Now, I know how it works. I can make any statement, no matter how false. Then just come back and say I ammend my false statement to add a caveat to it and all is fine and well.


Yes, JasonTheGreek, that is exactly how it works. If there is some ambiguity in a statement, rephrasing it for a clearer understanding is more than appropriate. And it's what you asked for.

Finally, JasonTheGreek ends the indignity with  
Quote
My point, Al, was that you were 1. dishonest, and 2. basically called J a liar then refused to apologize when you were proven wrong with your assertion.


Frankly, I'm only interested in the science. I don't think they are all that interested in learning, but only in being right. Allen MacNeill represents a threat to their belief system.

Date: 2006/11/13 06:26:07, Link
Author: Zachriel
Haw! It didn't take long. They launch into an off-topic tirade. I complain off-site, and I'm banned. Here is my response.

Quote
DaveScot: "Get lost Zachriel. I gave you a second chance to mend your ways but you’re still running about on the net posting trash talk about our site here."

Zachriel
Uncommon Descent that bans dissent. What I posted elsewhere was accurate. I note that, though you ban me, you allow off-topic, multiple, thread-spoiling, ad hominem. Good luck with that. I remain unconvinced that Intelligent Design offers anything related to science.

Here are my comments. I posted them elsewhere as they were off-topic for [Uncommon Descent].

Zachriel: They've taken to calling Allen MacNeill a liar...


Allen MacNeill is a teacher of biology at Cornell University. The attacks on his character were unjustified.

Date: 2006/11/13 06:32:18, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Nov. 12 2006,22:40)
     
Quote (Zachriel @ Nov. 12 2006,22:22)
They've taken to calling Allen MacNeill a liar, and apparently some of his comments have been deleted. It's truly pathetic.

Well, he can just sit them down, talk to them rationally about the data, and change all their minds.

(snicker)  (giggle)


Haw!!

I note that by banning me they no longer have to defend Spetner's flawed argument. Time to post something "smart", DaveScot, so that you can claim your victory. I suggest something along the  lines of

 
Quote
I  see none of the evolutionist liars has an answer to that!!

Date: 2006/11/13 06:56:13, Link
Author: Zachriel
To those who comment (or lurk) in support of Intelligent Design on Uncommon Descent. I'm banned for posting off-topic comments off-site instead of either remaining silent in the face of slurs against another commenter, or participating in the distraction.

You really need to look hard at yourselves and decide just what sort of persons you want to be. Many of you realize that the atmosphere  at Uncommon Descent is bitter and polluted, and that dissent is being suppressed. People have to walk on tiptoes for fear of the consequences of their questions or comments.

Some of you I have personally communicated with, and you know what I say is true. For some reason you accept this state-of-affairs. Think hard.

Date: 2006/11/13 14:04:34, Link
Author: Zachriel
Patrick @ Uncommon Descent uttereth,
     
Quote
I’m glad to see your program doesn’t “sneak in too much information” considering the fitness function only checks for a 10-character string, although the target is very large considering you’re looking for ANY 10-letter word.


As there are 26^10 or 141,167,095,653,376 possible ten letter combinations, and only about 10,000 ten-letter words in my dictionary, that is a very large space with a very small target. A computerized random search may take years, yet an evolutionary algorithm can do it in seconds.

The point about having more than one target actually gets to the heart of the problem. Evolutionary algorithms can, and do, take any number of paths.

     
Quote
If we’re just considering 8-bit single-byte coded graphic character sets I’d only find your results interesting if the generated word (or set of words) came to close to 500 informational bits.


Word Mutagenator evolved 18-letter words. But Phrasenator, which works on the same principle, evolved up to nearly 100-symbols in a much narrower search landscape.

More importantly, the question was about using Spetner's methodology to predict the results of evolutionary algorithms. Spetner was vastly inaccurate, even for simple cases.

It's as if the actual landscape to be searched doesn't matter to Spetner. And yet it does! A random space is not amenable to evolutionary search algorithms. On the other hand, words are highly correlated in sequence space. Words are concatenations and modifications of previous utterances. Ironically, words are related because they evolved (though by quite different principles than those found in biology).

Date: 2006/11/14 08:35:44, Link
Author: Zachriel
Joseph, a regular commenter on Uncommon Descent, blogged on the Nested Hierarchy. I asked him for a definition of a "Nested Hierarchy". His cite indicated that,

 
Quote
a nested hierarchy is the almost inevitable result of descent with modification, if no transfer of traits between branches of descent is possible.


Joseph disowned this aspect of the cite, but wanted to use the definition anyway.
     
Quote
'Nested hierarchy' refers to the way taxonomic groups fit neatly and completely inside other taxonomic groups.


So I asked Joseph some basic questions.

Quote
* Do the twigs of a tree represent a nested hierarchy?
* Do extant vertebrates form a nested hierarchy?
* Do extinct vertebrates fit this nested hierarchy? Please point to specific independently derived traits to support your assertions (per the definition you yourself provided).


After repeated attempts, he basically refused to answer, I presume because he is not capable of doing so. I am archiving this exchange for posterity. Thank you.

Date: 2006/11/15 06:19:41, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 15 2006,04:22)
Salvador vs Reality, Round 3857.


scordova
Quote
I have a personal philosophy of encouraging people to state what’s on their mind.


Yeah, right. As if Uncommon Descent encourages open debate.

Date: 2006/11/15 07:33:16, Link
Author: Zachriel
DaveScot
Quote
Allen’s attitude handily explains why there was a British Empire but no Scottish Empire, eh?


Um, Scotland is part of Britain. The first King of Great Britain, James I, was the King of Scotland, James VI. The Scots were crucial to British imperial expansion.

Date: 2006/11/15 10:07:57, Link
Author: Zachriel
DaveScot

Quote
All I’m asking for is a positive demonstration that unintelligent processes can produce the complex nanometer scale machinery found in living cells.


Intelligent Design is usually an expression of God-of-the-Gaps bolstered with a large dose incredulity. It is something to point out that the boundaries of the unexplained in biology have been pushed back billions of years to the very beginnings of cellular life (and even that boundary keeps being pushed back). Arguments about cellular machinery, flagellum, abiogenesis, etc. show the very weakness of Intelligent Design.

--


Meanwhile, Joseph says

Quote
I originated a thread concerning how NH is not evidence for Common Descent and was in fact first used as evidence for Common Design.


And yet, no matter how many times I ask he still can't explain what constitutes a nested hierarchy or how to determine from independently derived traits the existence of a nested hierarchy. He won't even tell us if the twigs on a tree constitute a nested hierarchy.

Date: 2006/11/15 10:32:44, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (huwp @ Nov. 15 2006,10:12)
Actually the Kingdom of Great Britain only came into existence with the Act of Union in 1707...

Thank's the for the clarification. Though the dynastic union occurred with James, and the crown was often referred to as the monarchy of Great Britain, the political union came only later.

Date: 2006/11/16 06:42:48, Link
Author: Zachriel
DaveScot posting off-topic again.
 
Quote
Scotland and England were not united until 1707 and the British Empire (technically the English Empire)


Funny thing about those technicalities. Glad you admitted your error and clarified your position. But why do you post on a forum where I can't respond to you?

Now, let's examine my banning again. After weeks of my posts being waylaid for long periods of time, or simply disappeared, I was officially banned. The first time was for pointing out that Scientific American was not a peer-reviewed science journal (on-topic and in direct response to your own comments). But the accuracy and relevance of my comments were not the issue, were they?  The second time was for pointing out that the arm can act as a sling (on-topic and in direct response to your own comments). But the accuracy and relevance of my comments were not the issue, were they? The third time is more interesting. One of the other commenters unjustly accused Allen MacNeill, a Cornell biology teacher, of being "dishonest" and a "disgrace as a teacher". You allowed this off-topic and unreasonable ad hominem. I pointed this out on the appropriate forum, one dedicated to commenting on Uncommon Descent, one which you do read. I did not post my off-topic comments on Uncommon Descent because that may have simply added fuel to the tirade cascade. I pointed to specific commenters I felt were being unfair, not to the blog generally. Incredibly, you ban me.

Meanwhile, I have watched you ban many others (including working biologists) who acted very reasonably and respectfully. The only common thread seems to be that they disagree with you. Ironically, IDers on Uncommon Descent complain about how they may "not get an answer". This winnowing process does have the benefit of allowing IDers to declare that there are no opposing arguments.

Dembski
 
Quote
If the evidence for Darwinian theory were so great, why keep slamming ID? Just present it!

Date: 2006/11/16 07:00:14, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (djmullen @ Nov. 16 2006,06:50)
What was Dembski's complaint when we did?  Something about literature bombing, IIRC.

Nothing will ever satisfy a faker.


I've always found starting with basics best. So, first, you have to establish common descent (e.g. of vertebrates). That means understanding the nested hierarchy and how it  can be used to make valid predictions of empirical observations (such as the placement and discovery of new fossil organisms, or the plausible content of yet to be sequenced genomes).

But many IDers aren't really interested in learning anything or understanding why the vast majority of scientists, in specialties as diverse as geology and genomics, strongly support the Theory of Evolution. They already have the answers, and they scour the literature to find any shred of support, no matter how tenuous, and no matter how out of context.

Date: 2006/11/16 12:03:22, Link
Author: Zachriel
DaveScot (on another blog):  
Quote
Wesley recognizes me after just a few posts and bans me.


So, is there a particular reason that DaveScot is banned?

Date: 2006/11/16 12:25:32, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (Kristine @ Nov. 16 2006,12:17)
I'm not sure that I want to know. My hands are shaking. I'm seriously freaked. (Where does he get off calling my having a sig other a "lie"? What kind of a lunatic is he?


Please just ignore DaveScot (though it is easy to understand why you feel uncomfortable).

I enjoy reading your contributions.

Date: 2006/11/16 13:29:48, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (IAMB @ Nov. 16 2006,13:04)
 
Quote
So, is there a particular reason that DaveScot is banned?

Threatening to hack PT, if I remember correctly. The remnants of his final post as himself look something like this (Source):
   
Quote
H fckng sshls. plgz t Dvsn NW bfr gt pssd ff nd strt fckng wth . dn't wnt t mk m md. Trst m n ths. r scrt scks bg tm.

I'll let you reinsert the vowels if you'd like.



facknug, ifycuking, ufcaknog, fociknoug

Well, whatever. I don't suppose he apologized for the outburst.

Date: 2006/11/17 08:35:44, Link
Author: Zachriel
Good Math, Bad Math does Salvador Cordova, via Pharyngula

 
Quote
He starts off with a typically clueless statement

Quote
In information science, it is empirically and theoretically shown that noise destroys specified complexity, but cannot create it.

Except of course that Sal's definition of "specified complexity" is roughly something like "stuff that seems really complex, but which I can describe imprecisely using very few words".

Date: 2006/11/17 09:13:12, Link
Author: Zachriel
DaveScot
 
Quote
Not having any predispositions to chant the party line in biology I do consider it a law of nature that life comes from life and abiogenesis is a baseless myth held by atheists to help them deny any living force in the universe that transcends themselves.


Benjy_Compson
 
Quote
Are you telling me that a telic, intelligent, unembodied source of information is alive in the same sense that a plant is alive?


DaveScot    
Quote
Put different words in my mouth one more time and it’ll be the last comment you make here.


A few points.

* Benjy made a restatement of DaveScot's previous claim, a valid method of clarifying another's position. According to DaveScot, atheists "deny any living force in the universe that transcends themselves". Note Benjy did not use quotes, and even included a questionmark.

* DaveScot clearly used the word "transcends". The question then becomes what he is referring to that is transcendent? Does he believe in a élan vital. (re; Julian Huxley's élan locomotif.) Perhaps angels pushing planets on celestial spheres?

* Benjy's days on Uncommon Descent are numbered.

Date: 2006/11/17 09:30:50, Link
Author: Zachriel
DaveScot
Quote
Not having any predispositions to chant the party line in biology I do consider it a law of nature that life comes from life and abiogenesis is a baseless myth held by atheists to help them deny any living force in the universe that transcends themselves.


Of course, the "law of nature" argument is quite a misinterpretation of the meaning of "scientific law".  A scientific law is an observed regularity.

And we can say the evidence is very strong that all extant life on Earth is descended from one or a few primordial populations. Further, that all life known to have ever existed is composed of carbon replicators. However, we also know, with some scientific certainty, that carbon replicators did not always exist in the universe. That carbon didn't even exist! So the domain of the observation of "life begets life" is limited to the last few billion years.

Life once did not exist. Then it did.

Date: 2006/11/18 08:22:29, Link
Author: Zachriel
There is ample direct observational evidence of mutation, recombination, environmental and sexual selection, viral genomic invasion, and many other mechanisms of genetic evolutionary change. Now we have, according to Uncommon Descent, "Case for a Creator Event" discovered at Biola University! Who says there is no ID research? So there! Now we have actual direct evidence of how genomes are manipulated by Creaton Rays.

...

Yikes! I read that wrong. It's "Case for a Creator"—Event, in case you "want to hobnob" with Creationists. Maybe, while you're there, you could ask them for that direct observational evidence of the mechanisms by which creation actually occurs.

Genesis 2:7
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Date: 2006/11/18 14:49:38, Link
Author: Zachriel
Joseph over at Uncommon Descent
     
Quote
As for Larry Moran, I posted on his blog and will soon see what he has. Guys like that would have flunked Newton, Galileo and Kepler…


So I strolled over to Larry Moran's new blog, Sandwalk, Strolling with a skeptical biochemist where Joseph challenged Larry thusly.
   
Quote
People should reject Darwinism- that is until it can be scientifically (objectively) tested.


Now, what is interesting about this is that Larry's previous thread is titled "Why I'm not a Darwinist". Ouch, Joseph!

(Now I'm not quite sure of Larry's understanding of the centuries-old theories of "Newton, Galileo and Kepler", but he wrote the book on biochemistry, literally.)

Date: 2006/11/19 07:01:41, Link
Author: Zachriel
platolives
Quote
Any professor with intellectual integrity would , I think, grab the bull by both horns yet many clearly do not understand that one need not multiply it into something caused by a deity. The Ockhamistic informationists (vs, the anti-informationists), can live with the notion that life is brought about by an unidentifiable, supersensible intelligence.


That's right. It's not a deity. It's an unidentifiable, supersensible intelligence.

(Notice that the commenter chose the phrase "unidentifiable" rather than "as yet unidentified", even though he has already assigned this agent characteristics, that of being a "supersensible intelligence".)

Date: 2006/11/19 17:57:54, Link
Author: Zachriel
Corrected link for DaveScot on UDoJ
http://tinyurl.com/yfozqk

Date: 2006/11/20 08:53:16, Link
Author: Zachriel
DaveScot in the "Rewriting How the Solar System Formed" thread.

Quote
Random mutations, filtered or not by natural selection, are what NDE says is the source of variation. Random by definition means unpredictable. So if the theory begins by admitting it has no predictive power then what possible good is it? Yet they call it the unifying principle of all biology.


I can't believe that DaveScot doesn't understand probability. Players may gamble, but the House never does. The House can't predict the result of any particular roll of the dice, but it can predict the result of thousands of rolls of the dice. And they make quite a profit doing so.

According to DaveScot's claim, we can't even predict billiard balls, which are composed of quantum particles that have a component of randomness in their position and motion. But, in fact, we can predict the aggregate behavior of billiard balls, and with sufficient skill, "call our shots".

When we use the word "random" in science, it means uncorrelated. That is, the value of the presumed dependent variable cannot be predicted from the value of the independent variable. The plot forms a very particular type of mathematical distribution called "random".  

In the case of mutations, they may very well have specific causes. Some mutations are due to quantum fluctuations, but others are due to cosmic rays, environmental toxins, or ambient radiation.  What random means in this context is that they are uncorrelated with the environmental necessities of the organism.

Date: 2006/11/20 09:24:24, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 20 2006,09:10)
Most dice give you a number between 1-6. You can't roll a Wednessday. It's random, but also bound / constrained.


More particularly, with two dice, we can predict a distribution of results with a natural (7 or 11) more likely and puppy paws (10, the hard way) less likely. This allows the assignment of betting odds.

DaveScot posed a strawman.

Date: 2006/11/20 12:23:31, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote
It was empty rhetoric.


That about sums it up. Are we done now?

Date: 2006/11/21 22:00:56, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (Faid @ Nov. 21 2006,21:19)
Two chromatids, Dave, TWO chromatids per chromosome at the end of stage I.Read a highschool textbook, ferchrissake.


DaveScot:    
Quote
This appears to be a semantic issue.


Yeah, just semantics. Like "the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning" — Twain

--

It's not so much that they don't know. It's that they think that only they have access to the truth. So biologists don't know about biology, geneticists don't know about genetics, paleontologists don't know about paleontology. But they do. And instead of learning as much as they can, and observing as carefully as they can, and testing their ideas against the actual data, they sit and think about it believing that is all they have to do. And they have to ignore anyone trying to help them or teach them, because these scientists can't be right, can they?

--

Well, hey man. Maybe atoms are like little Solar Systems. And there's little people orbiting on electrons thinking about us while we're thinking about them.

Wow, man. That blows my mind... Hey, don't Bogart that!

Date: 2006/11/22 06:53:00, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (keiths @ Nov. 22 2006,00:29)
Instead, he's off frantically Googling for some obscure reference that supports his position that gravity is the strongest force...


Sniff. Good times.

Date: 2006/11/22 07:37:27, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (k.e @ Nov. 22 2006,07:24)
DT just keep in mind if gravity was suddenly promoted to the stongest force in the Universe every atomic bond in your body would be ripped apart instantly and the whole universe would form a black hole the size of an orange.


The reason we don't see large concentrations of electrical charge is that the electromagnetic force is so great that charges become rapidly equalized.

A proton-star* the size of a neutron-star would exert far more electromagnetic force than gravitational force. You wouldn't want to be around for the equalization process to occur in a proton-star. The mutual repulsion of the protons, far exceeding that of gravity, would rip the  star apart, while nearby objects would be rent of their electrons.

(* Technically, all normal stars are proton-stars but the plasma includes an approximately equal number of protons and electrons. Even then, there are vast electrical fields generated as the plasma is mixed by the core furnace. We are here speaking of a large mass of pure protons.)

Date: 2006/11/22 10:37:25, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 22 2006,10:32)
 
Quote (keiths @ Nov. 22 2006,04:45)
I'll even write it for you if you find it too painful:
"I was wrong about the meaning of 'diploid'.  Thank you to Allen, Joseph, and all of the others who pointed out my mistake.  Also, I sincerely apologize for calling Allen MacNeill a 'pedant'."

If he did this, the issue would immediately go away. So he doesn't, because the ID creationists seem to instinctually do whatever will drag my entertainment out the longest.


And he might even start the process of learning.

Me? I always try to learn from my mistakes. And from the plentitude, I have acquired quite an education thereby.

Date: 2006/11/22 16:11:35, Link
Author: Zachriel
Sladjo
 
Quote
I would suggest to ID scientist some experiments in which to check for the existence of such backup, adaptive & detection systems in the “noncoding” DNA sequences. I’m 100% sure they will find some interesting stuff…


Gosh, if only we could find an "ID Scientist" who knew anything about how to like do experiments in genetics.

Date: 2006/11/22 19:54:27, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quick! DaveScot changes the subject.
 
Quote
And when ToE apologists say things like ToE is as well established as the theory of gravity it’s just laughable. The theory of gravity can predict the precise position of the planets a million years in the future.


Ah yes. Gravity! Of course, the Theory of Gravity has some major problems right now. It does well on parochial scales, but it starts to break down on cosmological scales. There is a major rewrite looming.

   
Quote
What can the theory of evolution predict a million years into the future?


The Theory of Evolution predicts that (absent human genetic tampering) any new species will descend by evolutionary processes from existing species.

DaveScot doesn't understand what "predict" means. If I say that I will dig in a particular place and find gold, that is a prediction. That the gold has been buried there for eons is irrelevant to it being a prediction. So when a scientist claims that he can examine 40 million year old strata in the wastelands of Egypt and find a novel cetacean with legs — and then does so — that is is a validated prediction. Each validated prediction adds support to the Theory. Enough such predictions, and it becomes a trend.

Now, I understand that DaveScot accepts Common Descent (though for some unknown reason he doesn't take up this issue with Joseph who strenuously argues otherwise). The question, then, becomes one of mechanisms. Environmental and sexual selection, genetic drift, mutation, population dynamics, recombination, gene repair mechanisms, viral invasions, etc. are all observed phenomena. There is also very strong evidence of mechanisms of macroevolution, such as extinction, adaptive radiation, founder effects, allopatry, etc.

There is no observational evidence of any so-called design events. Evolution in graduated stages from common ancestors remains an empirical fact. Nearly all biologists believe that natural mechanisms explain the evolution of life on Earth. But, even if it could be shown that the *currently known* mechanisms are not sufficient to account for all evolutionary change, such a gap in human scientific knowledge would not justify a design assertion. Human ignorance is not evidence.

Date: 2006/11/23 08:11:21, Link
Author: Zachriel
GilDodgen      
Quote
In an address to the American Academy for the Advancement of Science, Dr. L.D. Rue advocated that we deceive ourselves by means of some “noble lie” into thinking that we and the universe actually have value and purpose.

"Meaning" and "value" are curious words. The knowledge that people are worm-meat is not new, or some advanced scientific discovery of a Brave New World.
     
Quote
To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow; a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing." --From Macbeth (V, v, 19)

It doesn't require a "noble lie" to realize that the health of your children has a certain value. It isn't a "noble lie" that you don't want a stick poked in your eye. We may call these valuations *arbitrary*, but we make them willingly and easily. And from value comes meaning.

There is no scientific evidence for some ultimate and abstract purpose to human existence within the cosmos. However, people may discover meaning in life, and most do.

Rowan      
Quote
It seems to me that a society that lives according to this lie which promotes altruism and charity, is in some sense irreducibly complex, because of the interdependence created between people. One person living according to the lie on their own in a world of self-interest stands no chance of getting anywhere.

Well, this claim is amenable to investigation — through game theory. It turns out that cooperation can be self-interest, that it can evolve from humble beginnings (e.g. trust earned over time), and that there can be a shifting balance between countervailing strategies. Humans have developed a complex biological, social and cultural system for rooting out those that would undermine cooperation or who have a history of deception.

Humans have also evolved to treat altruism as a good in and of itself. So people will sacrifice for others with no apparent gain. It's in their nature.

Date: 2006/11/23 08:58:06, Link
Author: Zachriel
Srdjan  
Quote
You underestimate ToE. It is so plastic it can “predict” just about anything. So called, “Junk DNA” is the point in case. And I bet you, as Mike Gene pointed out, if paleontologists find rabbit fossil in Pre-Cambrian, it would be no problem for ToE.

Actually, that would be a serious problem for the Theory of Evolution. Such a fossil would mean the rabbit would precede it's posited ancestor.

Date: 2006/11/23 09:34:50, Link
Author: Zachriel
GilDogden      
Quote
Vanity, Vanity, All Is Vanity! ... There will be no record of anything that anyone has ever thought, done, created, or said.

Ecclesiastes      
Quote
Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity.
What profit hath a man of all his labor which he taketh under the sun? ...

There is no remembrance of former things; neither shall there be any remembrance of things that are to come with those that shall come after...

I have seen all the works that are done under the sun; and, behold, all is vanity and vexation of spirit.


Ozymandias
Quote
I met a traveler from an antique land
Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read,
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed,
And on the pedestal these words appear:

“My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:
Look upon my works, ye Mighty, and despair!”
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.


and there is no new thing under the sun.

Date: 2006/11/23 17:45:32, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (Zachriel @ Nov. 22 2006,19:54)
Quick! DaveScot changes the subject.
           
Quote
And when ToE apologists say things like ToE is as well established as the theory of gravity it’s just laughable. The theory of gravity can predict the precise position of the planets a million years in the future.

Ah yes. Gravity!

A good example on trying to make accurate predictions from the Theory of Gravity provided by The Questionable Authority.      
Quote
If you try to predict the motions of a body of asteroids that are near each other, you quickly find that the motion of each asteroid is going to have an effect on the motion of every other asteroid, and that these effects are all taking place simultaneously.

In comments, Torbjörn Larsson notes the computational problems of adding in relativistic effects and other improvements on the standard "stone descends, smoke ascends" model.

Date: 2006/11/24 12:57:02, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 24 2006,11:27)
(In fact, Zachriel, why do you spend so much time debating a brick wall?)

For our gentle readers, of course. Far more people lurk on blogs than comment on them. I think it is important that unsupported statements be contested.  I try to find areas where I can contribute positively to a discussion.

I'm very disappointed by the treatment reasonable commenters receive on Uncommon Descent, treatment which undermines whatever credibility they hope to earn. Our audience can see that for themselves.

As for Joseph. The primary evidence for Common Descent is found in parallel nested hierarchies, morphological, biogeographical, paleontological, genetic, embryonic. In order to understand this evidence, one has to first understand the nested hierarchy and how we can use independently derived traits to establish this pattern. This is something Joseph continues to refuse to grapple with even though he has blogged on the subject.

So Joseph,
   
Quote
* Please provide a valid definition of nested hierarchy.
* Do the twigs of a tree represent a nested hierarchy?
* Do extant vertebrates form a nested hierarchy?
* Do extinct vertebrates fit this nested hierarchy?
* Please point to specific independently derived traits to support your assertions.



Zachriel’s Nest of Letters
"Not just a mere similarity, but a family resemblance.”

Date: 2006/11/26 07:11:43, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 26 2006,06:27)
my favourite DS moment yet, an oldie but no disussion of "the Man, DaveTard" is complete without it:

Still my favorite line, "It was empty rhetoric."

Sigh. Good times. (Unless you're a family subjected to threats because of such "empty rhetoric".) Curious. Did DaveScot simply apologize for his unkind words? His admittedly vacuous statements? His blow of ill-wind? His "empty rhetoric"?

Date: 2006/11/28 07:22:19, Link
Author: Zachriel
Joe G:      
Quote
More thoughts on human chromosome 2:
...
However that does not mean said ancestor(s) shared a common ancestor with chimps.


In a way, Joseph is correct. A nested hierarchy cannot be established with just two nodes. So, Joseph,

* What is the minimal number of nodes necessary to establish a nested hierarchy?
* Do the twigs of a tree represent a nested hierarchy?
* Do extant vertebrates form a nested hierarchy? Do extinct vertebrates fit this nested hierarchy?
* Please point to specific independently derived traits to support your assertions (per the definition you yourself provided).

(Xposted to Joseph's blog.)

Date: 2006/11/28 12:07:57, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (Zachriel @ Nov. 28 2006,07:22)
Joe G:              
Quote
More thoughts on human chromosome 2:
...
However that does not mean said ancestor(s) shared a common ancestor with chimps.


In a way, Joseph is correct. A nested hierarchy cannot be established with just two nodes. So, Joseph,

* What is the minimal number of nodes necessary to establish a nested hierarchy?
* Do the twigs of a tree represent a nested hierarchy?
* Do extant vertebrates form a nested hierarchy? Do extinct vertebrates fit this nested hierarchy?
* Please point to specific independently derived traits to support your assertions (per the definition you yourself provided).

(Xposted to Joseph's blog.)

Joseph replied  
Quote
Do twigs on a tree contain the SAME DNA as all other twigs, branches and trunk?

If the branches of a tree disappear do the twigs it had remain attached to the tree?


I don't think answers come with questionmarks. Anyway ...

1. The DNA of the twigs, branches and trunk have nearly identical DNA; however, any occasional mutations during cell-replication will form a nested hierarchy matching the pattern-of-growth.
2. If a branch is cut, then the twigs on that particular line-of-growth will no longer be attached and will wither. That's the nature of a nested hierarchy. Each twig is attached to the root through only a single line-of-growth.

Now, please answer the questions that I have posed to you several times over several weeks.

Date: 2006/11/28 13:58:33, Link
Author: Zachriel
Joseph    
Quote
Your alleged "tree of life" is missing its roots. It is missing its trunk. All it really has are branches floating in mid-air. With its "single-line of growth" existing only in some imaginations.

There is one and only one way to trace from any given twig to the trunk. Just like your paternal ancestry. Just like all nested hierarchies.

I suppose we shouldn't be surprised, but Joseph still failed to answer the questions.

Date: 2006/11/28 14:29:15, Link
Author: Zachriel
Oh my Goodness!! Joseph just quoted Darwin as an authority, called him no less than a "scientific giant".
   
Quote
I will take two scientific giants of their time, even though that time was over 100 years ago, over Zachriel, any and every day.


     
Quote
IOW keep the transitionals and nested hierarchy becomes anarchy.

Not anarchy, or random. It would still constitute a nested hierarchy, only bushier.

Alas! But still no answer to my questions. I'm beginning to think that maybe Joseph doesn't understand what constitutes a nested hierarchy, much less why it is considered strong evidence for common descent among the vast majority of scientists working in the relevant fields of study.

Date: 2006/11/28 14:56:46, Link
Author: Zachriel
Joseph  
Quote
An imaginary tree can do anything one wants it to, including form a nested hiearchy.

A tree cannot do anything one wants it to. Trees regularly form nested hierarchies.

Joseph  
Quote
And reality say that one would not expect a nested hierarchy of living organisms in a Common Descent scenario for the many reasons already provided.

Your paternal descent forms a tree. This is true whether your grandfather is alive and well and still fathering children, or whether he died long ago.

Joseph  
Quote
It also demonstrates that Zachriel does not understand what makes a nested hierarchy- that being DISTINCT and SEPARATE groups.

What makes it a hierarchy is that taxonomic groups are wholely contained within other taxonomic groups. It can be shown that metazoans can be arranged by independently derived traits into a singular nested hierarchy, while artifacts such as motorized vehicles cannot.

Joseph  
Quote
I also understand why Zachriel feels he needs to play "tag" on separate forums. Insecurity.

I have to do it this way because you have indicated that you will not always publish replies. We could move this discussion to an open forum, such as Languedoc Diary A neutral venue. I'm sure Alan would be happy to set up a thread for the discussion of the nested hierarchy.

Date: 2006/11/28 15:12:57, Link
Author: Zachriel
Joseph  
Quote
However I do find it ironic that Zachriel would ignore Darwin just because Darwin and I agree. That is just another momma's boy approach.


This is just getting to be hilarious. *I'm* the one ignoring Darwin.

(Nor did I ignore the specific point about the necessity of extinction to preserve the nested hierarchy, but answered in at least two different ways. 1. Not anarchy, or random. It would still constitute a nested hierarchy, only bushier. 2. This is true whether your grandfather is alive and well and still fathering children, or whether he died long ago.)

Date: 2006/11/28 15:44:46, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 28 2006,15:13)
DaveTard goes Ready, FIRE!, aim

http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1816

*waves*

Hiya Dave, you odious bellend. You lept to a conclusion that isn't, you bad creobot.

DMRT1 is highly conserved throughout vertebrata.

Jenny Graves, Australian National University in Canberra. For some reason, the author of the study keeps talking about evolution.

Date: 2006/11/28 17:20:54, Link
Author: Zachriel
Jehu points to a pretty good article summarizing the state of phylogenetics.
 
Quote
While you are trying to resolve the montreme, bird, reptile, mammal tree. Check out this review which explains that the tree of life will likely never be resolveable no matter how much data is collected.


The article actually states,    
Quote
Because some histories may not be resolvable by even vast increases in amounts of conventional data, the identification of new molecular characters will be crucial to future progress.


The main problem they point to is phylogenetic resolution of rapid divergence, e.g. the coelacanth/lungfish/tetrapod which probably represents a very short stem 370-390 million years ago. However, determining that they belong in the fish clade is not the difficulty, but only the resolution at the node.

It always tickles me when Intelligent Design advocates point to articles that strongly support evolutionary theory.

Date: 2006/11/28 21:38:01, Link
Author: Zachriel
Zachriel: A tree cannot do anything "one wants it to".

Joseph: I said an IMAGINARY tree.

I'm talking about actual trees, which form a specific pattern. This pattern is characterized such that you can group twigs into stems and stems into branches. Each branch can have multiple stems, but each twig traces a single line back to the trunk.

Zachriel: Trees regularly form nested hierarchies.

Joseph: No they don't for the reason already provided.

You didn't provide a reason. And the only definition you offered disagreed with your interpretation.

Joseph: The problems with using NH as evidence for Common Descent ...

There is absolutely no point discussing Common Descent until you learn what constitutes a nested hierarchy. It's the pattern of a tree. It's the pattern of your paternity.



Gee whiz, Joseph. It's not as hard as you seem to want  it to be.

Date: 2006/11/29 06:51:11, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (mcc @ Nov. 28 2006,22:19)
Is DMRT1 still present in other mammals besides just the platypi or other animals, and if so, what if anything does it do there? Typing the name of that gene into Google I see implications that humans have DMRT1 as well. Is that the same DMRT1 or something different?

DMRT1 is highly conserved throughout vertebrata, but is part of a larger family of homologous sexual regulatory genes in all metazoans. The exact evolutionary history of these genes are still under active investigation. However, nothing indicates a substantial violation of the nested hierarchy. In fact, quite the opposite.

All these geneticists talk about is evolution and common descent. Try 300 million years of conserved synteny between chicken Z and human chromosome 9

Date: 2006/11/29 14:47:53, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 29 2006,10:54)


       
Quote
6. William Dembski // Nov 29th 2006 at 10:43 am

PWE is no longer with us. –WmAD

Comment by William Dembski — November 29, 2006 @ 10:43 am


STRANGE THAT YOU ESPOUSE DEMOCRACY, WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE ONE AND CENSOR DISSIDENTS, YOU TWATS

The technical problem at Oceana's Bureau of History is one that requires a thorough recollection investigation. Removing PWE's comment didn't remove all traces of PWE. Ekstasis is still left responding to a comment that never existed. The revolution will only be complete when the language is perfect.

By the way, what did PWE say to provoke the ban?

Date: 2006/11/29 14:51:38, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (Kristine @ Nov. 29 2006,12:02)
Thanks for the link, djmullen.

Can anyone tell me when UD was first launched?

Registrant:
Erasmus Communications
538 Post Oak Ln
Riesel, Texas 08723
United States

Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com)
Domain Name: UNCOMMONDESCENT.COM
Created on: 12-Apr-05
Expires on: 12-Apr-11
Last Updated on: 21-Dec-05

Administrative Contact:
Dembski, William info@iscid.org
Erasmus Communications
538 Post Oak Ln
Riesel, Texas 08723
United States
6099244424 Fax --

Technical Contact:
Dembski, William info@iscid.org
Erasmus Communications
538 Post Oak Ln
Riesel, Texas 08723
United States
6099244424 Fax --

Domain servers in listed order:
NS1.CPHOSTING.COM
NS2.CPHOSTING.COM

Date: 2006/11/29 15:12:21, Link
Author: Zachriel
At ISCID

Bandwidth Limit Exceeded
The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to the site owner reaching his/her bandwidth limit. Please try again later.

Date: 2006/11/29 17:35:48, Link
Author: Zachriel
For the record, posting a family tree on a thread about inheritance resulted in Joseph refusing to post the comment to his blog.

Then he retorted in doggerel, "IOW you are nothing but an internet punk, spewing junk."



(Tidbit: In the 1962 film Lawrence of Arabia, Alec Guiness portrayed Prince Faisal, Sharif Hussein's son.)

Date: 2006/12/02 07:49:27, Link
Author: Zachriel
DaveScot links to a Google search, but hides the nature of the search.

Google for feloniousmonk a**h***.

Personally, I was somewhat surprised by the stealth curse. Having been banned at Uncommon Descent for so much as mentioning to DaveScot that Scientific American is not a peer reviewed scientific journal, I thought that perhaps DaveScot was trying to, er, elevate the quality of the discussion. The first few references are interesting. The first does concern a tirade against Feloniousmonk, but the caster of the aspersions comes off very poorly. On the next several, the use of the term is not applied to or used by Feloniousmonk.

All-in-all, the link shows pretty poor Google skills.

However, a similar Google for DaveScot and the term of choice yields this Bit of History.

Date: 2006/12/02 10:37:15, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote
Trst m n ths. r scrt scks bg tm.

 
Quote
You don't want to make me mad. Trust me on this. Your security sucks big time.

This is clearly a threat to undermine the site's security. That's far worse than any use of foul language.

Date: 2006/12/02 15:48:49, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 02 2006,13:55)
Has anyone done John A. Davison vs. DaveScot before?


That's gotta sting.

Sorry to burst your bubble. The proper way to do such a search is to use quotes around multiple words, such as "John A. Davison" vs. DaveScot. Otherwise, it returns any reference to any Davison and any John on the same page (e.g. John Howell's geneaology includes the marriage of Nellie Davison to Henry Howell).

Google on "John A Davison"


Addendum: From a Google on  John A Davison without the quotes (fourth page), I discovered there is a John Davison Rockefeller. Googling then on "John A Davison", Rockefeller, I found out that our John A Davison claims a relationship with the Rockefeller clan.

Date: 2006/12/02 19:18:19, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 02 2006,16:59)
Quite right, Zach.  I stand corrected.

You're not doing that right. Next time try one of these chestnuts instead.

 DaveScot: And I’ve grown weary of your silly replies. Adios.

 DaveScot: Get lost. And stop taking up space in the spam bucket.

 DaveScot: Get lost Zachriel. I gave you a second chance to mend your ways but you’re still running about on the net posting trash talk about our site here.

Date: 2006/12/03 07:13:32, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 03 2006,05:48)
       
Quote (Zachriel @ Dec. 02 2006,19:18)
         
Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 02 2006,16:59)
Quite right, Zach.  I stand corrected.

You're not doing that right. Next time try one of these chestnuts instead.

 DaveScot: And I’ve grown weary of your silly replies. Adios.

 DaveScot: Get lost. And stop taking up space in the spam bucket.

 DaveScot: Get lost Zachriel. I gave you a second chance to mend your ways but you’re still running about on the net posting trash talk about our site here.

Your mama says I was doing it right last night, homo. - dt

How's that?

Much better. That angels don't have mamas doesn't matter. Being wrong doesn't matter. Admitting error is to be avoided at all costs — even if that means introducing new, er, misstatements. You still need to work on your condescension, though.  ;-)


--
Zachriel, angel that rules over memory, presides over the planet Jupiter.
Member AMF, Angelic Motive Force: Pushing planets on celestial spheres — one epoch at a time.
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/

Date: 2006/12/03 11:34:52, Link
Author: Zachriel
Meanwhile, Joseph lectures a geneticist about genetics and the nested hierarchy (who does provide a cite to a cool phylogenetic tree for myosins).

Date: 2006/12/05 13:20:23, Link
Author: Zachriel
DaveScot
Quote
We often hear the ridiculous assertion that the theory of evolution is as well tested as the theory of gravity.

The theory of gravity can predict precisely where the planets will be a million years from now. What can the theory of evolution predict a million years into the future?

Gee. This has already been discussed. It's almost as if he forgot already. Predictions concern observations. So, if geological theory were to predict that gold can be found by digging in a particular place, and gold is found, this is a confirmed prediction -- even if the gold has been there for eons. Repeating such predictions leads to confidence in the theory.

Predicting the behavior of Earth in the near-term is easy, but so is predicting the behavior of bacteria in a Petri dish. Despite the success of the Theory of Gravity, predicting the behavior of collections of asteroids is still problematic and probabilistic. Predicting the behavior of the Earth in the long-term, or the predicting the behavior of billions of stars in a galaxy is not an exact science, but statistical. And even then, the current Theory of Gravity does not adequately predict the motions of stars in galaxies, or how larger ensembles interact.

Prediction: Any newly discovered metazoan will fit the nested hierarchy of descent. New species are frequently discovered providing ample opportunity for falsification.

Prediction: Each new metazoan genome sequenced will fit the nested hierarchy of descent. This new area of discovery has strongly confirmed common descent.

Recently confirmed predictions: In the arctic tundra, fish with limbs. In the Egyptian desert, whales with legs. In the Pakistani wastelands, from molecular evidence, an ankle bone ancestral to modern cetaceans.

Joseph
Quote
Present the data, along with the options for how that data came to be. Then have an open discussion that would perhaps lend itself to objective testing.

This from someone who purposefully suppresses comments on this own blog, commenting on a blog that suppresses reasoned argument.

Date: 2006/12/05 13:57:39, Link
Author: Zachriel
DaveScot
Quote
Random mutations are by definition unpredictable. The theory cannot predict what mutations will occur, when they will occur. or what effect they will have. It’s without predictive value.


Add probability theory to things DaveScot either doesn't understand. Consider that there is such a thing as a probability "theory" for a flavor of why DaveScot is wrong. Consider also that while players may gamble, the house never does.

Today, University students will watch as bacteria acquire random mutations that lead to antibiotic resistance. Today, someone will win at the Roulette table. The Amazing Predictions of Zachriel.

Date: 2006/12/05 14:30:47, Link
Author: Zachriel
Now this is funny.

Joseph blogs
Quote
You can make all the accusations against me that you want. However until you substantiate any of them they will not see the light of day on my blog.


The only 'accusation' I have made is that he won't agree to promptly publish my on-topic comments. But, here he is saying he won't publish my comments, so he is substantiating my complaint. But if I point that out, will he censor my response?

This is some sort of Gödelian inversion. I think the Universe might implode.

Date: 2006/12/05 16:04:03, Link
Author: Zachriel
DaveScot    
Quote
A comment that wasn’t worth saving said climatology can’t predict where a tornado will land a year from now but climatology is still worth teaching.

Not worth saving, but worth responding to. Patently unfair.

DaveScot    
Quote
Lots of them lose their shirts too. Some people win in Vegas and some people lose. That doesn’t make any of it predictable.

Showing more ignorance of probability theory. As I mentioned, players may gamble, but the house never does. They consistently make money based on the outcome of random events.

Atom    
Quote
This will land you right in the tautological (useless) aspects of Natural Selection. What mutations confer advantage? Those that allow an organism to better survive and reproduce. So those mutations that allow an organism to better survive will allow it to better survive.

Natural selection is not a tautology, but an empirical observation, more clearly defined as "differential reproductive success due to heritable traits". The key biological question is the linking of specific traits to reproductive success. A large number of studies have demonstrated such a linkage, including the Grants' work with Darwin Finches

Date: 2006/12/05 16:11:35, Link
Author: Zachriel
DaveScot:
Quote
A little more predictable in the short term than Vegas but in the long run only the house wins.

Here, DaveScot admits that markets have non-random correlations with various predictive methodologies -- just after claiming they did not. Enough of a correlation that an investor can know when to get out of the market.

2ndclass makes a good point too. Most markets can be shown to grow over longer time-scales, as well as exhibiting scale-invariant behavior (e.g. Benoit Mandelbrot's study of cotton futures).

Date: 2006/12/05 17:35:16, Link
Author: Zachriel
DaveScot
Quote
In a nutshell they are setting out to demonstrate how DNA-based life could have originated from undirected interplay of chemicals.

If ID is true then it predicts the Harvard project will fail.


Sorry, DaveScot. That's not an empirical prediction. That's a fallacy. A strawman. An argument from ignorance.

There are many reasons why the Harvard effort may not succeed, including current technological limitations and the difficulty of unraveling events that happened billions of years ago and left few if any traces.

Date: 2006/12/05 18:47:30, Link
Author: Zachriel
William Dembski  
Quote
Check out the following piece by G. K. Chesterton, published in 1920.

G. K. Chesterton  
Quote
There are many other signs of this confession of failure, for which I have hardly left myself space.

Apparently, 'Darwinism' went down to defeat in around 1918 — just like the German army.

Date: 2006/12/05 20:54:08, Link
Author: Zachriel
DaveScot    
Quote
I’m forced to conclude you knew ID’s position and your answer was intellectually dishonest. This is not ad hominem. It’s a simple observation.

dopderbeck    
Quote
You use the general term “evolution,” I respond, and then you call me a liar because you really had some special meaning of the term in mind.

DaveScot    
Quote
I didn’t call you a liar, dopderbeck. If you put words in my mouth one more time it will be the last time.

liar, someone willfully deceptive.
dishonest, willfully deceptive.

I don't think dopderbeck is long for Uncommon Descent.

Date: 2006/12/05 20:58:29, Link
Author: Zachriel
Joseph  
Quote
Explaining the NH of myosin will take time- time is very valuable to me- so here it is- I do just that and you give me $10,000 (USD)- that you will first give to an agreed upon neutral party.

Now, this is funny. Joseph knows what a nested hierarchy is, but he won't tell anyone unless you pay him $10,000 (USD) — in advance.

Um, any takers?

Date: 2006/12/05 21:10:54, Link
Author: Zachriel
PaV  
Quote
Just as a reminder, one of the things that Darwinian theory predicts is vast numbers of intermediate forms present in the fossil record. Oops.

'Darwinian' is a term with a variety of meanings, and they are often conflated. In any case, Darwin devoted a whole chapter to The Imperfection Of The Geological Record.. He also discusses the meaning of "intermediate varieties" in terms of ancestry using the fantail and pouter pigeons as illustrative examples. And, of course, modern biology has advanced considerably since Darwin.

It would be nice if PaV and others had at least a rudimentary understanding of evolutionary theory, at least catch up to the scientific literature circa 1859.

Date: 2006/12/06 06:41:56, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (menglander @ Dec. 06 2006,01:30)
     
Quote (lkeithlu @ Dec. 05 2006,21:41)
I couldn't get a coherent response when I asked about the Templeton Foundation. Did a VP state that the Templeton Foundation solicited research proposals? Or was this just a "lie" printed by the NYT?  The link to the NYT article did not constitute evidence, according to Mr. Scot. It seems that if a Templeton Foundation VP said so, then it probably happened. My posts stopped showing up after that....

Try this, towards the middle.  3 million dollars.

http://web.archive.org/web....dex.asp

and then here:

http://www.cambridge-templeton-consortium.org/index.php

-M

KL: December 5, 2006 @ 6:44 pm  
Quote
Didn’t the Templeton Foundation ask for proposals? They have the ability to fund such work. I understand that nothing was submitted.

Note that KL uses a questionmark.

DaveScot: December 5, 2006 @ 7:05 pm  
Quote
I’ve never been able to verify that rumor. Templeton goes to great pains here to disown ID...However, if you have anything from the Templeton Foundation saying they were soliciting proposals for ID research feel free to provide it here.

"Feel free." But how long will the feeling last?

KL: December 5, 2006 @ 7:44 pm  
Quote
Here: nytimes.com

KL provides an article from the New York Times which includes a quote from Charles L. Harper Jr., senior vice president at the Templeton Foundation. "From the point of view of rigor and intellectual seriousness, the intelligent design people don't come out very well in our world of scientific review," he said.

DaveScot: December 5, 2006 @ 7:53 pm  
Quote
KL, I asked for something from the Templeton Foundation.

Ultimatum.

DaveScot: December 6, 2006 @ 6:31 am  
Quote
KL is no longer with us.

KL is not allowed to sleep in.

Date: 2006/12/06 06:47:18, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (lkeithlu @ Dec. 06 2006,05:48)
To late

I'm banned from UD

(yeah, I have a different user name here because I couldn't use my usual two letter KL, like on PT)

Thanks for the Templeton links anyway, but I suspect DaveScot doesn't anto to see them anyhow.

Hi lkeithlu (may I call you KL?). Actually DaveScot will see the links: he does read this forum. That's why we all know he will graciously print a retraction and an apology for his overreaction. That's just the kind of guy he is.

Date: 2006/12/06 07:24:42, Link
Author: Zachriel
DaveScot  
Quote
You are free to quote me where I said you were being intellectually dishonest but you are not free to translate that into more inflammatory verbage.


Ha, ha!!

DaveScot, you kill me. You must be a parody. You just gotta be!

Date: 2006/12/06 08:33:40, Link
Author: Zachriel
DaveScot is typically using human ignorance and the limitations of human technical ability as evidence for Intelligent Design.

DaveScot  
Quote
I anticipated the excuse “it’s just too hard, that’s why we failed” in the first comment. I proposed a 10 year program funded at a billion/year and if progress is slow then double it. I don’t want any lame excuses for failure. If it’s that difficult that 10 years and 20 billion can’t come up with a solution then it’s probably time to admit there might not be a solution and ID is true.


Joseph  
Quote
I am still wondering why all the predictions made by Gonzalez and Richards in “The Privileged Planet” cannot be considered ID predictions.


Um, because the predictions are not testable with any reasonable extension of human technology.

--

1000AD

Bishop: Angels push planets on crystal spheres.
Monk: I'm not so sure.
Bishop: Well, all you have to do is fly into the Heavens and look, then.
Monk: No one can do that. Maybe one day we can find a way to enlarge the images of the planets, "magnify" them as it were.
Bishop: I'll fund your efforts, but if after a year or two you haven't demonstrated your point, then that will prove that angels push planets on crystal spheres. Then we'll burn you for heresy.
Monk: Gulp!


--
Zachriel, angel that rules over memory, presides over the planet Jupiter.
Member AMF, Angelic Motive Force: Pushing planets on celestial spheres - one
epoch at a time.
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/

Date: 2006/12/06 09:25:18, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (lkeithlu @ Dec. 06 2006,07:01)
Yeah, I'll hold my breath on that one.

Incidently, I did tell him that John Templeton is from my county (no kidding!;) and that maybe I could ask. He doesn't actually live here, though, and I suspect that he would not appreciate my intrusion if he did. Worth a shot.

Well, I guess I'll go to work, feeling sorry for myself that I am no longer welcome at UD. Ooooh, the shame of it all...


Templeton Foundation  
Quote
Thus while it is our judgment that the general process of biological evolution is well attested by many lines of research, it is not clear to what extent the process of evolution or the study of the history of life on earth may reveal hints of broader cosmic, perhaps even divine, purpose and intention.

It is therefore possible that, from time to time, the Foundation will support well-designed projects or research that some others may label as “intelligent design."

...

While the Foundation does not generally support theologically-motivated critiques of evolutionary science, we do fund open and rigorous debate concerning the “ID” position.

Date: 2006/12/06 10:41:51, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (lkeithlu @ Dec. 06 2006,07:01)
Yeah, I'll hold my breath on that one.


DaveScot    
Quote
Grants made under the program ...

Awards Made
Purpose in the Cosmos as Indicated by Life's Origins
Fine Tuning the Molecules of Behavior in Animals

DaveScot    
Quote
As you can see here I’m not afraid of exposing the truth. I only insist that it is indeed the verifiable truth.


You may have been right, see, but you still needed to be banned, see. It just had to happen that way because, well, you were right, see. And as for DaveScot's assertion that "All the evidence so far provided indicates that the offer was not widely disseminated and was quickly withdrawn due to political pressure," well, that was "just rhetoric". But don't worry. DaveScot is not afraid, you see. He is not afraid. He is not afraid of the likes of you. Or anything else, see. DaveScot is not afraid.

Date: 2006/12/07 06:41:50, Link
Author: Zachriel
Meanwhile, Joseph is still evading the simple question, does a paternal family tree constitute a nested hierarchy?

But, Joseph is not afraid, saying
Quote
And turning on comment moderation has nothing to do with being afraid.

Date: 2006/12/07 07:14:37, Link
Author: Zachriel
DaveScot    
Quote
For the life of me I can’t think of a reason why theistic evolutionists would be opposed in principle to ID. ID only disputes the chance nature of evolution.

That is incorrect. ID claims to have *scientific evidence* of "intelligent design" as an explanation of biological diversity.

DaveScot    
Quote
Now perhaps you can explain to me how any of this somehow opposes any of your personal religious convictions.

Because the claim is false. There is no such scientific evidence. Intelligent Design is a social and political movement that uses the language of science to sway the public. It has no scientific validity.

NATIONAL ACADEMY of SCIENCES: "The theory of evolution has become the central unifying concept of biology and is a critical component of many related scientific disciplines. In contrast, the claims of creation science lack empirical support and cannot be meaningfully tested."

Date: 2006/12/07 11:18:42, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (bfish @ Dec. 07 2006,10:24)
         
Quote (Zachriel @ Dec. 07 2006,06:41)
Meanwhile, Joseph is still evading the simple question, does a paternal family tree constitute a nested hierarchy?

Zachriel,
  Have you ever figured out what Joseph's confusion is regarding nested heirachies?

I believe he is confusing the pattern with the argument concerning common descent. Unfortunately, he is not able to separate the concepts. My approach was meant to be as follows:

Nested Hierarchy
Define the nested hierarchy in terms of sets.
Use a few simple examples, such as paternity.
Show how objects can be arbitrarily arranged into patterns or groups.

Taxonomy
Show how we use independently derived traits to group like objects, such as an apple, an orange and a rock.

Phylogeny
Show how organisms can be arranged into a nested hierarchy by taxonomy.
Show how a nested hierarchy is the natural outcome of descent with modification of diverging and uncrossed lines.

Paternity is a typical example of a nested hierarchy, and is not necessarily a biological concept, but often times legal (adoption), political (noble succession) or economic (estates). Yet sons can be grouped in sets by father, and each father is someone's son. Each son has one-and-only-one paternity. To avoid ambiguity, I even provided the specific example of Sharif Hussein bin Ali's royal succession.

Of course, we haven't been able to get past the first part, even after several threads. He just can't give a yes or no answer to the question, "Does a paternal family tree constitute a nested hierarchy?"

--
Addendum 12/8/2006: I've attempted since April to have Joseph engage the issue of the nested hierarchy. At this point, it is clear that he refuses to answer a simple question, even after I have asked repeatedly and pointedly. It's very sad, in a way. He really thinks he has made a valid point when he hasn't even grappled with the simplest aspects of the problem.

Date: 2006/12/07 11:58:34, Link
Author: Zachriel
Ellis
Quote
Your “prediction” can never really be fulfilled. Even if the scientists who perform the experiments come up with multiple plausible ways in which life could have formed, you can always claim that it all points to ID because they had to intelligently design the experimental conditions and we can never really know if those conditions existed billions of years ago. Catch-22, anyone?

DaveScot
Quote
Ellis

So if we say something can falsify ID and it happens you just know we’ll somehow renege on what we said.

You’re out of here. Buh bye.

Date: 2006/12/08 09:51:39, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 08 2006,07:02)
Yesterday DaveScot took up the research tools of Intelligent Design (silk smoking jacket, pipe, leather armchair, internet connection) and found empirical evidence for front loading in a 2004 paper by Nobrega et al.:

That, I believe, has replaced the white labcoat for geneticists. A change for the better, I think.

bFast        
Quote
The huge question I have on this one is how this data could have been initially brought forth in June, 2004? Has the scientific community been hiding this finding?

It's so well hidden that an article appeared in the pages New Scientist four months before the actual published study. Those dastardly geneticists. Hidden in plain view!! Jehu points out, the article is being circulated at, gasp, Stanford University among Darwinian acolytes who are most assuredly sworn to secrecy. The study has even seen found lurking on the Internet along with pornographic images and anti-religious diatribes.

       
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 08 2006,07:02)
Yesterday          
Quote
Lack of any known means of conserving non-critical genetic information is the major objection lobbed at the front loading hypothesis. Evidently there is a means after all.

DS finds evidence of a mechanism for the preservation of genetic information in the conservation of non-coding genetic information across mouse and human DNA.

Well, the point is that certain conserved sequences can be knocked-out without causing any noticeable change in phenotype. The general assumption is that conservation only occurs to sequences that have selectable benefit to the organism. This represents an apparent contradiction. Of course, this result may be due to the very limited confines of laboratory mice. Zombies with poor immune systems may do quite well reproducing in cages. The authors of the study note
     
Quote
In assessing the impact of these deletions on the engineered mice, it is important to acknowledge that our ability to phenotype an organism will always miss some features, no matter how detailed the analysis. It is possible—even likely—that the animals carrying the megabaselong genomic deletions do harbour abnormalities undetected in our assays, which might affect their fitness in some other timescale or setting than those assayed in this study.

Date: 2006/12/08 11:08:57, Link
Author: Zachriel
Some comments from DaveScot's The Sound of Circular Reasoning Exploding
     
Quote
Ah, but you underestimate the truly magical powers of Natural Selection.

Thus it’s called supernatural-selection.

Funny thing is that article raises another failed Darwnian prediction.

It is my view that this finding should be as significant to evolutionary biology as the Michelson-Morley experiment was to the theory of “ether”. The evolutionary biology community should be in an absolute quandry in response to these findings. This should be front page news in my local paper. But we can’t just bring down a religious icon, just because it wears the cloke of science, can we?

It is damning to the neo-Darwinian evolutionary hypothesis.

Followed by:

darth314        
Quote
That piece of “junk” removed might have a function that was just not tested under the described conditions.
To immediatley conclude that this is prove for genetic planning for the future is premature. that does not help convicing people of the idea of ID.

Jehu        
Quote
It is possible. But the conclusion of the paper was that they did not have function.

(Actually not. They stated, "It is possible—even likely—that the animals carrying the megabaselong genomic deletions do harbour abnormalities undetected in our assays, which might affect their fitness in some other timescale or setting than those assayed in this study.")

DaveScot        
Quote
darth ... I’m going to review the productivity of your previous comments here and if they haven’t been productive you’re going to be demoted to lurker status.

He says dead-pan, as if the very title of the thread, and the intervening comments don't justify darth314's cautionary comment.

Just to add a bit of irony.

bFast        
Quote
BTW, where have the evolutionist loud-mouths gone?

Date: 2006/12/09 09:41:05, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 09 2006,00:29)
Here's some vintage Tard for you...

http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/729

Only Dave and Bill O'Reilly get this good. High praise indeed.


DaveScot:            
Quote
When I worked at Dell every conference room had a sign in it which read “Attack Ideas - Not the People Who Hold Them”. I’d never seen that saying before but I presumed it was a common saying. Just a few minutes ago, out of curiosity, I googled it and found only four hits on the world wide web. And three of the four were quotes of me!


Let's start out with this interesting bit of Google-uniqueness: Attack IDeas - Not the People Who Hold Them.

Wow!! How Google-original is that? About as Google-original as I presumed it was a common saying or And three of the four were quotes of me or Just a few minutes ago, out of curiosity. (This tells us more about the nature of human languages and how varied they are, even when filled with stock phraseology and banal ideas.)

But more to the point, on a thread titled Attack IDeas - Not the People Who Hold Them, DaveScot blogs "And the ones cheering about courts censoring it on establishment clause grounds are downright despicable," also Google-unique.

Date: 2006/12/09 10:21:17, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 09 2006,10:00)
Always important to be thorough. Lean back into your headrest to prevent whiplash:


Thanks for the warning. The rhetorical tatooing of judges was especially poignant.

Turns out that you unAmerican swine is quite Google-unusual. DaveScot makes second place out of five!

Date: 2006/12/09 10:55:30, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (lkeithlu @ Dec. 09 2006,10:39)
Hmmmmm....

And how does banning fit "attack ideas" vs "the people who hold them"?

Just as ironic as a recent post along the lines of "where are all the Darwinian voices now?"

or do I expect too much of ths guy?

KL

Meanwhile, Joseph, a regular commenter on Uncommon Descent (a blog known for rampant intimidation through banning), the same Joseph who 'moderates' comments on his own blog, bemoans content moderation on another blog.

Joseph  
Quote
OD deletes all the comments and disables comments from being posted. IOW OD doesn't care about reality.

Date: 2006/12/09 20:24:14, Link
Author: Zachriel
Michaels7    
Quote
I’m being asked to believe a sea urchin matches better with me than a fly, which is not something I want to resemble anyway. But the absurdity of current genome statistics tells us this does not compute at all in terms of morphology. At least the fly has fully expressed legs, eyes.

Except that this result was predicted based on morphology. Sea urchins start as embryonic bilaterates then mature into radial symmetry. However, unlike flies, but like people, Sea urchins are Deuterostomates (mouth second). Flies are Protostomates (mouth first). This refers to the way the mouth and anus develop in the embryo. If you developed like a fly, you would eat with the 'wrong' end of your digestive tube. And visa versa.

Another genomic confirmation of the nested hierarchy of descent.

(Meanwhile, Joseph is still trying to figure out a conventional paternal family tree. I think I may have determined his area of confusion. He isn't sure how to form a set, in this case, of a father's sons. We can even define a specific criteria, such as legal paternity.)

Date: 2006/12/13 07:28:02, Link
Author: Zachriel
Reporting back on the Joseph Nested Hierarchy Quagmire.
Quote
Zachriel: I don't consider winning an argument to be a valid personal goal.

joe g: I do.

Zachriel: That's where we differ.

joe g: That is hardly the only difference.

Zachriel: Discovering and elucidating the truth is my goal.

Of course, this implies that joe really doesn't care if he is right, as long as he can be seen as right, or at least believes he is seen that way. It also means he probably can't be persuaded.

     
Quote
joe g: Trees do NOT form a nested hierarchy.

And so we have been stuck for ages. However, he has admitted — only for the sake of argument, mind you —that we can group a father's sons as a set.

Date: 2006/12/13 07:45:09, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (Kristine @ Dec. 12 2006,18:52)
Can you believe this s***?

Just how "young" do you think I am tribune7?

It must be the devil-may-care pose you strike in your avatar. Crickey. Doesn't it hurt your neck to always be sitting like that?

Date: 2006/12/13 10:49:55, Link
Author: Zachriel
Joseph:    
Quote
However I believe an open discussion of past follies are key to being prepared for the next time.


William Dembski:    
Quote
I’m beginning to find you tiresome, Raing [sic] Bee. Goodbye. –WmAD


And yet God has not said a word! -- Robert Browning

Date: 2006/12/14 06:44:47, Link
Author: Zachriel
pegase@ DaveScot:      
Quote
“…has been ultraconserved despite 200my years of random mutation [and natural selection] in two different species…”

DaveScot      
Quote
P.S. If you’re going to quote me don’t change it or insert extra things into it. Consider yourself warned.


Actually, pegase used standard editor's brackets for the insertion, then made specific reference to it in order to make his point. Probably not the best construction, but hardly dishonest or unclear. The warning must refer to the fact that he pointed out an oversimplification in DaveScot's post. It's reasonable to suppose that genomes will diverge even if natural selection tends to conformity in the phenotype. But this is still an open question, a rather ordinary situation for the leading edge of science.  

From Caenorhabditis comparative genomics, "Comparative genomics will be a very important hypothesis-generating tool," concluded Tom Blumenthal of the University of Colorado School of Medicine, whose analysis showed the high conservation of operons.

This is a statement that Intelligent Design advocates should ponder.

Date: 2006/12/14 07:20:37, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (Zachriel @ Dec. 13 2006,07:28)
Reporting back on the Joseph Nested Hierarchy Quagmire.

       
Quote
joe g: Trees do NOT form a nested hierarchy.

And so we have been stuck for ages. However, he has admitted — only for the sake of argument, mind you —that we can group a father's sons as a set.

Yikes!! We've slipped back to Step #0, the definition of a set. That's why I have refused to proceed with Joseph until we have a firm understanding of the basic issues. If we can't get past what constitutes a set, well, a nested hierarchy is defined in terms of sets, and phylogenetics is defined in terms of the nested hierarchy of descent. You can see wherein the problem lies.

Anyway, I see blipey is clowning around with Joseph, too.

Date: 2006/12/15 10:05:16, Link
Author: Zachriel
Jehu    
Quote
Darwinism predicts that molecular drift will correlate to generation time.

That is incorrect, and the error pervades the entire thread. The molecular clock is primarily due to cell replication, not generation time. The original hypothesis assumed the same rate between species based on similarity of the DNA replication mechanism — regardless of generation time. Of course, nothing is ever that simple in biology, and though the molecular clock has many uses, and has been a very fruitful hypothesis, it has to be statistically calibrated for a number of factors.

Date: 2006/12/15 14:58:58, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (jeannot @ Dec. 15 2006,12:48)
     
Quote (Zachriel @ Dec. 15 2006,10:05)
That is incorrect, and the error pervade the entire thread. The molecular clock is primarily due to cell replication, not generation time.

Are you sure?

To me, generation time is very important. A substitution rate per nucleotide per year would be proportional to :
mutation rate (per nucleotide per replication) * number of replications in gametogenesis * 1/generation time (per year)
I don't have any figure to show, but I think that generation time would be the term that varies the most between closely related species.


Your formula implies the neutral substitution rate would be inversely proportional to generation time. This is not accurate, nor a correct statement of the molecular clock hypothesis (though there is some correlation! ).

Assuming organisms have the same metabolic rate, then their gametes (esp. in males) would be predicted to mutate at a similar rate. The original molecular clock hypothesis was that they would therefore accumulate the same number of neutral substitutions per time — whether that was within a single organism or several descendent organisms. Hence, though an elephant may have only a single generation to the mouse's twenty, they would still accumulate the same number of mutations somewhere in the germ line. This is the baseline prediction.

The hypothesis has since been modified. Metabolic rates are not constant over species, which, in vertebrates, is correlated to size and generation time. (There are also lots of other anomalies and corrections, including questions about neutrality.) The fact that there is some corrective correlation with generation time has led to some misunderstanding of the molecular clock hypothesis.

Body size, metabolic rate, generation time, and the molecular clock

There is no universal molecular clock for invertebrates, but rate variation does not scale with body size

Wiki: Originally, it was assumed that the DNA replication error rate was constant--not just over time, but across all species and every part of a genome that you might want to compare. Because the enzymes that replicate DNA differ only very slightly between species, the assumption seemed reasonable a priori. As molecular evidence has accumulated, the constant-rate assumption has proven false--or at least overly general. However while the MCH cannot be blindly assumed to be true, it does hold in many cases, and these can be tested for.

Date: 2006/12/15 15:13:08, Link
Author: Zachriel
Another way to state it is that molecules are subject to random changes due to a variety of factors. Molecules don't care if they are in a germline or not. Assuming neutrality, then this should occur at a constant but stochastic rate. However, this is a bit of an overgeneralization.

Date: 2006/12/15 22:31:01, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (jeannot @ Dec. 15 2006,17:44)
 
Quote (Zachriel @ Dec. 15 2006,14:58)
   
Quote (jeannot @ Dec. 15 2006,12:48)
         
Quote (Zachriel @ Dec. 15 2006,10:05)
That is incorrect, and the error pervade the entire thread. The molecular clock is primarily due to cell replication, not generation time.

Are you sure?

To me, generation time is very important. A substitution rate per nucleotide per year would be proportional to :
mutation rate (per nucleotide per replication) * number of replications in gametogenesis * 1/generation time (per year)
I don't have any figure to show, but I think that generation time would be the term that varies the most between closely related species.


Your formula implies the neutral substitution rate would be inversely proportional to generation time. This is not accurate, nor a correct statement of the molecular clock hypothesis (though there is some correlation! ).

Assuming organisms have the same metabolic rate, then their gametes (esp. in males) would be predicted to mutate at a similar rate. The original molecular clock hypothesis was that they would therefore accumulate the same number of neutral substitutions per time — whether that was within a single organism or several descendent organisms. Hence, though an elephant may have only a single generation to the mouse's twenty, they would still accumulate the same number of mutations somewhere in the germ line. This is the baseline prediction.

The hypothesis has since been modified. Metabolic rates are not constant over species, which, in vertebrates, is correlated to size and generation time. (There are also lots of other anomalies and corrections, including questions about neutrality.) The fact that there is some corrective correlation with generation time has led to some misunderstanding of the molecular clock hypothesis.

That's exactly what my formula says.
I just assumed there wasn't much difference in mutation rates (per nucleotide per replication) and in the number of mitosis during gametogenesis, compared to the huge differences in generation times. I don't have the numbers, though.
Regarding metabolic rates, I learned it was negatively correlated with body size, at least in mammals. Small mammals spend more energy to maintain their temperature, partly because they have a small volume:surface ratio, and respiration produces free radicals which are mutagenic.

EDIT: that's what the abstract of the PNAS paper says.

You are correct. When I said correlated, I meant inversely so.

Orthodox neutral theory predicts that molecules will change over time regardless of whether they are germ cells in elephants or mice. This is not actually a completely accurate assertion, but still forms the basis for all other calibrations.

Date: 2006/12/17 08:58:58, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (Zachriel @ Dec. 15 2006,22:31)
Orthodox neutral theory predicts that molecules will change over time regardless of whether they are germ cells in elephants or mice. This is not actually a completely accurate assertion, but still forms the basis for all other calibrations.


Reed A. Cartwright blogs on the molecular clock over at the Panda's Thumb.            
Quote
Now the molecular clock is a rather simple thing. It involves one major assumption: that the rate of substitutions per million years is constant among the molecules (DNA or proteins) that you are comparing.


   
Quote

Jehu              
Quote
If you define it as per generation then I think each species requires a special rate. I think per generation is the only rational way to state it.

bFast              
Quote
BTW, it appears from what I have read that generation time plays a role, but not a linear role as once assumed.

The baseline assumption is that only time is relevant. Of course, biology is never so simple, and there are a variety of factors, including taxa, generation time, time-scale, molecule, and persistence of neutrality.

scordova          
Quote
A fruit-fly reporduction cycle is 440 faster, so, for the molecular clock to give equidistance, the fruit-fly must mysteriously mutate it’s DNA copyingt a rate 440 slower than the cicada, since the fruitfly reproduction cycle is 440 faster than the cicada.

The baseline assumption, of course, is that molecular evolution will proceed at the same approximate rate in both species, so the strawman is irrelevant. (Making it a pretty good example of how not to interpret the molecular clock.)

Jehu              
Quote
Other papers I have read have made the same observation about other genes; molecular drift rates do not correlate to the generation times of the species. Darwinism predicts that molecular drift will correlate to generation time.

Argh!!!!! What is this "Darwinism"? Darwin didn't know about molecular evolution, and molecular drift is a result of neutral theory (non-darwinian a.k.a. non-selection evolution).



Reed A. Cartwright blogs            
Quote
Clearly from what we know about organismal evolution, datasets with organisms that are closely related or distantly related can and probably will violate the assumptions of the molecular clock: the former because not enough generations have elapsed for the weak law of strong numbers to average out evolutionary variation and the later because evolution can and will make rates in distantly related species uncorrelated.

Date: 2006/12/17 09:36:07, Link
Author: Zachriel
Jehu
Quote
I do not expect a Federal Judge in a high profile case of important public policy to copy word for word language from the ACLU. I think if we were in a court of appeal and you were arguing to uphold the Jones’ opinion, you would be very unhappy that it appeared to be written by the ACLU. Unless you drew a really liberal panel.

Gee. I wonder when the appeal will be.

Date: 2006/12/17 10:45:35, Link
Author: Zachriel
Jehu  
Quote
After the treatment Dawkins got on South Park, I am sure their side can’t consider the Judge Jones animation too bad.

shaner74  
Quote
Jehu, how did South Park treat Dawkins? I haven’t heard anything about it.


Well, here it is on YouTube. Mrs. Garrison, forced to teach evolution, says that if people are monkeys, "they crap in their hands and throw it at people".

Anyway, the joke isn't on Dawkins — even though he's the one who gets pelted.

Date: 2006/12/17 11:10:09, Link
Author: Zachriel
Joseph's Note to Zachriel  
Quote
Zachriel: Let's call the contents of a pocket, pocket-stuff. Now, Sam is from Ballyvourney. Is the set 'Sam's pocket-stuff' nested within the set of 'Ballyvourney pocket-stuff'?
Joseph: Only if Sam is in Ballyvourney. And there cannot exist any other set that would also include something that is in Sam's pocket.


All sets are subsets of at least one other set. And herein Joseph reveals he doesn't have a clue about sets, subsets, or any aspect of basic set arithmetic.

As the nested hierarchy is defined in terms of sets, an ordered set such that each subset is contained within its superset, that means he doesn't have a clue about the nested hierarchy, much less the far more complex subject of how we use independently derived traits to build taxonomic categories.

I have found in numerous discussions with Intelligent Design advocates that, at root, all such misunderstandings have their basis in these elementary issues. Usually, its the nature of the scientific method; but in Joseph's case, it is even more fundamental.

Worst of all: he refuses to learn.

Date: 2006/12/17 11:32:43, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (blipey @ Dec. 16 2006,21:21)
I'd like to nominate Joe G. as the new Tardiest Tard in Tardville.

--edit--

I have now sbmitted this inquiry that will clear up the troubles between Joe and I.  There's about a 50/50 shot he'll actually answer, too.

I can't even get a straight answer as to whether "What have I got in my pocket" is a set. Now, if he had answered that it wasn't a proper riddle, that would be different.

Date: 2006/12/17 17:13:26, Link
Author: Zachriel
DaveScot, in his latest foray into molecular clocks, cites his own previous thread Of Mice, Men, and Coelacanths. Unfortunately, DaveScot misunderstands Haussler's findings saying "Our closest relative on the tree of life according to ultra-conserved DNA is a fish that’s been around unchanged for at least 360 million years."

According to Haussler,      
Quote
These “ultraconserved” elements, of length from 200-800bp, are totally unchanged between human mouse and rat, and are on average 96% identical in chicken.
...
At least one group, involving a conserved enhancer of one gene and an ultraconserved altspliced exon of another, evolved from a novel retrotransposon family that was active in lobe-finned fishes, and is still active today in the “living fossil” coelacanth, the ancient link between marine and land vertebrates.

It's hard to be closer than "totally unchanged". The authors of the study — you know, the people who actually, like, do stuff — see this as evidence of evolution. In the original Nature article, A distal enhancer and an ultraconserved exon are derived from a novel retroposon, the authors state,
       
Quote
One of these, a more than 200-base-pair ultraconserved region5, 100% identical in mammals, and 80% identical to the coelacanth SINE, contains a 31-amino-acid-residue alternatively spliced exon of the messenger RNA processing gene PCBP2. These add to a growing list of examples in which relics of transposable elements have acquired a function that serves their host, a process termed 'exaptation', and provide an origin for at least some of the many highly conserved vertebrate-specific genomic sequences.

"Exaptation", something else that doesn't exist in the ID-Universe.

Date: 2006/12/20 15:02:10, Link
Author: Zachriel
I'd like to add to the Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. thread. DaveScot blogs,          
Quote
I found the images of young people in “The Blasphemy Challenge” giving up their immortal souls on a dare disturbing enough to make me weep for them.


     
Quote
  It made me shiver. And I about made up my mind to pray, and see if I couldn't try to quit being the kind of a boy I was and be better. So I kneeled down. But the words wouldn't come. Why wouldn't they? It warn't no use to try and hide it from Him. Nor from me, neither. I knowed very well why they wouldn't come. It was because my heart warn't right; it was because I warn't square; it was because I was playing double. I was letting on to give up sin, but away inside of me I was holding on to the biggest one of all. I was trying to make my mouth say I would do the right thing and the clean thing, and go and write to that nigger's owner and tell where he was; but deep down in me I knowed it was a lie, and He knowed it. You can't pray a lie -- I found that out.

So I was full of trouble, full as I could be; and didn't know what to do. At last I had an idea; and I says, I'll go and write the letter -- and then see if I can pray. Why, it was astonishing, the way I felt as light as a feather right straight off, and my troubles all gone. So I got a piece of paper and a pencil, all glad and excited, and set down and wrote:

   Miss Watson, your runaway nigger Jim is down here two mile below Pikesville, and Mr. Phelps has got him and he will give him up for the reward if you send.

   HUCK FINN.


  I felt good and all washed clean of sin for the first time I had ever felt so in my life, and I knowed I could pray now. But I didn't do it straight off, but laid the paper down and set there thinking -- thinking how good it was all this happened so, and how near I come to being lost and going to h ell. And went on thinking. And got to thinking over our trip down the river; and I see Jim before me all the time: in the day and in the night-time, sometimes moonlight, sometimes storms, and we a-floating along, talking and singing and laughing. But somehow I couldn't seem to strike no places to harden me against him, but only the other kind. I'd see him standing my watch on top of his'n, 'stead of calling me, so I could go on sleeping; and see him how glad he was when I come back out of the fog; and when I come to him again in the swamp, up there where the feud was; and such-like times; and would always call me honey, and pet me and do everything he could think of for me, and how good he always was; and at last I struck the time I saved him by telling the men we had small-pox aboard, and he was so grateful, and said I was the best friend old Jim ever had in the world, and the only one he's got now; and then I happened to look around and see that paper.

  It was a close place. I took it up, and held it in my hand. I was a-trembling, because I'd got to decide, forever, betwixt two things, and I knowed it. I studied a minute, sort of holding my breath, and then says to myself:

  "All right, then, I'll go to h ell" -- and tore it up.

  It was awful thoughts and awful words, but they was said. And I let them stay said; and never thought no more about reforming.


Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain

Huck knew exactly what he was doing. He was dooming himself to "everlasting fire" rather than betray his friend.

Date: 2006/12/20 21:16:02, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (Kristine @ Dec. 20 2006,20:56)
Larry Moran banned.


Larry blogged well on Molecular Clocks.  
Quote
The generation time argument is a bit bogus for several reasons. First, mutation rates are based on changes per cell division (replication) and not generation time. Thus, in mammals such a mouse, there are about 50 cell divisions between zygote and gamete and the organism reproduces in about 100 days. Thus, there is, on average, one mutation-causing replication event every two days. This is no more than the average "generation time" of single-celled organisms such as yeast or bacteria.

Date: 2006/12/21 07:42:10, Link
Author: Zachriel
When I refreshed crandaddy's A Simple Request thread at Uncommon Descent, the comment count went from 19 to 17. Oops, now it's 16.

I think we have just seen history being written, er, rewritten.

Date: 2006/12/21 09:41:27, Link
Author: Zachriel
DaveScot quotes in Where Science Fails, Financial Intimidation Wins

Quote
This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered.


This textbook contains material on gravity. Gravity is a theory, not a fact. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered.

This textbook contains material on electrons. Electrons are a theory, not a fact.

This textbook contains material on the origin of mountains.

Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. -- Stephen Jay Gould

Date: 2006/12/21 11:52:12, Link
Author: Zachriel
DaveScot blogs on Parthenogenesis in Komodo Dragons.

Atom wonders,
Quote
I was wondering if anyone had noticed that story…


I wonder... Those darn scientists always hiding their discoveries in plain view.

Date: 2006/12/23 17:40:29, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (jujuquisp @ Dec. 23 2006,15:46)
http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1889#comment-

This whole thread is hilarious.  DaveTard is arguing with someone who obviously has superior knowledge regarding matters of law, but now he is resorting to character assassination since he knows he's been smacked down.  What an a##.  DaveTard never fails to disappoint, that's for sure!

I agree. Quite entertaining.


DaveScot      
Quote
Excuse me for asking but how can “contract law” bind elected officials not yet elected?

The usual way. By statute. O.C.G.A. § 20-2


DaveScot      
Quote
When they approve of unenforceable nonsense like this they should be impeached for incompetence.

The proper remedy is a successful appeal.


dopderbeck
Quote
But of course a corporation is simply a “person” for purposes of the right to sue and be sued, and can have “heirs, successors and assigns” like a natural person; and treaties are contracts which can bind successors in interest, just like any other contract, including a settlement agreement . That part is not novel; it’s as old as the law of contracts.

As are most school boards. That's the whole idea of incorporation or chartering, to allow a group to act as a single entity, to enter into contracts, to pay bills, to set rules of conduct, to report to oversight, even to be held criminally and civilly liable.  According to DaveScot's reasoning, the school board couldn't enter into long-term contracts with teachers, or buy paperclips.


DaveScot      
Quote
It’s been far too long since an example was made of one of these black-robed fascists.

Ending with a bang!

Date: 2006/12/24 10:33:18, Link
Author: Zachriel
bdelloid    
Quote
For years evolutionary biologists have known that “silent sites” are not neutral. Most advanced models for DNA sequence evolution (the kind that are used for estimating divergence times) already take this fact into account. I don’t understand how this indicates an “explosion” given that it is similar to what we have known for years.

DaveScot    
Quote
Really. Perhaps you could point me to a general explanation of which silent mutations result in different folding patterns and which ones do not.


That wasn't the claim. The claim was that it was known for years that “silent sites”, that is synonymous codon substitutions, are not necessarily neutral. From 1987, a long time ago in terms of genomics:

The codon Adaptation Index    
Quote
A simple, effective measure of synonymous codon usage bias, the Codon Adaptation Index, is detailed. The index uses a reference set of highly expressed genes from a species to assess the relative merits of each codon, and a score for a gene is calculated from the frequency of use of all codons in that gene. The index assesses the extent to which selection has been effective in moulding the pattern of codon usage. In that respect it is useful for predicting the level of expression of a gene, for assessing the adaptation of viral genes to their hosts, and for making comparisons of codon usage in different organisms. The index may also give an approximate indication of the likely success of heterologous gene expression.

GeoMor explains:    
Quote
It has also long been known that very highly expressed genes are biased towards certain supposedly synonymous codons, because this allows faster translation.

Date: 2006/12/24 10:53:31, Link
Author: Zachriel
Dizzy waxes:    
Quote
With so much evidence against NDE being dug out by the evolutionists themselves all the time there hardly is much need for ID research.

That solves that problem. Why bother with that messy research-thing.

He sums up by quoting Behe:    
Quote
The result is so unambiguous and so significant that it must be ranked as one of the greatest achievements in the history of science. The discovery rivals those of Newton and Einstein, Lavoisier and Schrödinger, Pasteur and Darwin.

Date: 2006/12/27 17:35:33, Link
Author: Zachriel
landru  
Quote
Does a forensic pathologist have to identify exactly how and when a poison was introduced into a body in order for his finding that poisoning was the cause of death to be accepted? Of course not.

A finding of poison does not determine whether the poisoning was by design. The question would remain as to whether the poisoning was purposeful or accidental, and if purposeful, who was the perpetrator. As usual in these sorts of cases, several fundamentals of forensic science are brought to bear, such as motive, method and opportunity. Every contact leaves a trace. In any case, the whole point is to determine who the murderer is, if anyone.

Date: 2006/12/27 17:40:41, Link
Author: Zachriel
Nominated for Best Strawman of the Day

Arnhart  
Quote
Exactly how, when, and where did the intelligent designer create bacterial flagella and attach them to bacteria?

IDist  
Quote
I will tell you if you tell me what is the size of my shoes I am wearing when typing these designed words.

Date: 2006/12/27 18:10:14, Link
Author: Zachriel
GilDodgen    
Quote
Darwinism proposes a mechanism, a process, whereby a bacterium turned into Mozart in 10^17 seconds through purely materialistic means. This is an extraordinary claim that seems to fly in the face of everything we know about complex, tightly functionally integrated information processing systems.

First start with the strawman "Darwinism", then minimize the time involved by using an exponent, then end with a rhetorical fallacy.

GilDodgen  
Quote
I could make a convincing case that Stonehenge was designed without offering the details of its design and construction. If I were to propose a specific process — where the stones came from, how they were transported, how they were hewn, how they were assembled — I would be expected to provide suitable evidence for these specific claims.

This is backwards from the scientific method. We might hypothesize that Stonehenge was designed. From that hypothesis, we then make predictions. If humans manufactured Stonehenge, we might find a nearby source of stone, and evidence that they were moved into place by mechanisms appropriate to the proposed explanation. Or we might look for evidence that humans manufactured stone monuments elsewhere. If this evidence is lacking, then the original assertion is considered poorly supported and new hypotheses may be proposed.

The hypothesis of design is only the very first step of any reasonable scientific approach. Then this hypothesis is subjected to skepticism and the collection of new evidence in a continuing effort to refine our knowledge.

Date: 2006/12/27 18:21:31, Link
Author: Zachriel
Theory: Flagellum evolved over millions of years in primordial oceans of primitive organisms.

Behe  
Quote
I claim, for example, that the bacterial flagellum could not be produced by natural selection; it needed to be deliberately intelligently designed. Well, all a scientist has to do to prove me wrong is to take a bacterium without a flagellum, or knock out the genes for the flagellum in a bacterium, go into his lab and grow that bug for a long time and see if it produces anything resembling a flagellum.


A few notes before we start our experiment:
* Modern bacteria are the result of billions of years of evolution, just like people.
* Primitive organisms that evolved the original flagellas no longer exist.
* A "long time" might be millions of years.
* The number of organisms involved might fill Lake Michigan.

See. Behe really is proposing a falsifiable experiment. No problem. Next, we will evolve a dog into a cat through selective breeding in our backyard.

Date: 2006/12/28 09:13:04, Link
Author: Zachriel
jb (quoting John Timmer)  
Quote
Behe stated that the only testable aspects of ID—the only ways it could be falsified—would come by via examinations of evolutionary processes. In his view, if evolution fails, we can accept ID. Design, in short, should be viewed as a default explanation until proven wrong, despite its lack of experimental support. This violates the scientific principle that unexplained or unexamined phenomena are considered just that: unexplained. In this regard, Behe’s talk is perhaps the most blatant admission that ID is a “God of the Gaps” argument.


Joseph blatantly admits
Quote
I would tell him that the best and perhaps the only way to refute ID is by substantiating the claims of the materialistic anti-ID position.


And if you can't prove the strawman version of evolution, then Intelligent Design is true.

Date: 2006/12/28 10:27:16, Link
Author: Zachriel
Joseph    
Quote
Science doesn’t work like that Bob. Perhaps you should go back to school and learn about science.

BobOH    
Quote
A list of my publications in scientific journals. Care to show me your list?

Joseph    
Quote
Science doesn’t work like that Bob. Perhaps you should go back to school and learn about science.


Argument by bolding. Well done, Joseph! Personally, I would have used "Perhaps you should go back to school and learn about TRUE science."

By the way, Joseph, why did you run away and refuse to answer my questions concerning the nested hierarchy?

Date: 2006/12/28 11:20:56, Link
Author: Zachriel
Bob OH      
Quote
has anyone ruled out all possible options

Patrick      
Quote
Personally I find this demand ridiculous since it amounts to arbitrarily raising the requirements for defeating Darwinism.

Patrick is misdirected. There is nothing stopping someone from falsifying "Darwinism". But the claim is that falsifying "Darwinism" would somehow demonstrate the validity of Intelligent Design, a typical argumentum ad ignorantiam. In order to demonstrate the validity of Intelligent Design would require positive evidence, or eliminating every other possibility. As the universe of possible theories is large, and even includes many unknown possibilities, this is not a valid argument.

Which brings up the usual ID strawman, "Darwinism". The original theory proposed by Darwin has been modified continually over generations in ways unforeseeable by Darwin and his contemporaries.

Patrick      
Quote
Back in November I had this to say: “This reminds me of the demand that every single conceivable indirect Darwinian pathway must be investigated before Darwinism can be rejected.” So why does this demand keep getting repeated?

Again, a misdirection. Behe claims that there is no plausible evolutionary pathway for certain "irreducible" biological structures. To falsify this sweeping claim only requires providing a single plausible pathway.

This all reinforces the basic argumentum ad ignorantiam. Due to advances in science, Intelligent Design advocates are forced to look into the very recesses of scientific understanding; such as far removed events with very little extant evidence, e.g. the Cambrian Explosion, abiogenesis, or the evolution of cellular microstructures; or the leading edges of research where various anomalies can usually be found.

Date: 2006/12/28 12:28:17, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 28 2006,11:45)
 
Quote (Zachriel @ Dec. 28 2006,11:20)
Patrick is misdirected. There is nothing stopping someone from falsifying "Darwinism". But the claim is that falsifying "Darwinism" would somehow demonstrate the validity of Intelligent Design, a typical argumentum ad ignorantiam.

It' actually the Holmesian Fallacy

These are all variations of an attempt to demonstrate a limited claim by eliminating the universe of other possibilities. In the case of Holmes, he specifically attempts to actually eliminate this universe of possibilities, though the practicality of this is questionable.

In the case of Intelligent Design advocates, they conflate the Theory of Evolution with all possible theories other than Intelligent Design. Hence, by falsifying the Theory of Evolution, that leaves only Intelligent Design. This is clearly fallacious.

"Proving a negative" is a similar problem having to do with the universal set. It's easy to prove that unicorns exist — if you can find one. But you can't categorically prove they don't exist somewhere in the universe without looking everywhere.

Date: 2006/12/28 17:35:12, Link
Author: Zachriel
mynym  
Quote
Darwinian “reasoning” leaves those who accept Darwinism as their foil with this sort of position: “I’ll bet I can find something you can’t imagine.” And the Darwinian reply is usually: “Oh, I can imagine something about that because would you just look at this little thing which seems similar to me! Your personal incredulity can’t falsify my imagination about what happened in the past. Come, imagine things about the past with me!”

Couldn't have said it better myself (whatever "it" is).

mike1962  
Quote
It’s time for everyone to face the fact that Darwinism is an ideology. Darwinism isn’t science. It’s time to get tough as nails with these poseurs. This is war and it needs to be fought like one.

I suppose the time will soon come to round up the subversives, I mean, the Darwinists.

Date: 2006/12/28 20:22:51, Link
Author: Zachriel
Meanwhile, having run away from our previous discussion, Joseph still refuses to answer even the simplest of questions concerning a subject he himself has broached yet again, and refuses to allow me to respond to threads wherein he talks about me.

How would you describe Joseph's behavior?

Date: 2006/12/28 21:01:51, Link
Author: Zachriel
IDist
Quote
I read somewhere that it is not possible to have intermidiate forms between quadrupedalism and bipedalism, is that true?


Um, knuckle-walking.

Evidence that humans evolved from a knuckle-walking ancestor: "Here we present evidence that fossils attributed to Australopithecus anamensis and A. afarensis retain specialized wrist morphology associated with knuckle-walking."

Date: 2006/12/28 21:19:45, Link
Author: Zachriel
jb
Quote
This also reminds me of the Antikythera Mechanism which I keep seeing articles about in all the IT trade rags (maybe this is the same thing Dr. Dembski was referring to–he didn’t elaborate on what he saw). For many years, no one quite knew what the purpose of the thing was, but it was sure-as-shootin’ designed by humans. It has only been recently that they’ve figured out what it’s purpose MIGHT have been.

So there are many instances where we can detect design without knowing the purpose.


The Antikythera mechanism was found in a shipwreck dated at about 65 BCE. It's made of bronze, an alloy common to human artifacts of that era. It's similar to other human artifacts that are known to date to as early as the third century BCE. These similar devices were known to predict the positions of the planets, including eclipses. That humans were very interested in the planets.

That might be a clue.

Date: 2006/12/28 21:58:52, Link
Author: Zachriel
Michaels7  
Quote
I’d be very upset as a leader of the Protonics NanoMachine Group if they were sitting around on my Dollar, speculating about the history of the machine before them.

The Project Director of the Protonic NanoMachine Group, Keiichi Namba, believes that "Nature created a rotary motor... far beyond the capabilities of artificial motors."

But what would the Project Director of the Protonic NanoMachine Group know about flagella.

Date: 2006/12/29 07:47:48, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (Zachriel @ Dec. 28 2006,20:22)
Meanwhile, having run away from our previous discussion, Joseph still refuses to answer even the simplest of questions concerning a subject he himself has broached yet again, and refuses to allow me to respond to threads wherein he talks about me.

How would you describe Joseph's behavior?

Now that's funny!

Joe G:      
Quote
I am not refusing to allow you to respond to anything on my blog.


Anything, Joe? Well, a lot of my comments have not been posted. And I have been responding on the issue you raised while invoking my name, the nested hierarchy. These off-topic tirades of yours are irrelevant and of no interest to me. Let me know when you are willing to answer a few questions about your claims.

Joe G:    
Quote
I challenge anyone to search for "paternal family tree and nested hierarchy" to see if Zachriel's bogus example comes up and is used by anyone except Zachriel- someone with expertise in the subject would be nice. Good luck.


All over. Here are cites concerning maternal lineage and paternal lineage. Of course, I've already cited a number of methodologies having to do with recent human genealogy.

Date: 2006/12/29 10:15:13, Link
Author: Zachriel
Jack is doing a pretty fair job of addressing the metaphysics of God's omnipresence. He may positively influence some of the lurkers.

Jack Krebs    
Quote
As my friend Keith Miller has pointed out (and I paraphrase) , it is odd to think that the bacterial flagellum contains more evidence of design than does the properties of light and water that produce a rainbow. The fact that we have come to pretty thoroughly understand the latter and not the former does not mean that they are qualitatively different manifestations of God’s being.


The God of ID, the God of Gaps, is a very little little god — and shrinking with every advance in human knowledge.



A very little little let us do.
And all is done. Then let the trumpets sound
The tucket sonance and the note to mount;
For our approach shall so much dare the field
That England shall couch down in fear and yield.

Date: 2006/12/29 10:42:00, Link
Author: Zachriel
GilDodgen
Quote
The only problem is that mainstream evolutionary theory proposes a directionless, unguided, goalless process, without intent or purpose, that produced humankind, and Christian theology proposes that humankind was intentionally created as a goal and for a purpose. These two views are utterly and hopelessly irreconcilable.

Mainstream gravitational theory proposes a directionless, unguided, goalless process without intent or purpose, that the Earth was not specially created, nor is it the physical center of God's creation. This view is utterly and hopelessly irreconcilable with Gildodgen's narrow view of the Christian message.

Mainstream germ theory proposes a directionless, unguided, goalless process without intent or purpose ...

...

Date: 2006/12/29 11:14:22, Link
Author: Zachriel
Jehu
Quote
The bacteria/eukaryote/archae is perfect example. It is easy to place organisms into one of the three groups, but good luck trying to find the tree from whence they came.


Common Descent may not properly apply to the origin of cellular life. Endosymbiosis appears to be the best explanation at this point based on cellular structures such as mitochondria which indicate they were originally free-living organisms.

Of course, this is a typical ID-canard. Common Descent certainly applies to vertebrates or even eukaryotes.  Sandwalk blogs well on the Three Domain Hypothesis.

Date: 2006/12/29 11:28:40, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Dec. 29 2006,11:05)
A) Humans are in fact hairy animals.  We are not rocks, we are not gas, we are not paper, we are animals with lots of hair.

B) Human have much more hair (number of hairs) than a chimpanzee, only their hair is much thicker and coarser and longer which gives the appearance they have more hair.

People have become so retarded by their faith in IDC that they miss these simple common sense facts.

That's what biologists call the "hair clade". It includes not only humans, but hairshirts, woolen sweaters, bearskin rugs, hair brushes, nosehair clippers, and a particular American Tribal Love-Rock Broadway Musical. However, it does not include bald men.

Date: 2006/12/29 12:41:19, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (blipey @ Dec. 29 2006,12:03)
 
Quote
Humans are in fact hairy animals.  We are not rocks, we are not gas, we are not paper, we are animals with lots of hair.


This completely ignores the basic fact derived from my comprehensive knowledge of set theory tht [sic] we could, in fact, be scissors.

Or not scissors...

[/Joe G impersonation]

Sigh.

As I mentioned previously, nosehair clippers are in the hairy clade. Nosehair clippers are also a Kind™ of scissors. Hence, you are scissors.

Or not.

Date: 2006/12/29 20:19:31, Link
Author: Zachriel
crandaddy    
Quote
Any inference to designing agency must rest upon the insufficiency of other causal types to account for what is perceived. Without contrasting causal types, it’s clear that there can be no way to differentiate between intelligent and unintelligent causes. In fact, appeals to where’s, when’s, how’s, etc. are irrelevant to a design inference precisely because they are rooted in the natural causes which are used as foil to defend the understanding that design is present!

Quite the contrary. A design inference is normally done by using exactly the appeals crandaddy claims are "irrelevant". We look for evidence of who, what and how. We compare this evidence to our library of other such cases. Then we make a hypothesis, form predictions, and test those predictions against new evidence, continually refining our understanding.

There is nothing which prevents science from investigating artifice. Such investigations are an everyday occurrence.

Date: 2006/12/29 21:05:34, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Dec. 29 2006,20:45)
   
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Dec. 29 2006,10:57)
If you really want to see a tard-fest,

John Davison has discovered and is now posting on Joe G's blog.    :D :D :D

(grabs popcorn and a beer, settles in for what should be a laugh riot! )   :p

I couldn't find any Javison posts on that blog -- did Joe remove them?

Joe G calls me a "liar, loser and momma's boy".

John A Davison responds that I'm a "darwimp". (I'm somewhat taken aback by this as I did him a minor favor once — at his own request.)

Joe G then tries to make nice to Dr. Davison.

(And, of course, my own comments never appear.)

Date: 2006/12/30 07:49:17, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (Alan Fox @ Dec. 30 2006,06:42)
Maybe you and Joseph need a neutral venue to continue your debate.

Hi Alan, I appreciate the opportunity to participate, and I will make an initial post soon, starting at the very beginning of the discussion — with Charles Darwin and his seminal publication, On the Origin of Species.

Date: 2006/12/30 10:47:35, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (Zachriel @ Dec. 29 2006,21:05)
     
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Dec. 29 2006,20:45)
           
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Dec. 29 2006,10:57)
If you really want to see a tard-fest,

John Davison has discovered and is now posting on Joe G's blog.    :D :D :D

(grabs popcorn and a beer, settles in for what should be a laugh riot! )   :p

I couldn't find any Javison posts on that blog -- did Joe remove them?

Joe G calls me a "liar, loser and momma's boy".

John A Davison responds that I'm a "darwimp". (I'm somewhat taken aback by this as I did him a minor favor once — at his own request.)

Joe G then tries to make nice to Dr. Davison.

(And, of course, my own comments never appear.)

What's really funny is that Joe keeps responding to my comments even though he refuses to publish them. It's probably like listening to only ½ of a telephone conversation.

blipey  
Quote
I believe you have officially not let Zachriel comment on this thread.


But we've got to verify it legally
To see...
To see...  
If she...
If she...
Is morally, ethically
Spiritually, physically
Positively, absolutely
Undeniably and reliably dead.

As Coroner, I thoroughly examined her
And she's not only merely dead
She's really most sincerely dead.

Date: 2006/12/30 11:51:50, Link
Author: Zachriel
William Dembski      
Quote
In particular, you, your aspirations, and the entire human family to which you belong are simply an accident of natural history, here for a brief moment and destined for extinction. This is Darwinism in its full glory.

Shakespeare's pre-Darwinian term was worms' meat.

A plague o' both your houses!
They have made worms' meat of me: I have it,
And soundly too: your houses!


Or if you prefer, Life's but a walking shadow.

To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day
To the last syllable of recorded time,
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.


This is the objective reality: People and all their works wither and turn to dust. This discovery predates Darwin. It predates Shakespeare. The values people attach to their lives are metaphysical; a belief in the afterlife is spiritual, not scientific.


John 18:36
Quote
Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world.

Date: 2006/12/31 08:02:12, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 31 2006,01:10)
OE:
http://www.overwhelmingevidence.com/oe....ent-750
     
Quote
Consider me a skeptic

TRoutMac    
Quote
Either life and/or the universe was designed by an intelligent agent, or it wasn't. There's no other choice. To reject both seems, well, quite impossible ...

In science, there is always a third choice. We don't know. There is insufficient evidence. And as all scientific conclusions are considered tentative and incomplete, that means there is always the quest for additional evidence.

In the case of Intelligent Design, there is NO such evidence — and substantial evidence to the contrary. Intelligent Design is a social movement that uses the language of science to sway laypersons and effect political change.

Do not pass Go.

Date: 2006/12/31 09:30:04, Link
Author: Zachriel
TRoutMac    
Quote
The Tasmanian Wolf looks remarkably like the regular wolf you and I know of. It’s about the same size, has a similar diet and even has the same kind of fur , jaw structure, teeth and behavior. Anybody can see that these two animals are examples of the same kind of creature.

They ARE the "same kind".

They're both mammals, meaning (among other things) they nourish their young with specialized secretory glands;
which implies they are also amniotes, meaning (among other things) they fertilize their eggs internally;
which implies they are terrestrial vertebrates, meaning (among other things) that they have limbs with digits rather than fins;
which implies they are vertebrates, meaning (among other things) that they have endoskeletal elements flanking the spinal cord;
which implies they are craniates, meaning (among other things) that they have a skull with sensory organs;
which implies they are chordates, meaning (among other things) that they have a spinal cord;
which implies they are bilaterates, meaning (among other things) that they exhibit bilateral symmetry during at least part of their lives;
which implies they are metazoan, meaning (among other things) that they are multicellular organisms that feed on other organisms;
which implies they are eukaryotes, meaning (among other things) that they have complex cells with organelles and a nucleus.

If by "same kind" you mean they have big teeth and run around on four legs after food, then you're right again.

--

As far as their teeth go, canines predate the divergence of marsupial and placental lines. However, marsupials generally have a larger number of teeth, a cloaca, lack a corpus callosum, and have a marsupium bone. This odd correlation of characteristics is due to heredity, and it is not unexpected that similar organisms will evolve in similar manners in similar environments. However, they will carry with them the unique characters of their ancestry.

But let's make a specific prediction. What will the genomic evidence show? Within the phylogenetic tree (and it will be a tree), will the marsupial wolf be closer to a placental wolf or to kangaroo?

Date: 2006/12/31 09:51:30, Link
Author: Zachriel
TRoutMac    
Quote
Why should reproductive strategy be valued above all other differences and similarities?

It's not. But there are substantial correlations between seemingly unrelated features. In this case, we can look at fossil teeth and then — amazingly — determine whether it was placental or marsupial.

Martin Brazeau blogs with pictures! (Part II has real teeth.)

Species is as species does... Part I - Variation vs. Speciation

Species is as species does... Part II - What teeth will tell

Species is as species does... Part III - It's all creationism!

Date: 2006/12/31 17:01:30, Link
Author: Zachriel
Funny! As Joe won't publish my comments, nor link to them at Alan's Neutral Venue where I've been xposting them, or even quote them, it looks like he is arguing with himself!

Joe: Is so!
Joe: Is not!
Joe: Is so!

It's especially funny because Joe keeps quoting scientists who have expert opinions contrary to his.

Date: 2006/12/31 19:01:36, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 31 2006,18:15)
If you're tough enough to freebase some Tard Rock, here you go.


futuyma            
Quote
So we will see that bats are much more similar (not only in function but also in some DNA sense) to birds than to elephants for example.

Gee. I wonder what the data will show... Wow. What a surprise.    
Quote
A Molecular Phylogeny for Bats Illuminates Biogeography and the Fossil Record
Molecular data support the monophyly of bats and thus a single origin of flight in mammals... Geographic ancestral reconstructions suggest that bats originated in the Laurasian land masses, possibly in North America during the early Paleocene.


futuyma            
Quote
whales and dolphins would be more properly kinds of fish

Do you see the tits on that whale, er, fish?

Date: 2007/01/01 19:20:36, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 01 2007,17:25)
http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1916#comment-83306

Estimated Time to Deletion?

         
Quote
In 2001 Phil Gingerich and his colleagues from the University of Michigan and from Pakistan described a skeleton of the seal-like species Rodhocetus.

So, an analysis of the molecular structure of living organisms predicts the characteristics of a fossil ankle bone discovered in the wastelands of Pakistan.

michaels7            
Quote
And what I find is Cetartiodactyla as a SuperOrder which contains the whale. The “artiodactyla” order contains a hippo and water buffalo, but no whales or sea mamals. Are there records out of date?

Somewhat. Scientists work incrementally, especially when working with limited data. Most biologists now consider Cetacea to be monophyletic with Artiodactyla.  The question is now shifting to resolving the evolution of Hippopotamidae and Ruminantia within Artiodactyla.

michaels7              
Quote
I am skeptical of the entire process. Tomorrow they may change the order yet again. It is still largely a guessing game.

It's amazing that science can reveal so much from such meager evidence. Remember, there is little doubt that whales are monophyletic with eutherian mammals. The controversy concerns what is essentially a detail of the radiation of this class, a matter of resolving the details.

Date: 2007/01/02 06:47:32, Link
Author: Zachriel
scordova
Quote
For example, I take a geologist to task from the University of Florida over basic thermodynamics and current geological theories here: Origins of Lava, Mantle Plumes and the fine work of Walter Brown

It was fun feeding this geologist remedial lessons in vector calculus.

How embarrassing.

Date: 2007/01/02 14:06:49, Link
Author: Zachriel
Michaels7    
Quote
I have not seen the fossil in question that links a hippo to a whale. As I asked, can you refer to the link?


From the popular press:

Scientists find missing link between the whale and its closest relative, the hippo (1999)
http://www.physorg.com/news2806.html

Hippo is whale's cousin (2005)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/434566.stm


From the primary literature:

Phylogenetic relationships among cetartiodactyls based on insertions of short and long interpersed elements: Hippopotamuses are the closest extant relatives of whales (1999)
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/96/18/10261

The position of Hippopotamidae within Cetartiodactyla (2005)
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/102/5/1537


And just for fun, pictures of Gingerich's expeditions.
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~gingeric/PDGwhales/Whales.htm

Date: 2007/01/02 14:24:06, Link
Author: Zachriel
Michaels7
Quote
I have not seen the fossil in question that links a hippo to a whale.


If Michaels7 were an interested layperson, this would be a reasonable request. But these people are claiming to be reinventing biology (not to mention geology, systematics, genetics, information theory, biochemistry, microbiology, paleontology, planetology, radiometrics, cosmology, etc.)

So, why aren't they digging up fossils? Or sequencing genomes? Or doing the analytical work? Or, like, anything?

Could it be that their so-called theories can't predict where or how to look? Or that they know deep-down that their so-called theories are scientifically vacuous?

Date: 2007/01/02 14:40:02, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 02 2007,14:18)
Answering Cordova on ID's Goals

Excellent read. Thanks for the tip.

Date: 2007/01/03 10:07:42, Link
Author: Zachriel
mike1962  
Quote
barrett1,    
Quote
The entire science establishment is rooted in naturalism because it works.

It only works up to a point. How does naturalism fare with regards to, say, a forensic analysis of a crime scene? Things are different in such a case, because now you have to consider things like mind and motives. A naturalism-only position simply cannot explain all of the evidence.


This is a typical conflation. There are two dichotomous meanings of "natural".

1. natural -- supernatural
2. natural -- artificial

Forensics is natural science (#1) and is more than capable of investigating crimes and other artifice (#2). The fundamental principle of forensics is that "Every contact leaves a trace". Typical methodology is to compare the current situations to a history or catalogue of similar situations, to devise a theory of explanation, then use this theory to guide the collection of additional evidence. The goal is to determine the causitive agent, the perpetrator, as well as the motive and method.

Date: 2007/01/03 10:15:22, Link
Author: Zachriel
On her day off, a forensic scientist (#1A) might take a walk to escape the office (#2B) and to enjoy nature (#2A), and perhaps to reflect on God (#1B).

Date: 2007/01/03 17:58:04, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 03 2007,15:35)
That coward Joespeph:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1925#comment-83514

Come and talk somewhere where you'll get anhonest reply, you sad twat.

I was actually impressed that Joseph was checking into my statement that "The Theory of Common Descent does not properly apply to the early evolution of cellular life." Shortly thereafter, bFast gave a respectful and appropriate answer concerning Horizontal Gene Transfer and the cladistics of the three taxanomic domains.

But then both Joseph's comment and bFast's reply simply vanished. Must be some sort of glitch in the software.

Date: 2007/01/05 07:28:17, Link
Author: Zachriel
Duplicate

Date: 2007/01/05 07:33:43, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (Jake @ Jan. 05 2007,02:56)
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.

The real problem isn't that the monkey's won't eventually get around to typing The Complete Works of William Shakespeare, but that you'll probably have to read through every Dembski blog, every comment by Sal Cordova, and read a Hollywood happy ending movie script for Hamlet (where the Goth Prince dives in and saves his girlfriend, Ophey, from drowning who then evict the evil step-father from the castle, move in together, and live happily ever after with his father, the ghost) — before you finally get to the original version.


Doubt thou the stars are fire;
 Doubt that the sun doth move;
Doubt truth to be a liar;
 But never doubt I love.


--
Zachriel's Phrase Mutation and Evolution Experiment
And it takes less than "zillions of years"!
http://www.zachriel.com/phrasenation/

Date: 2007/01/05 08:19:17, Link
Author: Zachriel
DaveScot
Quote
Imagine, if you will, how a wasp evolved the ability to perform brain surgery complete with a drug that turns a cockroach into a docile zombie it can lead around like a dog on a leash. I emphasize the word imagine because any story you come up with is a work of fiction. Such fiction is the basis of the Theory of Evolution.


That Intelligent Designer is one sick puppy.

Date: 2007/01/05 09:04:11, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (Zachriel @ Jan. 05 2007,08:19)
DaveScot  
Quote
Imagine, if you will, how a wasp evolved the ability to perform brain surgery complete with a drug that turns a cockroach into a docile zombie it can lead around like a dog on a leash. I emphasize the word imagine because any story you come up with is a work of fiction. Such fiction is the basis of the Theory of Evolution.


That Intelligent Designer is one sick puppy.

Make that

Dembski's Intelligent Designer is one sick puppy.

Date: 2007/01/05 13:48:46, Link
Author: Zachriel
The Emerald Cockroach Wasp        
Quote
Imagine, if you will, how a wasp evolved the ability to perform brain surgery complete with a drug that turns a cockroach into a docile zombie it can lead around like a dog on a leash. I emphasize the word imagine because any story you come up with is a work of fiction. Such fiction is the basis of the Theory of Evolution.


BenK        
Quote
Arnhart; it is fairly well documented that intelligent agents can perform brain surgery. It’s also fairly well documented that intelligent agents can create sedatives. Finally, it’s well documented that intelligent agents can create automata.

It doesn’t seem like such a leap to believe that an intelligent agent could design an automaton which could create sedatives and perform brain surgery.

Assuming the conclusion.  It is also well-documented that wasps evolved from more primitive ancestors. Perhaps, someone tampered with the wasps since then, but there is no evidence of this. And there is substantial evidence that intelligent behavior can emerge from unintelligent causes, such as a colony of ants. (Ants are close relatives to wasps.) The emergent behavior of ant colonies includes tunneling, ventilation, bridge-building, animal husbandry, transportation of goods, and coordinated attacks. And we know how these complex behaviors emerge from the simple actions of the individual ants.

That there may be a current gap in scientific knowledge concerning how specific behaviors might have evolved is not unexpected considering that behaviors don't readily leave fossils; however, there is nothing known which prevents the evolution of such behaviors (other than BenK's incredulity).

DaveScot        
Quote
when at a loss to explain it in evolutionary terms they resort to saying that any ID explanation is a fiction as well.

The argument is that wasps are the result of evolutionary processes and share common descent with other organisms that have evolved complex behaviors that are explained, therefore it is not unreasonable to hypothesize that the specific behavior also had an evolutionary origin.

Borne    
Quote
The random aspect of NDT has, since the beginning, been touted by Darwinists everywhere to avoid the obvious alternative -> guided. Only recently have Darwinists started to pretend that it is not random at all. Why?

Random mutation is a modern idea born of specific empirical observations. It refers to the lack of correlation between mutation and environmental necessity. The idea that evolution is not random begins at the beginning. Darwin: It is interesting to contemplate an entangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent on each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us.

Borne        
Quote
Darwinism has never been able to explain symbiotic relationships.

Not only did Darwin include symbiosis in his original theory, but he made specific empirical predictions based on it.

Orchid Society: Orchids really specialize in their choice of a pollinator, this ensures the continued purity of the species as the pollinator can only successfully gain sustenance from its chosen specie host, take for example the orchid Angreacum Sesquipidales, Darwin wrote about this one in his origin of the species, it produces beautiful waxy white star like flowers, which exude a heavy perfume at night, the back of the flower has a long spur, sometimes up to 12 inches or so in length, and at the bottom of this spur can be found a tiny source of nectar. Darwin reasoned that as the orchid was white, and only fragrant at night then the pollinator must be a moth, and that to be able to feed from the orchid the moth must have a tongue at least 18 inches long, unfortunately it was not until after Darwin’s death that the Predicta Moth was discovered, and the great man never had the pleasure of seeing his theory proven.

Borne        
Quote
Btw, under NDT, why shouldn’t there be many such human-sized (or bigger) bugs? If NDT were true we should see huge insects just as much as huge mammals! It’s 'easy' for evolution we are told! Their 'fitness' for survival would likely be greater than ours.

Actually not. There are several limiting factors on insect size, e.g. the weight of the exoskeleton, and the ability to circulate oxygen to the body.

SCheesman  
Quote
I often compare and contrast biology with geology, or more specifically mineralogy, and suspect that Darwinists must look with great envy at their geochemist colleagues.

Except that the vast majority of geologists and paleontologists agree concerning common descent and the evolutionary change of life over eons of time. Do you really think that geologists ignore fossils? Fossils form a nested hierarchy in time.

DaveScot        
Quote
What you don’t find in nature is really complex machines driven by digitally coded instructions magically appearing without a machinist and a coder involved in the process at some point.

Dave wraps up by assuming the conclusion and a bit of straw. Yes, we do find "really complex machines" without evidence of a machinist.

Date: 2007/01/05 14:45:31, Link
Author: Zachriel

Date: 2007/01/05 15:05:42, Link
Author: Zachriel
Borne          
Quote
Btw, under NDT, why shouldn’t there be many such human-sized (or bigger) bugs? If NDT were true we should see huge insects just as much as huge mammals! It’s 'easy' for evolution we are told! Their 'fitness' for survival would likely be greater than ours.

Amazing that no one ever thought of that before!

Date: 2007/01/06 08:44:55, Link
Author: Zachriel
Contributors to Uncommon Descent consider my comments to be important enough to respond to, but not important enough to allow my own rebuttals. I would be embarrassed if I were Patrick to be participating in such a forum.

Patrick          
Quote
Anyway, I’d like to see the program that generates what you claim. Last time someone made that claim they wrote a program that generates 10 letter words, which doesn’t even come close to producing 500 informational bits since it was using 8-bit single-byte coded graphic character sets. Even a 10 character word was difficult.


The thread concerned a calculation by Lee Spetner. I asked if anyone at Uncommon Descent would tell us how long it would take an evolutionary algorithm to generate a ten-letter word using an evolutionary algorithm. Using Spetner's methodology, the algorithm should require 26^10 = 100 trillion mutational events. This result is off by many, many orders of magnitude. It wasn't "difficult". It typically takes just seconds.

Further, a modified algorithm, Phrasenation, has generated up to 90-letter phrases, or 90*8 =720 bits of information. Spetner would calculate that this procedure would take 26^90 = 10^127 mutational events. It took merely hours on my rather clumsy and slow implementation. Spetner was not even close. He wasn't even in the same universe of possibilities.

DaveScot was forced to respond and banned me from Uncommon Descent — purportedly for my defense of a teacher of biology from unfair smears. (My off-topic comments were appropriately posted off-site on a forum dedicated to reviewing Uncommon Descent. With unintentional irony, the original off-topic ad hominem were allowed to stand.) He also removed some of my on-topic comments pointing out the problems with Spetner's understanding of evolutionary algorithms.

Patrick has misrepresented the argument and the actual results. Anyone who pretends to be carrying on an open conversation about origins on Uncommon Descent, should be embarrassed.


--
Zachriel's Word Mutation and Evolution Experiment
And it takes less than 'zillions of years'!
http://www.zachriel.com/mutagenation/

Zachriel's Phrase Mutation and Evolution Experiment
Though this be madness, yet there is method in ’t.
http://www.zachriel.com/phrasenation/

Date: 2007/01/06 09:24:00, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (Bebbo @ Jan. 06 2007,05:14)
   
Quote (Zachriel @ Jan. 05 2007,08:19)
DaveScot      
Quote
Imagine, if you will, how a wasp evolved the ability to perform brain surgery complete with a drug that turns a cockroach into a docile zombie it can lead around like a dog on a leash. I emphasize the word imagine because any story you come up with is a work of fiction. Such fiction is the basis of the Theory of Evolution.


That Intelligent Designer is one sick puppy.

Postulating possible evolutionary steps to the surgeon wasp is engaging in ficton. But positing an unknown designer(s), using unknown methods, at unknown times, for unknown purposes to explain it is performing the science of ID. What tards.

The reason why such speculations are valid is because we know that eukaryotes are related by common descent (from a variety of evidences), and so we can reasonably infer that this particular adaptation is also evolved. In addition, an ID argument is often made that there is *no* step-wise path to evolve such an "irreducibly complex" behavior. Such a categorical statement can be rebutted by showing *any* such pathway, whether it was the one taken by nature or not. In addition, such speculations can often be properly crafted as hypotheses and then tested.

Date: 2007/01/06 09:49:49, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (keiths @ Jan. 06 2007,09:38)
   
Quote
IOW they learned what they already knew…

Comment by Joseph — January 6, 2007 @ 7:59 am


Holy crap, he's serious!

I saw that too. I was so flabbergasted, I didn't even know what to say. The reference to instinctual behavior in birds was a nice touch. If it wasn't Joseph, I would have called Loki.

Add entomology to the list of things Joseph doesn't know anything about.

Date: 2007/01/06 09:59:50, Link
Author: Zachriel
duplicate

Date: 2007/01/06 10:30:40, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (keiths @ Jan. 06 2007,10:16)
Joseph is on a tard roll.  Here's his recommendation for dealing with global warming:
     
Quote
Preventive Maintenance & Global Warming: Reversing the trend
6H2O + 6CO2 ----------> C6H12O6 + 6O2

It's called a farm.

Quote
Then sell the sugar...

Let them eat cake. (Add carbon sequestration to the list of things Joe knows nothing about.)

Date: 2007/01/06 11:07:27, Link
Author: Zachriel
DaveScot
Quote
The hypothesis is the wasp is designed to be a predator of the roach just like an eagle is a predator to a rabbit.


Um, the wasp is *observed* to be a predator. We can drop the extraneous verbage.

Quote
The hypothesis is the wasp is designed to be a predator of the roach just like an eagle is a predator to a rabbit.

Date: 2007/01/07 07:54:22, Link
Author: Zachriel
DaveScot
Quote
In any designed ecology the usual result is death for everything.


Well, there you are.

Date: 2007/01/07 08:08:24, Link
Author: Zachriel
benkeshet  
Quote
Just considering the array of feedback subsystems that control the human vision system overawes me and leaves me stumped as to how anyone can postulate such a system arose by random variation and errors in DNA coding.


Just considering the sheer size and mass of the Earth and how motionless it certainly appears, it "overawes me and leaves me stumped as to how anyone can postuate" that such a body could actually move, much less move at hundreds of miles per hour.

Argument by incredulousness.

Date: 2007/01/07 08:24:23, Link
Author: Zachriel
Joseph      
Quote
And in my defense I present the following: Approaching Biology From a Different Angle, Dr. Hood, after all, was, and still is, a biotechnology superstar.

We can always count on Joseph and ARN to find cites to scientists who completely contradict their stance.



Institute for Systems Biology, The Hood Group: The challenges of biology are focused around three central features of life: evolution, development, and physiology... How do gene families evolve? How do gene regulatory networks change in evolutionary terms.

Date: 2007/01/07 11:48:59, Link
Author: Zachriel
DaveScot      
Quote
Tom Moore      
Quote
Truly complex systems cannot be designed. They must evolve.

As long as we’re using the true scotsman fallacy then I’ll simply rejoin by saying that no truly complex system can evolve without intelligent guidance. So there.

From the discussion, Tom was not making a No True Scotsman Fallacy. In context, he clearly meant "Very complex system" within the field of engineering design.

However, DaveScot commits his own fallacy. While Tom builds his argument on known principles of engineering experience, DaveScot merely assumes his conclusion.

(Added link to No True Scotsman Fallacy.)

Date: 2007/01/07 12:02:26, Link
Author: Zachriel
Febble engages a very interesting discussion of CSI. By accepting Dembski's definitions, she reaches the conclusion that we can't "distinguish between a "'natural' choice-maker, like a sieve, and an 'intelligent' choice maker, like a rat, by observing the differences between the patterns they generate."

DaveScot    
Quote
RM+NS is a trial-and-error mechanism with feedback to improve the process. In theory such a mechanism can generate any possible solution given enough trials.

Of course, we know that more than 500-bits of CSI can be quickly generated by evolutionary algorithms.

DaveScot    
Quote
Most of us that understand the challenges and constraints that bound rm+ns in the real world don’t believe the universe is old enough or big enough to give trial-and-error enough resources to build the machinery of life we observe today.

"Most of us"? The denizens of Uncommon Descent have been completely unable to convince the scientific community of the validity of their claims.

Darwin and his contemporaries determined it would take hundreds-of-millions of years for life to diverge into the myriad of forms extant today. Physicists of the day could not account for these long time-spans, believing the Earth and Sun would have cooled off in at most a few tens-of-millions of years. The physicists were shown to be wrong with the discovery of atomic energy.

Date: 2007/01/07 12:08:16, Link
Author: Zachriel
DaveScot
Quote
Your basic free living bacteria is no more or no less than a tiny automated factory complex.


Argument by analogy. The use of the phrase "no more or no less" overstretches whatever value the analogy had.

Date: 2007/01/07 12:43:33, Link
Author: Zachriel
tribune7  
Quote
But there are those with strong creditionals in biological fields such as Behe, obviously, John C. Sanford, and Raymond Vahan Damadian who are are IDers.

Actually, Sanford and Damadian might object to that term since they are YEC creationists.

Heh. That leaves Behe, whose own Department of Biological Sciences at Lehigh University strongly reject his position; and whose testimony was extensively quoted in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District as evidence that Intelligent Design was not merely wrong, but not even science.

Behe  
Quote
My ideas about irreducible complexity and intelligent design are entirely my own. They certainly are not in any sense endorsed by either Lehigh University in general or the Department of Biological Sciences in particular. In fact, most of my colleagues in the Department strongly disagree with them.

Date: 2007/01/07 12:58:06, Link
Author: Zachriel
jerry  
Quote
But the ecology is amazingly fine tuned for a lot of things and Darwinian theory would seem to lead to a deteriorating ecology.

Actually, ecologies are subject to constant fluctuation. (This is typical in complex systems at or near equilibrium. Rigidity is actually less stable in a changing environment and subject to catastrophic failure. Complex interactions that 'give' are more likely to maintain relative stability and to show evolutionary capability and persistence.) As we can actually observe ecologies evolve, it provides a model for how complex biological systems change over time, and how supposedly "irreducibly complex" relationships can be developed over time.

jerry  
Quote
As each species blindly heads for some form of superiority since it doesn’t care a wit for any other species, it would then eliminate competition. But yet we don’t witness species getting continually faster, stronger, smarter, living longer with better smell, sight, hearing etc as would be predicted by natural selection.

Sure, we do. Evolutionary change can be directly observed, and there is ample evidence of it occurring over eons of history.

jerry  
Quote
So I maintain that the preservation of the ecology is part of the design

Maintain away! But rigid adherence to belief is maladaptive.

Date: 2007/01/07 13:13:15, Link
Author: Zachriel
Tom Moore      
Quote
There is a clear definition of “true complexity” given by Wolfram (A New Kind of Science) as “not obviously simple” or “computationally irreducible.”

DaveScot demonstrates again that he doesn't understand the nature of fallacy.      
Quote
Tom Moore, You obviously don’t understand the “true Scotsman” fallacy because you went right ahead and used it again. True complexity is in the eye of the beholder. Claiming Wolfram knows better is just an appeal to authority.

Tom Moore did not commit a No True Scotsman Fallacy — he provided a definition. Simply substitute the definition wherever you see the phrase. Nor is it an appeal to authority. He's just using a particular definition which he provided to you. (It was obvious from context, per my previous comment above.)

DaveScot    
Quote
You’re boring me, Tom.

That happens when you can't follow or understand a discussion but get hung up on semantics.



(Added link to No True Scotsman Fallacy.)

Date: 2007/01/07 13:33:57, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 07 2007,13:25)
Phffff Zach, you're just using the no 'true tard fallacy.'

Arghh! Hoisted on my own pe'tard.

Date: 2007/01/07 14:55:07, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (Ichthyic @ Jan. 07 2007,13:36)
 
Quote
Maintain away! But rigid adherence to belief is maladaptive.


hmm.  not so sure that's demonstrable, looking at the evidence.  Are there really heavy selective pressures against this in modern society, for example?  If so, how did Chimpy McGrin get elected?

fundies, catholics... lots of kids typically.  

funny, but this kinda gets into the sociological aspects of potential group selection we haven't yet gotten to in the multi-level model thread.

sorry to get all serious on ya there.

Point taken.

Humans have a wide variety of adaptations and countervailing influences. Certainly, conformity to a norm is an important factor. Indeed, people are often motivated more by the need for social acceptance than almost any other cultural factor.

Remembering that rigidity is a continuum, still, in the long run, rigid adherence to beliefs can often be a liability for the individual, and certainly for the group.

Then we get into scale invariance. Most changes are minor, some changes are major, and a few are revolutionary. The value of maintaining reasonable continuity versus adopting new forms is a complex relationship.

Date: 2007/01/07 15:08:03, Link
Author: Zachriel
jerry    
Quote
But yet we don’t witness species getting continually faster, stronger, smarter, living longer with better smell, sight, hearing etc as would be predicted by natural selection.

avocationist    
Quote
That’s because we missed it! Presumably they all ramp up together, imperceptably slowly. What a treat it would be to time travel to a few million years ago, and witness a world in which protobirds are hopping comically with half developed wings, yet often evading their predators who themselves have not yet gotten big enough or fast enough, or whose noses barely work, so that they are equally ineffective chasers of birds as the birds are ineffective fliers. It wouldn’t matter that the octopus (jellyfish?) had no ink, because the fish who wants a meal has only 6% of an eye anyway. Yes, I would love to go back there. It would be so comical, and so very different than the world we see today, where the workings of all things are such a marvel.

Gee. Imagine a world "so very different than the world we see today". A world without people, or even mammals. A world without fish or frogs. A world without flowers or trees. Millions of years ago.

Are these people serious?

Date: 2007/01/07 15:41:43, Link
Author: Zachriel
DaveScot        
Quote
I note you also changed your link to something else after I slapped your wrist for using the true scotsman fallacy and then using the crank scientist Stephen Wolfram in an appeal to authority.

Tom presumably made a point of changing his URL to avoid any suggestion that he was representing his Employer. DaveScot is trying to use intimidation. That's just one more reason why he garners the respect he does.

DaveScot        
Quote
Smart decision to hide your link to [your Employer] but I’m afraid it’s too late.

By the way, DaveScot,  Tom links to his Employer from his personal blog. It's not hidden.

Nice touch, "but I’m afraid it’s too late". <evil laugh>

DaveScot        
Quote
P.S. Don’t bother linking to your personal blog in an attempt to get around the moderation filter here.

Oh, yes. We mustn't have an actual scientist post a link to his blog.  

DaveScot        
Quote
Do your colleagues know you’re a fan of Wolfram’s cellular automata crank science?

As Tom Moore didn't cite Wolfram as an authority, this is irrelevant.

Date: 2007/01/07 16:07:00, Link
Author: Zachriel
After having outted a scientist, DaveScot is now trying to teach statistics to a professional data analyst, Febble. (You may remember her from her famous statistical analysis of the 2004 election/poll results. Well, famous in statistical circles, anyway.)

Ah, yes. Here it comes.

DaveScot:
Quote
Adding insult to injury, when the probablistic resources of rm+ns are scrutinized with 21st century knowledge of the complexities involved that particular fiction doesn’t even pass the giggle test.

Date: 2007/01/07 22:04:09, Link
Author: Zachriel
russ  
Quote
Not to digress too much, but could someone please explain to me the reason that the term “natural selection” is always used when referring to NDE, but “random mutation” is generally dropped.

Faulty premise. Natural selection has been integral to the Theory of Evolution since Darwin. Random mutation is something that was first observed in the 20th century, and is integral to modern Neutral Theory. "Random" means not correlated, in this case, with any chance for survival and reproduction that those mutated genes confer on individuals who possess them.

Joseph  
Quote
I guess it was a non-random catstrophe that ended the (alleged) reign of the dinosaurs.

Excellent example. Meteor and cometary impacts are contingent on factors that are uncorrelated with any chance for survival and reproduction. They are random with respect to what we wish would happen. Wishes on the X-axis. Impacts on the Y-axis. Random distribution.

Just as we know that lottery balls move according to known laws of physics, their results are uncorrelated with what we wish might happen (no correlation yields a random distribution).

Gildodgen  
Quote
I’ve made more that 1,500 hang glider flights, and have logged nearly a thousand hours of airtime in hang gliders since 1973.

Argument by hang gliding.

sabre  
Quote
If a mathamatical equation has any random term(s) random in it, the answer is by definition random.

No. It's not. (He claims to be an engineer.)

shaner74  
Quote
A sidewalk won’t sweep itself given a billion years.

Wrong again.

Date: 2007/01/08 06:45:33, Link
Author: Zachriel
malnutritious            
Quote
Speaking of limited environments, Biosphere 2 is an interesting example. It was not a failed ecology, it only failed to meet the expectations of being a self contained environment which can support 8 human beings. In it’s natural tendancy to equilibrium the biosphere ecology destroyed much of the larger more dependent lifeforms in favor of a more suitable balance.

DaveScot            
Quote
Actually almost all vertebrates died and all pollinating insects died.

I’m getting a little tired of correcting you. Either improve the quality of your comments or find a different blog.

You didn't correct him, DaveScot. That's what he said. The ecosystem rejected some species, while others thrived. It was a disappointment, even a failure, from the point-of-view of humans. But the bacteria, cockroaches and apparently ants liked the ecology just fine, even adjusting it to arrive at a reasonable balance. Your original comment was perhaps more accurate, that "Attempts at designing such an ecology by humans have all failed," assuming you mean a completely enclosed artificial structure as a human domicile. Even in this context, malnutritious made a valid comment extending the idea of ecological balance to more accurately reflect nature. Perhaps you are being just a wee bit vertebrate-centric in your views.

But, of course, that's not the point of your post.

--
Edit:

DaveScot    
Quote
Perhaps the original poster should have said a viable, self-sufficient ecology instead of just an ecology. In any designed ecology the usual result is death for everything. Attempts at designing such an ecology by humans have all failed.

I reread your comment. It was not accurate whatsoever. The result was not "death for everything".  The comment by malnutritious not only corrected the error, but provided valid reasoning that accurately extends the notion of ecosystem.

Now we know why your threatened to ban malnutritious. He caught you in a flagrant error and added a significant view to the discussion. By the way, most of the living world is prokaryotes. A significant portion of your own body mass is prokaryotes.  Most of the animal world is invertebrate. Why do you hate most of the living world?

Date: 2007/01/08 07:29:39, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (jujuquisp @ Jan. 08 2007,07:22)
So according to DT's logic, if a scientist hasn't invented a new contraption in order to do his experiment, his experiment is worthless.  What a first class TARD statement from a first class TARD.

Scientists can be engineers. Engineers can be scientists. But science is not the same as engineering.

Scientists can be cooks, too.

Date: 2007/01/08 10:35:18, Link
Author: Zachriel
Freelurker    
Quote
Does anyone here claim that a majority, or even a large percentage, of engineers believes that ID would be useful in the practice of science? Notice that teleology plays no role in the practice of engineering.

Columbo    
Quote
You’ll have to help me here, Freelurker…. 1) What does majority thinking have to do with correctness?

Columbo, I believe your statement would be more approprately posed to Gildodgen, Stephen Meyers, IDist, idnet.com.au and DaveScot who made these statements before Freelurker added his simple (and unanswered) query.

Gildodgen offering the text of Meyer’s response to the question, Why are many engineers intrigued by intelligent design theory?
   
Quote
And when you have so many top-level professors of engineering — in mechanical, electrical or software engineering — saying, I think we’re looking at systems that clearly show evidence of design, I think the Darwinists have a serious problem. If they can’t persuade those people, that the 19th-century mechanism of selection and variation is up to this task, I think that the theory is in serious trouble.

IDist    
Quote
A very good number of medical doctors are skeptical of darwinisim, and I think they count as biologists.

IDist    
Quote
BTW, any idea about when the updated version of the dissent list will be available?

idnet.com.au    
Quote
ID will become main stream within 5-10 years and the vast majority of accademia, who have only played lip service to the mighty power of RM+NS, in order to maintain their social respectability, will discard the myth without another thought.

DaveScot    
Quote
It appears that engineers, medical doctors, and mathematicians are more likely than others to reject the chance hypothesis for the origin of life.

Date: 2007/01/08 18:37:32, Link
Author: Zachriel
jpark320    
Quote
I don’t quite have my MD yet... I imagine myself making a list of all the stuff that makes a human unique from say primates and all the things that must be in exactly the right place - from natural selection!

Don't they teach biology in medical school anymore? Humans ARE primates.

Date: 2007/01/09 07:06:41, Link
Author: Zachriel
DaveScot    
Quote
You can predict with almost 100% confidence that any given mutation will be either harmful or neutral on a fitness curve.

 
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 09 2007,06:34)
2) No one, but no one, but DaveScot himself has suggested the absurd assertion that, because you can characterize the fitness implications of a given mutation as either harmful/neutral/beneficial, and mutations are pseudo random in the above sense, that we therefore predict a roughly equal distribution of mutations among these domains.

Gee. Every time I roll this die, I get a number between one and six. I never get a seven. When I roll two dice, I get a seven more often than any other result. What's going on!!?? Am I being cheated?

Date: 2007/01/09 07:28:24, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (Zachriel @ Jan. 09 2007,07:06)
DaveScot        
Quote
You can predict with almost 100% confidence that any given mutation will be either harmful or neutral on a fitness curve.

     
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 09 2007,06:34)
2) No one, but no one, but DaveScot himself has suggested the absurd assertion that, because you can characterize the fitness implications of a given mutation as either harmful/neutral/beneficial, and mutations are pseudo random in the above sense, that we therefore predict a roughly equal distribution of mutations among these domains.

Gee. Every time I roll this die, I get a number between one and six. I never get a seven. When I roll two dice, I get a seven more often than any other result. What's going on!!?? Am I being cheated?

In a lump of radioactive material, the next atom to decay cannot be predicted. It's random. However, radium atoms decay more quickly than uranium atoms. Further, we can actually predict how much radiation to expect in a given period of time, and the statistical probability of it being at or near this mean prediction.

Wiki: "A random process is a repeating process whose outcomes follow no describable deterministic pattern, but follow a probability distribution."

Date: 2007/01/09 08:48:06, Link
Author: Zachriel
William Dembski        
Quote
Not only are these people [Jay Keasling et. al.] doing intelligent design research — they are engineers!

Let's roll the tape (emphasis mine):

We’ve taken enzymes that are promiscuous, meaning they have the capacity to evolve along many different functional lines, and trained them to become specialists,” said chemical engineer Jay Keasling, who led this study.

It was our contention that the application of the theory of divergent molecular evolution to promiscuous enzymes would enable us to design enzymes with greater specificity and higher activity.

The enzyme synthase was there ready to be evolved, and with our methodology, we were able to rapidly and efficiently evolve it down a pathway of our choice,” Keasling said.

Sort of like animal husbandry for enzymes. Keasling is the Director of the Physical Biosciences Division of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory . He was awarded scientist of the year by Discover Magazine. His latest research is published in the prestigious scientific journal Nature.

I always find it amusing when Intelligent Design advocates approvingly cite authorities who reject their claims.

Designed divergent evolution of enzyme function: It is generally believed that proteins with promiscuous functions divergently evolved to acquire higher specificity and activity, and that this process was highly dependent on the ability of proteins to alter their functions with a small number of amino acid substitutions (plasticity). The application of this theory of divergent molecular evolution to promiscuous enzymes may allow us to design enzymes with more specificity and higher activity.

Date: 2007/01/09 09:12:15, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (Zachriel @ Jan. 09 2007,08:48)
William Dembski          
Quote
Not only are these people [Jay Keasling et. al.] doing intelligent design research — they are engineers!

Let's roll the tape (emphasis mine):

Keasling is an engineer; but he is also a biologist, a professor and a director of biosciences.

Keasling is a scientist because he does science. He proposed a specific hypothesis based on a theory of divergent molecular evolution. He then conducted the appropriate experiment to demonstrate the validity of the prediction.

This is an example of how the Theory of Evolution guides modern research and can lead to practical benefits.

Date: 2007/01/09 09:19:17, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (Russell @ Jan. 09 2007,09:12)
 
Quote
Over at ATBC I noticed a couple members of the anti-ID peanut gallery clucking to themselves that mutations plotted on a fitness curve have a random distribution. IOW there is no predictability in where any one mutation will fall on a fitness curve (harmful/neutral/beneficial). It will be a scattershot plot without any pattern. Thus even if the universe is deterministic and no mutation is truly random they appear random when plotted on a fitness curve.
Is that you, DaveIQ153Scot? Since you apparently monitor this forum, let me address a few words to you.

Clearly, you have not improved in smarts, reading comprehension or honesty since I last bothered to notice your inexplicable insistence on cyber-bloviating about evolution.

There's a lot of posts at AtBC, and I won't claim to have read every one of them, but I did follow the discussion of the Kimura paper, to which I think you're referring here. No one said anything remotely like what you're claiming here. If they had, you would produce a link. Using my remarkable powers of divination, I predict you won't.

You, my friend, are a waste of carbon.

Most lottery tickets are losers too.

Date: 2007/01/09 09:24:15, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (Zachriel @ Jan. 09 2007,09:19)
Most lottery tickets are losers too.

What that means is that even though the movement of the lottery balls may be due to well-known physical laws, the results of that movement is uncorrelated with the numbers on the lottery ticket in your pocket, or your wishes about winning the jackpot. Even though the lottery is a game of chance, the ticket in your pocket is still almost certainly and predictably a loser.

Date: 2007/01/09 09:44:05, Link
Author: Zachriel
TRoutMac
Quote
For Benner’s research to serve as a good argument AGAINST Intelligent Design, wouldn’t Benner need to be quite literally “dumb as a box of rocks?”


The Benner Lab introduced DARWIN, the first bioinformatics workbench. Let's try and guess where Benner stands on the issue of evolution.

DNA polymerases have evolved for billions of years to accept the four natural letters in DNA — A, T, C, and G.Benner said as he announced that his team had created an artificial chemical system capable of mimicking the natural process of evolution as it was first outlined by Charles Darwin.

Date: 2007/01/09 09:54:10, Link
Author: Zachriel
grendelkhan
Quote
Isn’t all that true of any kind of basic as opposed to applied research? I mean, nobody died when astronomers thought there were canals on Mars, right? Or when geologists thought plate tectonics was nonsense, or when physicists thought that the speed of light was relative to the observer?

I just don’t see what’s so earth-shattering about this. Of course engineers’ mistakes carry a tremendously high cost. That’s why they’re engineers, not scientists.


Grendelkhan makes a good point. Engineers generally do not 'experiment'. They apply known principles of science because their mistakes often do carry a high cost in either health or wealth. This includes doctors as medical engineers.

(I suspect that as Grendelkhan made a good point, his days are numbered.)

Date: 2007/01/09 15:46:36, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (Faid @ Jan. 09 2007,15:44)
I can't believe I missed this:
 
Quote
39. apollo230 // Jan 7th 2007 at 10:45 pm

One argues with dedicated Darwinists in absolute vain. The old saying is “a picture is worth a thousand words”. Therefore, if a Darwinist can look at all the wonders of nature and not be stirred to suspect a design, we absolutely waste our breath when we attempt to convince them of the distinct possibility of ID. Typical Darwinist posture redefines the concept of “hard-boiled”. The only thing that will shake these dedicated strict materialists is the death of their bodies. When their spirits look down at the discarded corpse, then and only then will it occur to them that naturalism was an incomplete explanation.

Comment by apollo230 — January 7, 2007 @ 10:45 pm

Who says IDers don't propose falsifiable observations?

Date: 2007/01/09 16:31:01, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (guthrie @ Jan. 09 2007,16:01)
Hey, Dave banned someone else:
   
Quote
66. DaveScot // Jan 9th 2007 at 3:17 am

febble is no longer with us - anyone who doesn’t understand how natural selection works to conserve (or not) genomic information yet insists on writing long winded anti-ID comments filled with errors due to lack of understanding of the basics is just not a constructive member - good luck on your next blog febble

Poor DaveScot. Trying to teach statistics to a professional data analyst.

You just knew it couldn't turn out well.

Date: 2007/01/09 18:45:14, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (Febble @ Jan. 09 2007,18:08)
           
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 09 2007,17:56)
Febble: as moderator here, let me welcome you. Whatever your views, I'm sure you'll find this a more hospitable place than UncommonDescent. Somebody earlier said that you have scientific training, so I'm doubly sure you have things to contribute here. Happy posting.

-Steve

Thanks!  Well, I didn't exactly expect a welcome at Uncommon Descent, but it was an interesting experiment in natural selection.

I'm a neuroscientist, and I'm interested in computational models of cognition.  My point, over at UD, was simply that replication with modification + natural selection is a model of cognition - specifically, of learning.  So it's an intelligent system, which is why it's products look like the products of an intelligence - they are.

But deciding whether there is any intention behind them is just as intractable a problem as deciding whether there is any true intention behind our own apparently directed actions.  It's the "free will" problem again, and I don't think there is any objective test of free will.  

Nice to be here!

I watched with some interest your "contribution" to the ID in the UK thread over at Uncommon Descent.

But really, what would a neuroscientist with an interest in computational models of cognition know about "intelligence". Gee whiz! What were you thinking? No wonder you were banned. What next? A professional data analyst trying to discuss statistics with DaveScot? As if!

Date: 2007/01/09 21:52:46, Link
Author: Zachriel
Tom Moore        
Quote
Our success with artificial selection in animal husbandry proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the statistical distribution of random mutations contains enough of a vestigial tail, sticking out in the “advantageous” direction, that each advantage will in time be acquired by subsequent generations.

Think about it! It’s pretty clear to me that if humans can turn a wolf into a pekingese in just a few generations, then any slight advantages imposed by nature will have tremendous effects on life when exercised consistently over millenia and billenia.

Please, refute this argument if you know how. I haven’t seen a refutation here in my explorations to date, that I recognized as such.

bFast        
Quote

Happy to oblige.
First, though man has been practicing husbandry for thousands of years, man has yet to produce a new recognized animal species. (This is not so with plants. However plants can reproduce asexually, so are much more maliable to speciation.)

Why don't plants count? You just admitted the point. And speciation has also occurred animal husbandry, such as through the hybridization of sheep.

bFast        
Quote
Second, please consider the lowly wolf. It is my understanding that all domesticated dogs can be traced back to the wolf. Yet in the wild setting, though the wolf has all of the genetic variety of the pekingese and the great dane, yet it chooses to be a wolf with very little variety.

This is simply incorrect. No crossbreeding in wolves will result in a pekingese. The traits do not exist in the wild wolf. And certain adaptations in domestic animals can be traced to specific mutations.

bFast        
Quote
As seen in this example, nature seems painfully determined to resist change, rather than seeking the threshold of what can be done. Please explain how nature pulled off all of the variety that it did, if it can’t even figure out how to make a toy poodle out of a wolf without man’s husbandry.

That wasn't the question being addressed, but whether "the statistical distribution of random mutations contains enough of a vestigial tail". Variation over generations of domesticated plants and animals, including the notion of intermediate ancestral forms, was one area of evidence used by Darwin to construct his One Long Argument; Origin of Species, Chapter 1.

Date: 2007/01/09 21:57:44, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (mitschlag @ Jan. 09 2007,18:58)
Febble, I'm glad you're here.  I thought your posts at UD were brilliant and I was surprised that the crowd over here didn't pay attention.  I was looking forward to your rebuttal to DaveScot's last put-down before he banned you.
     
Quote
63. DaveScot // Jan 8th 2007 at 7:50 pm
febble
You’re still making mistakes in describing rm+ns. Saying it learns from mistakes is misleading. It needs constant reinforcement of what it learns or it forgets even faster than it learned. This known as conservation of genomic information. Anything that is not immediately useful (no selection value) is not conserved within the genome forever. The genomic information with no immediate use gets peppered with random mutations and quickly becomes useless as a result. This is really basic stuff you don’t know.

And, of course, that is the very reason Febble was banned.

Date: 2007/01/09 22:02:44, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 09 2007,20:44)
       
Quote

... One might thus conclude that Dembski's argument establishes that natural selection can be recognized as an intelligent agent.

- Source

That last sentence bugged Dembski enough to include it in the preface to one of his later books in order to dismiss it.

There's a similar confusion on the term "design" which is sometimes used to describe any natural structure. Other terms of conflation include "nature" and "random". These conflations are at the very heart of their argument.

Date: 2007/01/10 07:05:10, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (Bob O'H @ Jan. 10 2007,00:52)
bFast (via Zachriel) -
       
Quote
(This is not so with plants. However plants can reproduce asexually, so are much more maliable to speciation.)

Does this get into the "not even wrong" category?

I've explained why over at UD.  Hopefully I'll find myself stirring up a tardfest for your delight.

Bob

Yeah, I noticed it too. I mentioned animal hybridization which applies to plants, as well. But where do you stop with this stuff. The entire thread is just full of misunderstanding.

Jehu      
Quote
Humans isolate pre-existing alleles through breeding and get a delightful amount of morphology.

No they don't. You can't crossbreed wolves and get pekingese. It requires a number of unique mutations.

Jehu      
Quote
Think about the morphological difference between a grizzly and a polar bear, which are able to interbreed.

They may very occasionally interbreed, but there is virtually no gene-flow. They are therefore separate species. Lions and tigers can interbreed, even producing fertile offspring, but there is no significant gene-flow between the natural populations.

jerry      
Quote
If such a vestigial tail existed and if the elements of this tail were working its way through various populations according to the laws of genetics, we would be able to witness numerous examples of these populations in various forms of transition. Since there are no such populations existing in the world, the proposition that the tail exists is just a tale.

We can and we do. You could start with Origin of Species, Chapter 2, and work your way up into modern zoology.

jerry      
Quote
Believe me if the Darwinists had such examples we would never hear the end of it.

Everyone with a contrary opinion has been banned. Essentially, you have closed your ears.

DaveScot      
Quote
Darwin’s finches are a classic example in nature.

Yes, they are. Should we ask the recognized experts on Darwin's Finches, the ones who spent decades studying them to tell us whether they observed and described evolution?

DaveScot    
Quote
You boys just move the goalpost around so that “almost sterile” is as good as “sterile” in determining hybrid sterility for the purpose of discriminating between sub-species using the biological definition of species.

It has to do with gene-flow. Even though lions and tigers can create fertile offspring, there is virtually no movement of genes between the populations. If there were, there would be a gradient of features, which is not observed. They are separate species.

Speciation is not a discrete function.  This is an essential concept which Darwin introduced. There is a gradient. Do you understand why this fundamental concept is important?

Date: 2007/01/10 07:15:50, Link
Author: Zachriel
DaveScot
Quote
Over on Panda’s Thumb they’re so desperate for something to talk about that when I ban someone it’s front page news over there.


Oh my gosh. I'm can't breathe. It's posted on the, the... Wait a minute. Gasp. Ok, DaveScot posted his comment about the comment about the ban on the, ha ... front page!

Date: 2007/01/10 07:23:03, Link
Author: Zachriel
Altabin
Quote
Since Feddle has been denied the chance to respond, this is a rather hollow declaration of victory.

DaveScot
Quote
Umm…. would that be like me not being able to respond on virtually every pro-evolution site on the web, including AtBC where you do most of your writing? Spare me the hollow victory crap. -ds

There are several problems with your lament, DaveScot.

* You can't justify retaliation against the innocent for your own perceived slights.
* You were banned for just cause, a purported threat to the integrity of the site.
* You have been offered alternative venues for such discussion.
* And it is nevertheless and always "a rather hollow declaration of victory".

Date: 2007/01/10 07:44:28, Link
Author: Zachriel
DaveScot    
Quote
They don’t differ by any characters other than scale and cosmetics. Not a single anatomical feature (like a retractible claw, for instance) that wolves don’t have surfaced in any domestic dog breed.

Of course. Evolution works incrementally by modification of existing structures. If we saw a dog with a cat's claw — a substantial violation of the nested hierarchy — we would suspect design (e.g. genetic engineering or a mirage). But to say that a poodle is just a wolf is a gross oversimplification.

Date: 2007/01/10 13:02:08, Link
Author: Zachriel
bFast    
Quote
Her entire case seems to be: “ID, you’re right because your definition of intelligence is wrong.”

No, she followed the implication of Dembski's definition and determined that natural selection meets that definition. As genetic algorithms can generate information and find solutions to complex problems, this is a reasonable interpretation.

bFast    
Quote
According to the molecular clock hypothesis, mutations in humans happen at a pace of about 1% of base pairs per million years. A base pair can mutate 4 different ways, therefore a particular point mutation will not occur again for about 400,000,000 organism-years.

Sorry, that's the rate of neutral fixation. "The average mutation rate was estimated to be approximately 2.5 x 10^-8 mutations per nucleotide site or 175 mutations per diploid genome per generation." In a population 10^9, that means every mutation probably occurs in every human generation.

Atom    
Quote
I think a more accurate description is that changing frequencies of alleles are what we describe as “Natural Selection”.

No. That's called evolution, and includes neutral drift. Natural selection is differential reproduction due to heritable traits.

DaveScot    
Quote
Sure, I wish she’d have learned how RM+NS works too but she didn’t and if you google her a bit you’ll find she’s a left-wing conspiracy theorist that thinks Bush stole the 2004 election by fraud. People like that are uneducable. Good riddance.

Your research is faulty, DaveScot. She actually provided a statistical argument that the election was not stolen. Nor are you correct that she doesn't understand natural selection. It is interesting that you cast aspersions against someone who did nothing but add to the discussion on your blog, while not providing her an opportunity to directly respond.

Date: 2007/01/10 13:19:55, Link
Author: Zachriel
caligula  
Quote
Since when has natural selection affected mutations?


DaveScot  
Quote
Oh gee, I don’t know. Maybe when it pair bonded with random mutation and turned Darwinian Theory into NeoDarwinian Theory.

It effects mutations by selecting them. Duh. What is it you think is being selected by natural selection if not mutations?

Mutations are random with respect to natural selection.

Patrick  
Quote
Could someone please make certain natural selection got the memo that down syndrome, huntington’s disease, cystic fibrosis, etc. are horrible mistakes and that it should stop repeating them?

bFast  
Quote
Down syndrome is not a carried disorder — its not like the child gets it because the parents are carriers.

DaveScot  
Quote
I suggest you think a little harder before commiting your thoughts to comments.

bFast is quite right. Downs Syndrome is not (in most cases) a heritable trait. As such, it is not subject to natural selection, the differential reproduction due to heritable traits.

Date: 2007/01/10 13:25:59, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 10 2007,13:10)
     
Quote
One of the other mods wrote to me last week about Febble, anticipating a banning for cause, saying “There might be hope for her. Let’s try to correct her before getting rid of her.”

I had no intention at the time of getting rid of Febble and in fact she’d escaped my notice until I got the memo

"For cause"?

I think they meant "just cus".

Date: 2007/01/10 17:34:27, Link
Author: Zachriel
DaveScot  
Quote
If they’re informed, civil, and don’t use strawmen they do get to stay.

Well, this statement is clearly false. Febble is a professional data analyst, a neuroscientist with an interest in computational models of cognition. Her contribution started with the definition of intelligence provided by Dembski and took it to its logical conclusion. Her comments were neither uninformed, uncivil or diversionary. Yet she was banned.

However, DaveScot published ill-informed, discourteous, and clearly diversionary comments about Febble.

Date: 2007/01/10 18:13:32, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (Henry J @ Jan. 10 2007,15:08)
Re " "The average mutation rate was estimated to be approximately 2.5 x 10^-8 mutations per nucleotide site or 175 mutations per diploid genome per generation." In a population 10^9, that means every mutation probably occurs in every human generation. "

That's for alleles that are widespread in the population. For less than widespread alleles it'd depend on the number of individuals with that allele.

A reasonable point, even though most alleles have more similarities than differences. And actually, they would be homologs, so I think we would still count it as the same mutation if it was in a homologous base.

But truthfully, I typed that phrase in, looked at it askance, then tried adding "probably" into a couple of different places, here and there, finally settling on "probably occurs", and thinking 'That'll fix it'. But, as you suggest, I might have needed to add "nearly". Try, In a population of six or seven billion, that means nearly every possible point mutation occurs in each human generation.

I'm not sure if that completely satsifies your objection. But then I started thinking. (And that always means trouble.) Do we really have enough replications to ensure each base gets hit?

R, Rate of Mutation = 2.5 * 10^-8

M, the chance of Missing a specified base with a mutation =
(1- R) = 0.999999975

The chance of continually missing the base with a mutation after T trials = M^T

Every 28 million births or so (or about every five months at the current global birth rate) gives us an even chance of hitting our specified base. After just a billion births (every seven years or so), the chance of not ever hitting our base is one in seventy-some billion.

CIA World Factbook

Date: 2007/01/10 21:08:24, Link
Author: Zachriel
The following is a repost, but it helps answers the query.

Jehu  
Quote
Selecting for pre-existing alleles by artificial selection has no relationship to the fitness curve.

You certainly don't believe that the genes that make poodles unique are merely reshuffled wolf genes. There is ample historical record of dog breeds, and poodles did not exist more than a few centuries ago.

In cats, a spontaneous mutation occurred which changed black to chocolate brown producing the Chocolate Point Siamese. It was not due to any outcross. Other mutations include the Rex coat, the hairless Sphynx, the ears of the Scottish Fold and the American Curl, the Manx, Japanese Bobtail.

American Cockatiel Society: The New Rare Mutations

In any case, breeders are very interested in mutation, both beneficial and detrimental, and their effects. It is an important issue in animal husbandry and pet breeders, and there is significant scientific effort in this regard and several peer journals.

Date: 2007/01/10 21:18:18, Link
Author: Zachriel
Richard B. Hoppe at Panda's Thumb
Quote
Febble and I have corresponded about this affair, and we disagree. She suggests that what we’re seeing is the formation of a niche species within ID creationism on UD, while I argue it’s merely yet another a demonstration of the deployment of Freudian ego defense mechanisms by IDists.


See. Those Darwinianististas can't even agree on what makes a species.

Date: 2007/01/11 07:10:09, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (Zachriel @ Jan. 10 2007,21:08)
The following is a repost, but it helps answers the query.

Jehu      
Quote
Selecting for pre-existing alleles by artificial selection has no relationship to the fitness curve.

You certainly don't believe that the genes that make poodles unique are merely reshuffled wolf genes. There is ample historical record of dog breeds, and poodles did not exist more than a few centuries ago.

In cats, a spontaneous mutation occurred which changed black to chocolate brown producing the Chocolate Point Siamese. It was not due to any outcross. Other mutations include the Rex coat, the hairless Sphynx, the ears of the Scottish Fold and the American Curl, the Manx, Japanese Bobtail.

American Cockatiel Society: The New Rare Mutations

In any case, breeders are very interested in mutation, both beneficial and detrimental, and their effects. It is an important issue in animal husbandry and pet breeders, and there is significant scientific effort in this regard and several peer journals.

Jehu  
Quote
The debate is about mutations that actually provide non trivial novel and functional changes to the allele structure of a genome... No Darwinist ever has provided good examples except for some trivial example of micro-evolution ...

The orthodox Theory of Evolution posits slow changes accumulating over time. Modern observations indicate the origin of novel variation is due to random genetic mutations. And that means changes will tend to be incremental. As far as being "trivial" (meaning of little worth or importance), it depends on what you consider important. To an organism, a small advantage over a competitor may mean the difference between reproductive success or failure.

 
Quote
Niels Bohr and Albert Einsten were taking a walk in the woods, vigorously debating the philosophical underpinnings of quantum theory, when a gigantic bear suddenly burst out of the underbrush and raced toward them. Niels immediately whipped out his fine running shoes and began lacing them up.

Einstein, furrowing his brow at Bohr, said: "Niels, there's no way you can outrun that bear."

"That's true," Bohr calmly replied, "but I don't need to outrun the bear. I only need to outrun you."

Date: 2007/01/11 07:25:56, Link
Author: Zachriel
mentok    
Quote
What Febbler has tried to do is take a statement out of the context from which it was being used ... the “intelligence” behind intelligent design in ID theory is an intellectual intelligence, not an algorithmic equation that can display signs of choice through a non intellectual process

Ah, an "intellectual intelligence. I can see why Febble was, er, confused.

mentok    
Quote
None of those types of intelligence are functioning due to an intellectual desire, they are based on algorithmic phenomena, not on the ability to desire and then make intellectual decisions free from the constraints of mechanical unconscious directives.

And you know that other minds are "free from the constraints of mechanical unconscious directives" how exactly? If we manipulate a brain, it changes the reported perception of the brainee.

Date: 2007/01/11 08:51:40, Link
Author: Zachriel
Joseph
Quote
The ONLY thing that would have “won the day” for ID in that trial would have been to have a school board that was not religiously motivated which also understood ID.


Joseph agrees with the judge's decision that the school board was religiously motivated. That's that.

Date: 2007/01/11 09:38:01, Link
Author: Zachriel
tribune7      
Quote
I owe Febble a quasi-clarification.

The entire thread was an attempt by DaveScot to throw mud at someone for their irrelevant political views. And not only were the allegations wrong, but you piled on. The entire thread was an exercise in diversion. The facts demonstrate the intellectual honesty and analytical acumen of Febble.

You owe more than a "quasi-clarification".

Febble    
Quote
I believe your election was inexcusably riggable and may well have been rigged. It was also inexcusably unauditable. I am convinced that there was real and massive voter suppression in Ohio, and that it was probably deliberate. I think the recount in Ohio was a sham, and the subversion of the recount is in itself suggestive of coverup of fraud. I think Kenneth Blackwell should be jailed.

DaveScot    
Quote
Maybe someone can explain to me how to parse this language into a claim that Liddle doesn’t think Bush won in 2004 through election fraud. Good luck.

It's not that difficult, DaveScot. She believes the ballot system was seriously flawed (it was), but that it was not demonstrably decisive.

Date: 2007/01/12 07:22:03, Link
Author: Zachriel
Now scordova is quoting Wade Schaer wherein he criticizes an article found on the Talk Origins Archives by Edward E. Max, Plagiarized Errors and Molecular Genetics. The main thrust of the article is to point out that Talk Origins didn't reference recent studies from 2006. Of course, the article was written in 2003, so that might explain some of the lapse. Then there are the usual volley of misrepresentations of the nature of "junk dna". For instance,

Talk Origins: “scientists view tandem repeat sequences as resulting from accidental DNA duplications"
Schaer: "These research finding show that, far from being junk, Tandem Repeats have important functional roles in the genome."

But Talk Origins doesn't call all tandem repeat sequences "junk", noting that "Genomes of modern vertebrate may reflect evidence of two ancient genome-wide duplication events that doubled the entire gene content". In fact, the article uses scare-quotes around the term "junk dna". Just because the repeat was due to happenstance doesn't mean it isn't subject to selection, just like any mutation, with beneficial function tending to be preserved.

Talk Origins: “LINEs thus have several properties expected of "selfish" DNA sequences that can spread in the host DNA simply because they encode their own machinery for spreading."
Schaer: "In other words, they don’t serve a purpose other than to copy themselves, according to Talk Origins."

Again, that is not what was stated.

scordova          
Quote
JunkDNA therefore is not junk, but the name persists, and frankly I’m in favor of keeping to leave a permanent reminder to the world of what the evolutionary biologist nearly did to the progress of scientific understanding….

Nonsense. The entire field is very new, and most species have yet to be sequenced, much less analyzed. The vast majority of researchers who are making these discoveries claim that evolution is the fundamental unifying principle of all their observations — including most of the scientists cited in Schaer's polemic.

I thought about going through the entire article, but found it unncessary. It was sufficient to just demonstrate that Schaer is shading and distorting. Take most any cite in the article, and look at the research. You will find either the research is misrepresented, or that it is a diversion from the actual claim, and that the scientists who made the observations disagree as to "intelligent design" being invoked to explain the observations.

Date: 2007/01/12 07:25:18, Link
Author: Zachriel
scordova    
Quote
ID-friendly researcher James Shapiro (he is not formally an ID proponent) is doing exciting work on this topic.

James Shapiro does not appear "ID-friendly" whatsoever. He does posit a strong analogy of genomics with computing, and such a case can be made. Here is a sample title, "Natural Genetic Engineering and Adaptive Mutation (1997)". Natural. (Shapiro does posit non-random change due to evolved natural 'computing' mechanisms, a view that is gaining credence among scientists in the field.)

Date: 2007/01/12 07:42:24, Link
Author: Zachriel
Ancient view:  The Earth is the center of God's physical universe.

Galileo: The Sun is the centre of the universe and doth not move from his place.

Today: The Sun is not "the centre of the universe", but one of innumerable stars.

ID Conclusion: The Earth is flat.

Date: 2007/01/12 08:39:48, Link
Author: Zachriel
Joseph  
Quote
Intelligent Reasoning

JoeG, that’s me! I have also gone by “ID’s bulldog” and “John Paul” (John Lennon/ Paul Mc).

I don’t think I would be a good fit here because I want a fight- a knock-down, fists flying, UFC style donnybrook- and let NS decide.

That's not quite accurate, is it Joe G? Just as on Uncommon Descent, you use moderation on your blog to shut down debate, refusing to publish relevant comments, or invoking unreasonable conditions (such as having to agree to defend a strawman position). I don't think hiding behind your moderation-momma could be considered donnybrook-style debate.

Date: 2007/01/13 08:44:55, Link
Author: Zachriel
About Dembski  
Quote
His work has been cited in numerous newspaper and magazine articles...

Not as relevant than if he had been cited, much less influenced, the scientific or mathematical communities.

About Dembski  
Quote
He has made frequent television appearances, including The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.

Ok. Now, I am impressed.

Date: 2007/01/13 08:58:27, Link
Author: Zachriel
jerry 01/12/2007 11:37 pm  
Quote
Also learn the difference between micro-evolution, macro evolution, novel evolution and origin of life issues. Each presents different problems and that ID could care less about micro evolution which is where your animal husbandry example is.

I understand that ID "could care less about microevolution", as it is a fundamental observation in biology.

jerry 01/12/2007 11:37 pm  
Quote
And remember there are no examples of any mechanism ever producing anything novel and functional. They all seemed to pop out of nowhere with no obvious predecessor.

Just as extant species form a nested hierarchy, and extinct species form a nested hierarchy in time, individual adaptations form a nested hierarchy. Terrestrial vertebrate limbs are modified fish fins. Bird wings are modified limbs. Feathers are modified scales. Elephant tusks are modified teeth, while their trunks are modified noses. And humans are very much apes in their primary morphological characteristics.

Date: 2007/01/13 10:19:36, Link
Author: Zachriel
Meanwhile,

Joe G
Quote
And you can't correct me because there is no way I will ever listen to what you say.

Date: 2007/01/13 11:28:33, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Jan. 13 2007,10:48)
Quote (Zachriel @ Jan. 13 2007,10:19)
Meanwhile,

Joe G  
Quote
And you can't correct me because there is no way I will ever listen to what you say.

Zachriel, there's lots of room in your sig for two quotes...

I prefer to rotate my sigs. But I did update it. Thanks for the suggestion.

Date: 2007/01/13 16:56:33, Link
Author: Zachriel
idnet.com.au    
Quote
I hear “Intelligent Design” silently screamed from the pages.

Um, I think you're hearing things.

This is the same research group that has published extensive research on Hox clusters, the genes that control morphogenesis in bilaterates. One such article is Conservation of regulatory sequences and gene expression patterns in the disintegrating Drosophila Hox gene complex (emphasis mine):
 
Quote
Homeotic (Hox) genes are usually clustered and arranged in the same order as they are expressed along the anteroposterior body axis of metazoans...We conclude that, in Drosophila, Hox-gene clustering is not an absolute requirement for proper function. Rather, the organization of Hox genes is modular, and their clustering seems the result of phylogenetic inertia more than functional necessity.

This gene [a duplication of Hox3] has been kept during at least 40–60 Myr of evolution.

These observations suggest a highly dynamic evolution in Drosophila that contrasts with the compact structure seen in vertebrates.


(See. I can bold words, too.)

Date: 2007/01/14 07:39:04, Link
Author: Zachriel
shaner74 01/14/2007 12:52 am
 
Quote
We don’t know who designed the “Antikythera Device” ...


Obviously, this commenter has made presumptions not supported by the evidence. The first clue is that the Antikythera Device was found in a wreckage of a human-built cargo ship (Roman c.65 BCE) near the Greek Island, Antikythera, along with typical artifacts of the period such as statues and amphorae.  It is made of bronze, a common alloy of the time. And it is apparently designed to make astronomical predictions, something known to be of great importance to humans of that period.

The *hypothesis* of design leads immediately to the investigation of who and why it was manufactured. And, each bit of evidence concerning the manufacturer, motive and method — the artist, artifact and art —mutually reinforces our confidence in our understanding.

Date: 2007/01/15 07:06:46, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (Altabin @ Jan. 15 2007,02:24)
Warning!  Set irony meters to lowest possible sensitivity before reading this post by Gil Dodgen:
       
Quote
In this, Part 3 in a series of posts based on the Q&A section of the recently released DVD, The Case for a Creator, I offer Jonathan Wells’ comments in response to the question, How do you explain the Cambrian explosion of life?

       
Quote
How did it happen? We don’t have the foggiest idea how it happened. Assuming a jellyfish was the common ancestor — I don’t believe that — but how do you turn a jellyfish into a trilobite? How do you turn a jellyfish into a fish with a backbone? How do you do it? I don’t just mean taking a scalpel and rearranging the parts like you’re doing a collage in third-grade art class. We’re talking about a living animal here, that reproduces itself and makes more things like itself. How do you do it? We don’t have the foggiest idea.

To try to explain this away by saying Darwin’s theory accounts for it is a science-stopper. It’s the biggest science-stopper of modern history. It stops your inquiry right there. You have no more questions. Oh, all these animals just appeared. That’s not science.


"Oh, all these animals just appeared" - whereas ID prefers, as we know, to go into tedious detail about how it all happened.

Wells conflates the concept of a common ancestor with a cat turning into a dog.

In any case, there is strong evidence of a common ancestor of cnidarians (jellyfish) and bilaterates (trilobites) within Metazoa. However, the details of this ancient transition are still murky — but there is extensive research into resolving this aspect of the phylogenetic tree. It turns out that there are important homologies in the morphogenesis genes of cnidarians  and bilaterates. Cnidarians have Hox-like genes, but they are not clustered colinearly as in bilaterates.

This is consistent with the usual ID position of pointing to gaps in extremely ancient divergences, such as the flagellum or abiogenesis. But Wells' claim that the Theory of Evolution ends research is false on its face. Understanding metazoan evolution, especially with regards to body plan, is an area of intense investigation.


Kamm K, Shierwater B, Jakob W, Dellaporta SL, Miller DJ (2006) Axial patterning and diversification in the Cnidaria predate the Hox system. Curr Biol 16:1-7.

"We conclude that the Cnidaria/Bilateria split occurred before a definitive Hox system developed."

Date: 2007/01/15 07:39:40, Link
Author: Zachriel
Wells redux  
Quote
To try to explain this away by saying Darwin’s theory accounts for it is a science-stopper. It’s the biggest science-stopper of modern history. It stops your inquiry right there. You have no more questions. Oh, all these animals just appeared. That’s not science.

The Theory of Evolution gives you on-going research on Hox homologs. The Theory of Design gives you ...

steveh  
Quote
Easy. You use design. Then you
front-load your design into a common ancestor using design.

(Addendum: I think steveh is making a rhetorical assertion. Let's watch the responses.)

Date: 2007/01/15 08:25:34, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (Zachriel @ Jan. 13 2007,10:19)
Meanwhile,

Joe G        
Quote
And you can't correct me because there is no way I will ever listen to what you say.

Ironically, I've been accused by Joe G  of "quote-mining". Of course, I had provided the appropriate hyperlink so our readers could view the entire context and decide for themselves.

I had sent Joseph notification of that post so that he would be apprised of my new signature. As he has indicated repeatedly he wouldn't publish any of my comments until I had offered support for his strawman version of the Theory of Evolution, I was rather surprised. An entire thread no less!

Date: 2007/01/16 11:50:01, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (deadman_932 @ Jan. 16 2007,10:31)
Mentok wails :    
Quote
Funny how they can spend time on religious critiques of ID yet refuse to take seriously the scientific challenges to evolution. Can they answer why,if humans evolved from apes, then why are apes better suited for survival in the wild? Sure having our brain power is better for survival, but we are weaker, we can’t subsist on the vegetation we find around us...

Yow. Multi-leveled tard. Hunter-gatherers subsist on "vegetation" we find around us, along with even just insect-derived amino acid supplements. And they...*gasp* survive in the wild just fine. This leads to cultivation of selected wild stands of plants, then domestication and agriculture. A chimp can kill me in wrestling, and can bite real good. So?  But chimps are better at "subsistence?"? Yow. He might as well be trotting out the old standby: "If we evloved frum munkeys, Y R their still MUNKEYS?!?"  Teh tard it burns!

Edit -- I should have stated it as:  "If we evloved beautiful, healthy, young, succulent, hard, throbbing bodies frum MUNKEYS"... etc. After all, this is a Mentok parody.

Yeah, lions can't subsist "on the vegetation" they find around them either.

Oh, right. They eat the apes.

Date: 2007/01/17 07:25:44, Link
Author: Zachriel
From the Bill O'Reilly school of Truthiness™.

Joseph    
Quote
I don't see anything wrong with kicking his ass. He wants it and he deserves it. I am just volunteering to let him have it.

Joseph    
Quote
I didn't threaten Lenny.

Date: 2007/01/17 08:45:37, Link
Author: Zachriel
I have tried to engage Joseph a number of times, but he has not always allowed my comments to appear. He also resorts to unprovoked personal attacks. Lately, his arguments have been so lame that they hardly need a response.

Joe G        
Quote
Many people ask if there is a theory of Intelligent Design. To which I respond, "Is there a theory of Archaeology?"

With this rhetorical question, Joseph reveals his misunderstanding of the basic terms of science, including the nature of a scientific theory.

Archaeology is *defined* as the study of human artifacts. Intelligent Design is a *claim* about biological structures. They are not parallel concepts. Archaeology is a field of study. There is no single theory of Archaeology any more than there is a single Theory of Physics. And in Archaeology, an assertion that an object is manufactured requires validation by multiple lines of evidence and skeptical inquiry. Joseph does not apply skepticism concerning his assertions at any time, but merely assumes his conclusions.

Joseph then goes on to say that Intelligent Design is an "inference", then he claims that ID is an "observation", then he claims it is an "assumption". His lack of understanding of these basic terms is evident and explains how he can reach such unsupported conclusions.

One of the basic claims that Joseph makes is that if we can't explain a phenomena as due to natural causes, then it was due to Intelligent Design. Of course, the greater Joseph's areas of ignorance, the more that can be ascribed to the Designer. Next thing you know, he will claim the Moon's orbit is due to Design rather than gravity and historical contingency.

Date: 2007/01/18 06:31:06, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (Altabin @ Jan. 17 2007,07:25)
Quote
53. Were all the animals friendly to man before the Flood? Idea: raise several baby animals like snake and mouse together to see if they remain friends as they are older.

That one may not have such a happy ending.  Next time try it with a lion and a lamb.

DaveScot claims you quoted the Bible. But I don't see any quotemarks.

Date: 2007/01/18 06:52:03, Link
Author: Zachriel
DaveScot          
Quote
Orthodox evolutionists tell us that mutations are random when plotted against fitness but this is not the case.

Zachriel: Orthodox probability tells us that Roulette is random but this is not the case.

DaveScot          
Quote
random failures seldom if ever result in improved performance. Random mutations are in fact random degradations.  

Zachriel: Roulette seldom if ever result in me winning. Roulette is in fact random losers. (The "seldom" is crucial. And DaveScot doesn't apparently know what "random" means in science. Probability Theory was developed in France by a lawyer and an indulgent pleasure-seeker to resolve a gamblers' dispute. It's ALL about the winners and losers.)

DaveScot          
Quote
The weakness is arrival of the fittest.  

It turns out that we can observe beneficial variations in populations, variations that are subject to selection. Modern genetics has determined that the source of novel variation is mutation. (Note: mutations are not quite random with respect to position in the genome.)

Addendum: When I shoot Craps, there seems to an inordinate number of sevens rolled — more than any other number. Are my dice loaded?

Date: 2007/01/18 10:51:51, Link
Author: Zachriel
Janice #29      
Quote
It seems to me that most of the work done in trying to define science (so as to distinguish it from pseuodoscience) revolves around things like how you express your hypotheses (are they testable?), what research methodology you use (is it repeatable and verifiable?) and what you are measuring (is it observable?). But I hadn’t been able to find anything on how you interpret the data that your research effort produces except for these lines from Meyer. It’s in the last paragraph in the article I referenced previously.

Science is a practical human endeavor. Generalizations (theories) are devised that are then judged on their ability to make valid predictions of future observations. So, for instance, without trying to determine the essence of "gravity", Newton was able to generate specific mathematical relationships that led to reasonable predictions concerning the movements of planets.

From Darwin's Theory of Common Descent, he predicted fossils of organisms with intermediate characteristics might be found in strata of the appropriate age; and though he couldn't directly observe it, he predicted that organisms adapt slowly to their environment, microevolution being directly observed with modern techniques. He even predicted the existence of a species of moth that was not observed until after his death.

Meyer      
Quote
A rational historical biology must not only address the question “Which materialistic or naturalistic evolutionary scenario provides the most adequate explanation of biological complexity?” but also the question “Does a strictly materialistic evolutionary scenario or one involving intelligent agency or some other theory best explain the origin of biological complexity, given all relevant evidence?” To insist otherwise is to insist that materialism holds a metaphysically privileged position. Since there seems no reason to concede that assumption, I see no reason to concede that origins theories must be strictly naturalistic.


There is nothing within science that precludes the investigation of intelligent agency. The basic rules of science apply, that's all. The standard questions are Who? What? When? Where? Why? How? Any theory must make specific empirical predictions that distinguish it from other such theories. And all theories are provisional, in any case.

Date: 2007/01/18 12:02:09, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (Zachriel @ Jan. 18 2007,06:52)
DaveScot  
Quote
Orthodox evolutionists tell us that mutations are random when plotted against fitness but this is not the case.

franky 172 engages DaveScot  
Quote
I think you are using the word “random” to mean “uniform probability density function”, when evolutionary biologists are using it to mean “stochastic”, or un-deterministic.

Date: 2007/01/18 12:27:22, Link
Author: Zachriel
Patrick, comment #13  
Quote
Did you ever get around to designing a program that could generate an english word with 500 or more informational bits using Darwinian mechanisms? If I remember correctly it was having problems with 80 bits or so.

Assuming 8-bits per letter, that's 60 couple letters. Phrasenation achieves that in just a few hours. Phrasenation is written in a very slow implementation. Now, if I remember correctly, the Universal Probability Bound indictes that this is virtually impossible in a cosmic lifetime.

O day and night, but this is wondrous strange!

Date: 2007/01/18 13:37:30, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (Zachriel @ Jan. 18 2007,12:02)
 
Quote (Zachriel @ Jan. 18 2007,06:52)
DaveScot    
Quote
Orthodox evolutionists tell us that mutations are random when plotted against fitness but this is not the case.

franky 172 engages DaveScot    
Quote
I think you are using the word “random” to mean “uniform probability density function”, when evolutionary biologists are using it to mean “stochastic”, or un-deterministic.

That didn't last long.

DaveScot  
Quote
This is your last comment in this thread. You’re just cluttering it up with nonsense and pedantry.

Sorry, DaveScot, but he was right concerning the claims made by scientists when they use the word "random".

If we have a lump of elemental radioactive material, we can statistically predict the amount of radiation over time. However, we can't predict which atom will decay next. It's random.

Likewise, in a million replications of clonal bacteria, a mutations will occur. Some of these bacteria will have a mutation which gives them resistance to antibiotics. But the individual bacteria that gain this resistance is random, and they gain this resistance whether or not they are exposed to the antibiotic. The mutation is uncorrelated with exposure, and occurs in random organisms.

DaveScot  
Quote
Your desperation is showing. Polar bears are descended from animals with fins aren’t they? Ever seen fins without webbing?


Please take that up with Joseph.

Date: 2007/01/18 14:18:15, Link
Author: Zachriel
On the Golem (Genetically Organized Lifelike Electro Mechanics) thread.

Quote
bFast, comment #25: We have a bit of a problem right here. Either the simple model RM+NS, easily works, or it only works under very precise parameters.

Um, GOLEM selects according to how fast the golems move across an infinite flat horizontal surface. It's a very limited environment.

Quote
bFast, comment #25: If any scenerio that involves: reproduction, random input that may be beneficial, selection produces increased complexity, then this experiment should well have worked.

Selection does not necessarily "produce increased complexity".

Date: 2007/01/18 15:09:53, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 18 2007,14:48)
DaveTard writes:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1971

         
Quote
18 January 2007
David H. Gorski: Do as I say, not as I do
DaveScot
Over at Respectful Insolence, Dr. David H. Gorski (a.k.a. Orac), goes off on a rant about how medical doctors, in this case Uncommon Descent contributor and surgeon Dr. David A. Cook, aren’t qualified to evaluate claims made by evolutionary biologists. Yet Dr. Gorski, also a surgeon, somehow believes himself qualified to evaluate evolutionary claims made by other medical doctors. Spare me. Practice what you preach, Dr. Gorski. If medical doctors aren’t qualifed to evaluate evolution claims then YOU should STFU too. Got that? Write that down.


That would be David H. Gorski, M.D., Ph.D.

P-H-D.

David H. Gorski (BSC 1984, MD 1988;
PhD 1994, Case Western Reserve (Cellular
Physiology)
) is a Fellow in Surgical
Oncology at the University of Chicago.



Looks like the filter failed again, Dave 'STFU' Tard.


 
Quote
DaveScot: Practice what you preach, Dr. Gorski.

Gorski is a scientist, because he publishes like sciency stuff. So it does look like he practices what he preaches.

 
Quote
DaveScot: then YOU should STFU too. Got that? Write that down.

Now, what about you?

Date: 2007/01/18 15:51:31, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (2ndclass @ Jan. 18 2007,15:25)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 18 2007,14:48)

David H. Gorski (BSC 1984, MD 1988;
PhD 1994, Case Western Reserve (Cellular
Physiology)
) is a Fellow in Surgical
Oncology at the University of Chicago.



Looks like the filter failed again, Dave 'STFU' Tard.

Dave follows up with a comment and one of his oh-so-helpful Google links:          
Quote
Oh yeah… since Gorski/Orac thought it okay to research the work of Dr. Cook I think it’s fair that readers see a little bit more about Dr. Gorski.

http://www.google.com/search?....ki+orac

Interestingly, the very first hit highlights Gorski's Ph.D.

Here's a tip for you, Dave.  Next time, do the research before writing the article.

Of course, when DaveScot combines the two names, he pulls up a non-representative sampling. Here is Google Scholar search for articles written by DH Gorski.

 
Quote
Scott (comment #9): I’m struggling greatly in trying to understand how physicians, who are experts in anatomy, are somehow unqualified in assessing the mertis of Darwinian Evolution. Somebody throw me a frickin bone here.

Because the Theory of Evolution is a scientific theory and physicians are not scientists. Gorski is a scientist working with genetics, including the study of Hox genes.

Date: 2007/01/19 07:14:22, Link
Author: Zachriel
ludwig (#11)  
Quote
A random mutation shows up with a given probability per organism, so the same fraction of the population will bear the mutation regardless of how large the population is.

DaveScot (#12)      
Quote
That’s so hopelessy wrong I hardly know where to begin. I think you need to find a different blog.

It's not so much DaveScot's profound ignorance, but his bullying threats.

Date: 2007/01/19 07:26:35, Link
Author: Zachriel
And a bit of irony from scordova, a.k.a. Sal (#4)
Quote
The reason part of the discussion moved here was that PandasThumb is incredibly slow in displaying long discussions (as you saw yourself).

Date: 2007/01/19 09:54:30, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (slpage @ Jan. 19 2007,09:34)
Like, for example, using "toy examples" (Cordova's actual words) of strings of only 8 characters to "prove" that "time erases hierarchies."  Why, amazingly, Cordova was able to "prove" this by using his amazing 8-character string, "mutating" one character each generation, and in only 8 generations, he 'erased' the 'molecular' hierarchy that did not even exist in the first place...

I looked for that, but could not find it. Do you have a link?

By the way, if you like toy hierarchies, I have devised a simple experiment along those lines, Zachriel's Nest of Letters. Even with just a few letters, Zachriel's Nest of Letters shows how neutral evolution can result in easily discernable nested hierarchies after several generations. It also shows when we might be able to predict the existence of intermediaries and the possible limitations of reconstructing the history of such a descent.

Date: 2007/01/20 21:45:06, Link
Author: Zachriel
Kengee had to temerity to question O'Leary's understanding of evolutionary psychology and then to ask "Let’s seen how your ideas stack up to observable facts and please not a paper where you spend the whole thing on why Darwinist are wrong I want to here about your ideas not theirs."

William Dembski  
Quote
Kengee is no longer with us. Denyse, longsuffering is a virtue, but not with the insufferable.

Date: 2007/01/21 07:56:35, Link
Author: Zachriel
Denyse on Arson    
Quote
If the fire marshall’s office suspects arson, do the investigators worry much about WHY?

Yes.


Denyse on Arson    
Quote
Surely they investigate, confirm their finding, and turn the information over to other authorities and interested parties, without having the least idea why someone torched the joint.


Arson Investigation Basics excerpted from "Motive, Means, and Opportunity, A Guide to Fire Investigation."
 
Quote
An arson investigation basically focuses on four areas:

1. Proof of incendiarism - comes from an examination of the fire scene by a qualified cause and origin expert.
2. Proof of opportunity - focuses on the security of the building when the fire was discovered and who had access.
3. Proof of motive - focuses on the insured's financial condition, profit or loss from operations and cash flow.
4. Miscellaneous connecting evidence - includes an examination of the insured's insurance history, operability of fire and burglar detection systems, how insured learned about the fire, etc.


The Art and Science of Criminal Investigation    
Quote
The Investigation
Motives for arson can range from attempts to collect insurance money to revenge or intimidation, attempts to cover up a crime, destruction of questionable business records, Pyromania and occasionally suicide (Battle, 1978)(French 1979)(Lane, 1992) The most common type of Arson is a fire set in an attempt to collect insurance money (Lane, 1992) (French, 1979).

Date: 2007/01/21 08:53:43, Link
Author: Zachriel
This entire thread exhibits an embarrassing richness of misunderstandings, Evolutionary psychology solves the Problem of Beauty (Goodness and Truth are next)

We start with the observation that perceptions of personal beauty are correlated with how others perceive the object of beauty.

idnet.com.au    
Quote
To assert that successfully reproducing and child rearing is the sum total of what life is about, and that there is no greater purpose or meaning is an assertion of reductionist evolutionary theory and is demeaning to women and to those who do not marry or have children.

The *biological purpose* is to pass on one's genes (which doesn't require personal reproduction, but can involve helping close relations in their own reproduction). However, consciousness is not so constrained. A cat plays because it is fun. That it also has an important biological purpose is an orthogonal statement, and probably irrelevant to the cat.

bFast    
Quote
Watching those that are low on the evolutionary totem pole breed like rabbits (and my daughters’ birth-mother is surely not the only one) has caused me to conclude that this theory is, well, full of it.

Um, take another look at that "evolutionary totem pole".

russ    
Quote
bFast, it’s my understanding that Darwinists’ explanation for your situation is that humans are (conveniently) no longer evolving.

Whoever told you that is just wrong. Humans are evolving in all sorts of ways. Evolution happens every time someone dies of an illness or selects a mate.

This latter aspect of evolution can and has been tested by taking humans in one of their most sexually active stages and artificially crowding them into an enclosed structure. I think it's called a "High School". In this exaggerated environment, even the slightest misstep can result in the loss of a potential mate, a poorly chosen word, provoking a bullying response from a competitor, even a minor facial blemish. In this hyper-charged environment, social graces and conformity to cultural norms can often ensure successful mating.

Of course, some members of the species look to other than the superficial aspects of a potential mate and look for more intangible qualities, such as loyalty, sensitivity, intelligence. But this too is evolution.

idnet.com.au    
Quote
This study seems to detect self evident truth.

All observations are evidence. There is no doubt that there has been a common wisdom, hence "lady wingman", but being able to demonstrate this empirically is what science is all about. And not everyone knew this fact or is willing to accept it...

JasonTheGreek    
Quote
So, if a man is a cheater, a scam artist, an all-around-scumbag- merely taking another woman along with him to smile at him will make him appear somewhat less scumbag-ish to the woman he wants to catch?

Yes. I don't recommend taking scumbag lessons, but that is a typical ploy to getting laid. There is an entire repertoire.

JasonTheGreek    
Quote
Sorry, I find that people, in general, usually look at a person’s heart, their soul, what makes them unique as opposed to the superficial nonsense this study claims women look for.

Some do. Some don't. The observation doesn't go away because you refuse to accept it. The Earth does move.

JasonTheGreek    
Quote
This is what’s wrong with this study. The absurd notion that women look for “healthy” men that can give them “healthy” children.

And this shows what is wrong with your understanding. You don't have to look for a healthy mate. You naturally prefer them — even as you consciously look for other traits.

bdelloid    
Quote
Many of you seem to be criticizing this study, but do not seem to be questioning the actual results of this study... Evolutionary theory has a reasonable explanation for this observation... What does ID offer as an explanation for this observation ?

I feel a ban coming on. (I have some experience in that regard.)

idnet.com.au    
Quote
The results of this study show that people are influenced by the opinions of others, both verbal and non verbal. This is not new. This does not provide confirmation that Random Mutation and Natural Selection provide the origin of this finding.

It is consistent with what would be expected within the Theory of Evolution based on other observations of humans and observations of other, related organisms.

Avater    
Quote
I believe that this kind of behaviour is easily explained by the intelligence of the woman in question.

Except this is the same behavior that can be seen in everything from guppies to quail.  

Latemarch    
Quote
The headline claims too much.

Quite so!

Latemarch    
Quote
he problem of beauty is only superficially dealt with between the sexes.

The actual study doesn't purport to be anything more than the observation of a correlation.

Latemarch    
Quote
Just like conscienceness, TOE doesn’t explain the beauty in a sunset or seascape.

Well, consciousness is still a very wide-open subject; however, it would be an overstatement to claim that the Theory of Evolution has not provided insights. This study is one such insight.

JasonTheGreek    
Quote
So, you first have to question the bold claim that people have sex to make babies, when in fact MOST sexual encounters across the globe are for pleasure, and most of these encounters include the active decision to avoid reproduction at all costs.

Confusing proximate cause with ultimate cause. The purpose of sex from the participants view can be anything from pleasure to social bonding to reproduction. The cat doesn't much take note of biological explanations of why it plays or copulates.

JasonTheGreek    
Quote
Which is another reason I don’t think theories like this can even touch “mating” in regards to reproduction.

In fact, monogamy has important biological advantages — as long as the male can reasonably ensure the fidelity of his partner so that he is raising his own children and not someone else's.

Date: 2007/01/21 09:07:22, Link
Author: Zachriel
JGuy  
Quote
Natural Selection would have had to have done an incredibly fine job to tune in and keep eye lashes at the very edge of eyelids.

How long must a man's legs be?
Long enough to reach the ground. — Abraham Lincoln

JGuy  
Quote
Now, assuming homosexuality - for this argument - is a genetic trait. Then why has natural selection not eliminated this deleterious mutant gene from the gene pool?

You're assuming that gays don't have children, or that it doesn't offer survival value in some respects. Sex in many species is as important in social bonding as it is in reproduction, and homosexual behavior in seen in many social animals. Maybe, the gay guy helps his sister pick her wardrobe leading to her own successful mating.

Date: 2007/01/21 15:45:11, Link
Author: Zachriel
JasonTheGreek    
Quote
How do you craft a theory that can cover every facet of every subgroup in a population, when the different groups and people are SO varied?

The scientific method? (Of course, variation in populations is sort of the whole point.)

Quote
How do you craft a theory that can cover every planet whizzing around in different directions and seeming to be under the influence of the personalities of different gods? It's just so complicated.

Date: 2007/01/21 16:47:30, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Jan. 21 2007,15:58)
Quote (Zachriel @ Jan. 21 2007,15:45)
JasonTheGreek      
Quote
How do you craft a theory that can cover every facet of every subgroup in a population, when the different groups and people are SO varied?

The scientific method? (Of course, variation in populations is sort of the whole point.)

 
Quote
How do you craft a theory that can cover every planet whizzing around in different directions and seeming to be under the influence of the personalities of different gods? It's just so complicated.

I think you just blew someones cover. Then again they do atract wingnuts that might think that way irl.

How could you tell?

Date: 2007/01/22 06:30:37, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 21 2007,18:32)
Oh dear, Steveh makes the mistake of telling it like it is:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1982#comment-86617

       
Quote
       
Quote
Common sense is not so common, at least among those with a foundational commitment to materialism.


Perversly, Fire Mashalls do seem to focus on finding purely material causes for fires; Of course, they should broaden thier searches to include the supernatural as well. ID doesn’t help too much with that at present, but I am sure there are people working on it.



Dave moves quickly to protect Tardtopia from reality:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1982#comment-86621


       
Quote

steveh is no longer with us

Note that doesn't prevent others on Uncommon Dissent Descent from responding to steveh when he is no longer in a position to defend his statement.

     
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 21 2007,21:41)
       
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Jan. 21 2007,19:11)
       
Quote (deadman_932 @ Jan. 21 2007,19:01)
####, what a dolt. DaveTard posts on ARSON ...then to save his ass from reality ( as Rich noted ) he posts on *some* FIRES being "acts of god."

How exactly does he determine which are, and which aren't . . . ?

Nothing to determine - all fires are arson. In some instances the arsonist is a person.  In the remaining the arsonist is God.

Heh.

Date: 2007/01/22 07:18:17, Link
Author: Zachriel
Ecclesiastes 9:11  
Quote
I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.

DaveScot  
Quote
Before I waste more time on soft selection could you give experimental evidence that it even exists?

Soft selection refers to the observation that not all mortality is due to selection. Keep in mind that the difference between soft selection and hard selection is a continuum, not a discrete function. It is statistically modeled by assuming the population remains constant. Generally, soft selection is local, hard selection is global. Most beneficial mutations are subject to soft selection.

There are several hundred cites on Google Scholar for "soft selection". You could start there.

* Hard and Soft Selection in a Subdivided Population
* Soft Selection, Hard Selection, Kin Selection, and Group Selection
* Bias in correlations from selected samples of relatives: The effects of soft selection
* Diverse, endemic and polyphyletic clones in mixed populations of a freshwater snail (Potamopyrgus antipodarum)

Date: 2007/01/23 06:41:20, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 22 2007,23:39)
Barry A puts the tard-pedal to the metal.

Shorter Barry A: According to the Evilootionary Nachuralists, arrowheads weren't caused by no Injuns of the Gaps, they'z caused by materialistic causes.

Ok. That's a joke? Someone infiltrated Uncommon Descent and is poking fun at them, right?

Date: 2007/01/23 09:53:43, Link
Author: Zachriel
IDist  
Quote
By the standards of evolutionists Richard Dawkins is not even a scientist as he didn’t didn’t publish in any peer-reviewed journal

Google Scholar lists more than two hundred cites for a "Richard Dawkins", including the journals Nature, Evolution, Philosophy, Science, Animal Behaviour, Behavioural Ecology and Artificial Life; plus books in the Oxford University Press and the Cambridge University Press.

Date: 2007/01/23 11:26:03, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 23 2007,11:19)
another crosspost:

Richardthughes, you might want to include a link to the discussion. (Or I could be blind. ;-)

Thanks!

Date: 2007/01/23 11:47:11, Link
Author: Zachriel
DaveScot does his best to elevate the discussion.

DaveScot    
Quote
Dawkins and his ilk are nothing but liars, creeps, and mental lightweights.


Well, they did insist that ID be included in the curriculum.

DaveScot    
Quote
Darwin was just a religiously conflicted naturalist (more of a stamp collector than a scientist)

Obviously untrue. Darwin proposed a powerful theory unifying observations from a wide variety of sources and defined the course of investigation for generations of scientists.

Date: 2007/01/24 07:26:31, Link
Author: Zachriel
In their own words:

DaveScot
Quote
The case against NeoDarwinian Evolutionary theory is a complete no-brainer...


NATIONAL ACADEMY of SCIENCES
Quote
The theory of evolution has become the central unifying concept of biology and is a critical component of many related scientific disciplines. In contrast, the claims of creation science lack empirical support and cannot be meaningfully tested.


gpuccio
Quote
beyond my ability not only to believe, but even to conceive...

Date: 2007/01/24 08:38:22, Link
Author: Zachriel
DaveScot            
Quote
Your last comment wasn’t approved.

Yikes! It must have been a doozy, considering that unjustified accusations of lying against a Cornell University lecturer and teacher of biology were allowed to stand.

(My post on this blog defending said teacher led to my third banning from that blog. As the entire discussion about who was 'lying' was off-topic for that blog, and this blog is for the observation of trends on that blog, this blog was the appropriate forum for my comments. And in retrospect, my comments on this blog concerning that blog were certainly valid.)

Date: 2007/01/24 08:44:31, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (Faid @ Jan. 24 2007,07:30)
I must say I'm kinda disappointed... Until now, I had it for sure that Stephen Colbert wrote his lines himself.  :(

Show Biz.

Date: 2007/01/24 11:24:00, Link
Author: Zachriel
DaveScot
Quote
EVERYONE from the United Nations to the CIA to MI6 to Mossad believed Saddam was hiding WMD.

UN Weapons Inspector 2003: "The commission has not at any time during the inspections in Iraq found evidence of the continuation or resumption of programs of weapons of mass destruction or significant quantities of proscribed items"

DaveScot
Quote
implied that Saddam was behind 9/11

That’s untrue.

Bush 2003: "The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda."
Bush 2003: "The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 -- and still goes on."

DaveScot
Quote
Saddam ... had a huge terrorist training camp at Salman Pak complete with a jumbo-jet mockup that was used by foreign terrorists.

United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence 2006: "no credible reports that non-Iraqis were trained to conduct or support transnational terrorist operations at Salman Pak after 1991...no information from Salman Pak that links al-Qa'ida with the former regime."

Date: 2007/01/24 21:01:51, Link
Author: Zachriel
William Dembski      
Quote
The original list of 100 scientists has now grown to nearly 700.

How many are named Steve? (Steve-o-meter = 784)


William Dembski      
Quote
A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism
"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

The statement is so poorly written that even Larry "I'm not a Darwinist" Moran could sign on.

Date: 2007/01/25 05:55:09, Link
Author: Zachriel
DaveScot
Quote
Real nice situation the asshats on your side have created that frightens scientists into not only not saying what they think but fearful of even of the hint of having heretical ID thoughts.

As usual, DaveScot elevates the discussion. In any case, he just called Loomis and the vast majority of evolutionary biologists cowards who are afraid to even think.  In fact, the Theory of Evolution permeates Loomis's research and teaching.

* Evolution of complex genomes from simpler ones appears to have involved duplication of individual genes and surrounding sequences followed by changes in the extra copies.
* The genome sequence shows all the proteins available to Dictyostelium as well as definitively showing which domains have been lost since Dictyostelium diverged from the line leading to metazoans.
* However, the ability to synthesize nine amino acids (Phe, Trp, Ile, Leu, Val, Lys, His, Thr, and Met) was lost in a wide variety of eukaryotes that evolved the ability to feed on other organisms.
* An expanded phylogenetic tree built from the complete predicted proteomes of 23 eukaryotes places the two amoebae in the same lineage, although the divergence is estimated to be greater than that between animals and fungi, and probably happened shortly after the Amoebozoa split from the opisthokont lineage.
* The second part of this course will focus on the evolution of whole genomes.

Yes, the man obviously lives in fear.

Date: 2007/01/26 07:16:37, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (guthrie @ Jan. 25 2007,16:04)
Glen, your website is interesting, except that the colours suggest that you might be colour blind or else want to burn out your visitors eyes.  

I'm sure any threat to your vision was unconscious on his part.

Date: 2007/01/26 09:17:43, Link
Author: Zachriel
DaveScot quoting Roddy Bullock  
Quote
Surprised? You should be. How can the exact same methodology be both {SETI and ID} touted as scientific and doubted as religious?

Because SETI is a *research program* that collects data to test a specific hypothesis. ID is an *unsupported conclusion*.


DaveScot quoting Roddy Bullock  
Quote
Are radio telescopes searching for Morse code-like evidence of space aliens inherently scientific while electron microscopes discovering source code-like evidence of design in the cell are not?

SETI doesn't search for complexity, but simplicity — a narrowband radio signal (with the appropriate Doppler shift).


DaveScot quoting Roddy Bullock  
Quote
Why are alien hunters with the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) permitted to infer intelligence if ever they find evidence of specified complexity, but microbiologists who actually find such evidence are lambasted for inferring the same cause?

It's the difference between testing and claiming.

Date: 2007/01/26 09:35:06, Link
Author: Zachriel
Banal misapplication of evolution.

Galen    
Quote
Kaufman quotes Arthur Brooks of Syracuse University who recently wrote in the Wall Street Journal, “if you picked 100 unrelated politically liberal adults at random, you would find that they had, between them, 147 children. If you picked 100 conservatives, you would find 208 kids. That’s a ‘fertility gap’ of 41 per cent. Given that about 80 percent of people with an identifiable party preference grow up to vote the same way as their parents, this gap translates into lots more little Republicans than little Democrats to vote in future elections.”

In general, conservatives are much more accepting of ID. I believe that this will help the ID movement in the future immensely.

Evolution's not true — except with regards to Republican hegemony in the United States. (That's so, like, pre-November 2006. Some memes die a slow and withering death. Like 'Mission Accomplished'.)

Date: 2007/01/26 09:48:27, Link
Author: Zachriel
Interesting comment. Especially the Q&A.

amadan
Quote
It is very frustrating when ID is peremptorily dismissed as apologetics. Neo-Darwinism has much more in common with mediaeval superstitions and revealed religions. By stretching chance far beyond rationally tenable limits, it waves away its credibility. ID, in contrast, sits well within the materialist empiricism demanded by science.

That this empirical discipline is accepted not just by atheists like me but also by Christians is a happy paradox. I think someone once referred to ID as a ‘Big Tent’, though I dislike that term because of its political antecedents. When I was young I sometimes watched a BBC program called ‘Dr Who’ in which the hero used a time machine (!) that, from the outside was just a phone box, but on the inside somehow accommodated a large laboratory with blinking lights and mysterious whirring devices. Similarly, the elegant principles of ID accommodate a very catholic range of worldviews, making the whatever-it’s-called a nice metaphor for the ID ‘movement’.

I’m getting old! Any science fiction fans out there remember what Dr Who’s time machine was called?


tribune7
Quote
The TARDIS

Date: 2007/01/26 09:53:24, Link
Author: Zachriel
dodgingcars
Quote
It does appear the tide is turning. We already know that something like 70-80% of Americans believe in ID (though they don’t know that’s what they believe) in some form.

Ahem. I'm not sure I can add anything to that bit of, er, wisdom.

Date: 2007/01/26 10:10:45, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (Altabin @ Jan. 26 2007,09:57)
What's that word for an illegitimate child?  All I can remember is that it starts with BAS.  Can anyone finish it for me?

Etymology of "tardity"

c.1386 (implied in tardity), from O.Fr. tardif (12c.), from V.L. *tardivus, from L. tardus "slow, sluggish, dull, stupid," of unknown origin.

Ad vindictam tardus

Date: 2007/01/26 10:16:15, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 26 2007,10:12)
 
Quote (Zachriel @ Jan. 26 2007,10:10)
   
Quote (Altabin @ Jan. 26 2007,09:57)
What's that word for an illegitimate child?  All I can remember is that it starts with BAS.  Can anyone finish it for me?

Etymology of "tardity"

c.1386 (implied in tardity), from O.Fr. tardif (12c.), from V.L. *tardivus, from L. tardus "slow, sluggish, dull, stupid," of unknown origin.

Ad vindictam tardus

thought is was from retard (French for slow..)

French is a Latin derivative language. From the same source, from re-, intensive prefix, + tardare "to slow".

retardation  
1426, "fact or action of making slower in movement or time," from L. retardationem, from retardare "to make slow, delay, keep back, hinder," from re-, intensive prefix, + tardare "to slow" (see tardy). Retarded "mentally slow" first recorded 1895. Retard (v.) first recorded 1489, from O.Fr. retarder (13c.); offensive noun meaning "stupid person" (with accent on first syllable) is from 1960s slang.

Date: 2007/01/26 11:04:03, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 26 2007,10:54)
They opted for the breeding program over the research program, eh?


 
Quote
A computer could be set and programmed to accept factors from youth, health, sexual fertility, intelligence, and a cross section of necessary skills. Of course it would be absolutely vital that our top government and military men be included to foster and impart the required principles of leadership and tradition. Slams down left fist. Right arm rises in stiff Nazi salute. Arrrrr! Restrains right arm with left. Naturally, they would breed prodigiously, eh? There would be much time, and little to do. But ah with the proper breeding techniques and a ratio of say, ten females to each male, I would guess that they could then work their way back to the present gross national product within say, twenty years.

Date: 2007/01/29 09:51:45, Link
Author: Zachriel
darth314    
Quote
we do not know exactly what gravity is but we have a pretty god theory that allows us to predict what happes when we drop a stone.

DaveScot    
Quote
What reliable and useful predictions are made by “evolution” that other theories do not predict or are not simply predictions based on observation absent any theory?


As the Theory of Evolution is a collection of interrelated assertions, the relevant predictions depend on the specifics. Common Descent predicts the nested hierarchy (including the placement of fossil organisms with intermediate characteristics). Gradual adaptation implies that new characteristics are modifications of existing characteristics. Natural selection implies that reproductive success can depend on heritable characteristics. Random mutation implies that mutations are random with respect to selectable traits. Neutral theory implies that some genetic changes are not subject to selection.

Being science means *Predictions based on observation*. It's hard to know what DaveScot means here. If he means that "evolution" absolutely precludes intelligent or divine intervention, then this is incorrect. However, there is no scientific evidence of such an intervention and substantial evidence of naturalistic mechanisms throughout the history of life.

Date: 2007/01/30 09:04:27, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (Zachriel @ Jan. 29 2007,09:51)
darth314        
Quote
we do not know exactly what gravity is but we have a pretty god theory that allows us to predict what happes when we drop a stone.

DaveScot        
Quote
What reliable and useful predictions are made by “evolution” that other theories do not predict or are not simply predictions based on observation absent any theory?


As the Theory of Evolution is a collection of interrelated assertions, the relevant predictions depend on the specifics. Common Descent predicts the nested hierarchy (including the placement of fossil organisms with intermediate characteristics). Gradual adaptation implies that new characteristics are modifications of existing characteristics. Natural selection implies that reproductive success can depend on heritable characteristics. Random mutation implies that mutations are random with respect to selectable traits. Neutral theory implies that some genetic changes are not subject to selection.

Being science means *Predictions based on observation*. It's hard to know what DaveScot means here. If he means that "evolution" absolutely precludes intelligent or divine intervention, then this is incorrect. However, there is no scientific evidence of such an intervention and substantial evidence of naturalistic mechanisms throughout the history of life.

Just to emphasize the straw content of his straw man, DaveScot continues,

DaveScot  
Quote
All you outlined was repetition of experiments and predicting the result based on the result of past experiments.


Duh! That's the whole point, DaveScot; being able to replicate observations, being able to make generalizations concerning those observations, being able to predict the results of new observations, and then modifying those generalizations.

Newton predicted the movements of the planets. Ptolemy could do that!

We have *observed* that some mutations are random with respect to selectable characteristics. We then attempt to observe mutations in other circumstances to see if the generality applies.

We have *observed* that some heritable characteristics can lead to differential reproduction. We call this observation "natural selection". We then attempt to observe mutations in other circumstances to see if the generality applies.

We have *observed* that the nested hierarchy of descent is observed in the morphology of extinct and extant organisms, genomics, embryonics, biogeography, etc. We then attempt to observe mutations in other circumstances to see if the generality applies. And it does, for the vast majority of taxa — but apparently does not at the roots of the phylogenetic tree.

Date: 2007/01/30 11:20:13, Link
Author: Zachriel
Joseph does his usual long-quotes, this time from Mike Gene’s article Extrapolating From Small Changes,  
Quote
It is a known fact that small change + much time does not always equal large change. Consider a couple of obvious examples. Let's say that you decide to create a pile of coins at a rate of one coin added/day. After one week, you'll have a pile seven coins high. From this small scale perspective, you then argue that after 10 years of adding coins, you'll have a pile 3,650 coins high. But we all know, from experience, that the laws of physics will eventually step in as the tower of coins becomes unstable at some point and comes crashing to the ground long before we reach the 3,650 number.

Of course, the analogy is very imperfect. A closer analogy would be the observation lots of stacks of coins of various sizes, and lots of people stacking coins. Now we can reasonably extrapolate that the larger stacks were created by adding coins to smaller stacks.

(By the way, the writer used the term "pile", and it is very possible to pile coins much more than 3650 coins high — though it would take many more than that many coins to create such a "pile").

Date: 2007/01/30 11:36:19, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (Zachriel @ Jan. 30 2007,11:20)
Joseph does his usual long-quotes, this time from Mike Gene’s article Extrapolating From Small Changes,    

Reading further, Mike Gene's argument goes off the rails,    
Quote
It would mean that all of the fossil evidence is largely the consequence of trivial evolutionary events that have little meaning for the origin of much cellular machinery. If most of evolution and the fossil record can be explained by changing the pattern of gene expression, then most of evolution and the fossil record is not relevant to questions about the origin of those genes or the basic process of gene expression itself. (1) might be vindicated at the level of organismic evolution, but at a very high price. That price being that almost all of the evidence of evolution now becomes irrelevant to the deeper aspects of life.

So Mike Gene admits that the entire fossil record of change from fish to man is due to evolutionary change, but is "trivial", "irrelevant" and not "deep". Handwaving at its very finest!

Thanks for laughs, Joseph.

Date: 2007/01/30 14:59:21, Link
Author: Zachriel
Atom
Quote
To me it is strange that Darwinists describe NS as a “force”, when it is merely the description of the results, being that of replicators out-replicating each other.

Actually, it is an *observation* of a causitive correlation between certain heritable traits and reproductive success.

Atom
Quote
By talking about it as a mechanism, people then begin to ascribe all sorts of attributes to it, even “intelligence” (see Feebles…)

Febble merely applied Dembski's definition of "intelligence". That the definition is often conflated with other such definitions leading to vast confusion within the Intelligent Design community is irrelevant to her carefully constructed argument

Date: 2007/01/30 15:16:19, Link
Author: Zachriel
russ  
Quote
If a tiny mutation produces a survival and reproduction advantage, and the critter gets struck by lightening or is eaten by a predator before the mutation can be passed on, then is natural selection not at least partially random? What am I missing?

Reproductive success is not solely determined by heritable traits. However, it is not random by any means. And reproductive success can often be *observed* to be due to heritable variation. This causitive correlation is called "natural selection".

JasonTheGreek  
Quote
By the way- what Stuart was referring to was the quote that we owe our lives and everything around us to a roll of the dice and nothing more…correct?

Ecclesiastes 9:11
 
Quote
I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.

Darn those Darwinian nihilists! They've even got to King James!

Date: 2007/01/31 06:55:34, Link
Author: Zachriel
darth314    
Quote
such hybrids are not fertile with its parent plants

DaveScot    
Quote
Incorrect. Fertility is often reduced but not to zero.

Sometimes yes. Sometimes no. But that's the point made by Darwin in Origin of Species. Species are not immutable, but often form a reproductive continuum. This is the expected pattern when speciation is a gradual process of isolation.

Lions and tigers are clearly different species, even though they can produce fertile offspring on occasion. They rarely if ever do so in nature, and there is no significant gene-flow between the populations, hence they maintain their fundamental differences.

DaveScot
Quote
 If all you’re going to do here is rehash tired arguments we’ve heard too many times already I’m afraid I’ll have to ask you to leave. Read the moderation policy on the sidebar.

Now that's funny.

Date: 2007/01/31 12:05:17, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (Zachriel @ Jan. 31 2007,06:55)
darth314            
Quote
such hybrids are not fertile with its parent plants

DaveScot            
Quote
Incorrect. Fertility is often reduced but not to zero.

Sometimes yes. Sometimes no. But that's the point made by Darwin in Origin of Species. Species are not immutable, but often form a reproductive continuum. This is the expected pattern when speciation is a gradual process of isolation.

Lions and tigers are clearly different species, even though they can produce fertile offspring on occasion. They rarely if ever do so in nature, and there is no significant gene-flow between the populations, hence they maintain their fundamental differences.

John Wilkins, philosopher of biology at Evolving Thoughts, blogs on the species concept.  
Quote
So we don't need to have a monistic or singular definition of species, because they are things to be explained, not a priori categories into which every biological organism must be fitted.

DaveScot confuses the category with the thing itself.


Quote
DaveScot        
Quote
 If all you’re going to do here is rehash tired arguments we’ve heard too many times already I’m afraid I’ll have to ask you to leave. Read the moderation policy on the sidebar.

Now that's funny.

It's not so much that DaveScot is wrong, but that he doesn't even seem to be at all knowledgeable about the very Theory of Evolution he hopes to undermine.

Date: 2007/01/31 15:26:11, Link
Author: Zachriel
Larry Moran over at Sandwalk blogs  
Quote
GilDodgen over at Uncommon Descent has put his foot in it once again... Now I've seen some pretty stupid things over at the Dembski headquarters but calling Monod's book "a foundational Darwinian text" just about takes the cake.

Date: 2007/01/31 17:17:48, Link
Author: Zachriel
O'Leary blogs her blog.  
Quote
As agnostic Australian philosopher David Stove has shown in Darwinian Fairytales (1995), most societies have encouraged citizens to breed. Where they don't (as ours doesn't), we see little evidence of any inner drive to breed shaped by natural selection.

Ack! I'm completely astounded. A primary "inner drive" is to have sex. Pregnancies ensue whether socially encouraged or not. How much ignorance of basic biology, a.k.a. the facts of life, can someone exhibit?

(Of course, humans also have "inner drives" to suckle and be suckled, to play, to show off, to have social status, etc.)

Date: 2007/02/01 07:23:29, Link
Author: Zachriel
darth314  
Quote
I did not find the Milan Journal of Mathematics in the ISI index of science journals. why not?


DaveScot  
Quote
didn’t find it because you’re a lazy and not particularly bright troll and didn’t bother to do any research.

http://users.mat.unimi.it/users/smf/MJM.html

It probably isn’t listed because for most of its 80 year history it was published under the name “Rendiconti”.

You’re out of here.

Darth asks a reasonable question, which has a reasonable answer. But this somehow leads to a ban. DaveScot's a parody, right? If he is, then the joke's on me. Heh, heh.  If not, then Scordova, Gildodgen, et. al. should be ashamed for their pretense to an open discussion.

Date: 2007/02/01 09:07:32, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (k.e @ Feb. 01 2007,08:36)
     
Quote (2ndclass @ Feb. 01 2007,16:31)
     
Quote (Zachriel @ Feb. 01 2007,07:23)
Darth asks a reasonable question, which has a reasonable answer. But this somehow leads to a ban.

* NO SOUP FOR YOU! *

[Secondclass wishes he had the photoshop skills of some of the other board members.]

Classic!!!!

Dave Turd zee mushroom soup Nazi.

NEXT!

     
Quote (Zachriel @ Feb. 01 2007,07:23)
DaveScot's a parody, right? If he is, then the joke's on me. Heh, heh.  

Thanks for the straight answer. Heh, heh. For a while, I actually thought DaveScot was, like, being for real. Okay, DaveScot! You had me going there.

Date: 2007/02/01 10:26:09, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Feb. 01 2007,09:44)
darth314 For what it's worth, DT did a little after-the-fact revising of his snarl to Darth:

Shorter DaveScot:  
Quote
You didn’t find it because you’re a lazy and not particularly bright troll and didn’t bother to do any research who seldom if ever exercises any due diligence before writing.

Date: 2007/02/01 10:31:24, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (Altabin @ Feb. 01 2007,09:28)
He's actually Richard Dawkins in deep, deep cover.

Shhhhh......

NOT AGAIN!! Darn you Richard Dawkins! Darn you to Heck!

Date: 2007/02/01 11:13:08, Link
Author: Zachriel
geoffrobinson  
Quote
If the base is random noise, why is everything up top so orderly?

For the same reason casinos don't base their profit projections on the rolls of individual die. Rather, it is based upon the number of suckers visitors they can draw into the establishment.

Law of Large Numbers.

Date: 2007/02/01 13:21:52, Link
Author: Zachriel
Ekstasis      
Quote
What is more, since the cosmos is just one big happenstance, why should be believe that there will always be additional levels of knowledge to discover? It is just as likely that, like the Table of Elements, we will “be there, done that”.

Dmitri Mendeleev discovers the Periodic Table while playing his favorite game, Patience, and thereby reaches the end of science. (It's not even the end of the Periodic Table!) A better model is called scale invariance. We would expect to see lots of little advances, a few big ones, and only very rarely revolutions.

Ekstasis      
Quote
For example, never again will we discover something so earth-shattering as the double helix, or the theory of relativity.

Yeah, right. The latter half of the 20th Century is not really known for its scientific advances.

Reg: What has science done for us (lately)?
Xerxes: Um, discovered blackholes?
Reg: Oh. Yeah, yeah. They did give us that. Uh, that's true. Yeah.
Commando: And quasars.
Reg: Yeah. All right. I'll grant you the blackholes and quasars are two things that scientists have discovered.
Matthias: Cosmic microwave radiation
Reg: Well, yeah. Obviously the cosmic microwave radiation. I mean, cosmic microwave radiation goes without saying, doesn't it? But apart from black holes, quasars, and cosmic microwave radiation--
COMMANDO: Plate tectonics.
XERXES: Discoveries of early human ancestors such as Australopithecus afarensis.
COMMANDOS: Huh? Heh? Huh...
COMMANDO: Archaea, a new domain of life found near deep ocean vents
COMMANDOS: Ohh...
REG: Yeah, yeah. All right. Fair enough.
COMMANDO: And the laser.
COMMANDOS: Oh, yes. Yeah...
FRANCIS: Yeah. Yeah, that's something we'd really miss, Reg, if the scientists left. Huh.
COMMANDO: Medical advances. Sequencing the human genome.
LORETTA: And it's safe to walk in the streets at night now, Reg, because of broadband technology which allows the reception of communication signals below the noise floor.
FRANCIS: Yeah, they certainly know how to find order in nature. Let's face it. They're the only ones who could in a place like this.
COMMANDOS: Hehh, heh. Heh heh heh heh heh heh heh.
REG: All right, but apart from the blackholes, quasars, cosmic background radiation, the laser, medical advances, the human genome, plate tectonics, Australopithecus afarensis, theropod ancestry of avian species, Archaea, broadband technology, evidence of an extraterrestrial "earth-shattering" object wiping out the dinosaurs, and the invention of the Internet, what have scientists done for us (lately)?
XERXES: Space travel.
REG: Oh. Space travel? Shut up!
[bam bam bam bam bam bam bam]
[bam bam bam bam bam]


Life of Brian, Scene 9: The Commandos

Date: 2007/02/02 09:48:17, Link
Author: Zachriel
scordova  
Quote
Courtesy a good friend, here is an article that touches on Chaitin’s work and IC in biology:

Mathematics and the origin-of-life problem

 
Quote
For the design skeptic DNA carries no information at all. DNA has no meaning for him. For him DNA is only a random pattern of ATCG symbols generated by chance.

We can discount such an argument when it includes such an obvious strawman. DNA sequences are not random, but observed to be highly patterned. The opposite of meaningful is not randomness  — a typical creationist conflation that can't be salvaged by dropping famous names of mathematicians.

Date: 2007/02/03 08:24:06, Link
Author: Zachriel
scordova      
Quote
Let me add this quote by Godel himself (from End of Materialist Science):

Um, that makes it look like Gödel wrote the article. Anyway, here is the purported Gödelian quote.

The formation within geological time of a human body,” Kurt Gödel remarked to the logician Hao Wang, “by the laws of physics (or any other laws of similar nature), starting from a random distribution of elementary particles and the field, is as unlikely as the separation by chance of the atmosphere into its components.

Of course, it takes cosmological time-scales, not geologic ones. The first few billion years of the history of the cosmos concern the forging of elements, galaxies and stars.

scordova goes on to quote Berlinsky  
Quote
Under the double action of the fundamental laws and chance, Godel was persuaded, no form of complexity could reasonably be expected to arise. This is not an argument, of course; it functions merely as a claim, although one made with the authority of Godel’s genius.

In fact, we know that complex molecules can spontaneously assemble in the least likely of places. Atoms themselves are complex structures that spontaneously assemble, as are planetary systems. So we have a hierarchy of structures spontaneously assembling.

Date: 2007/02/03 08:38:59, Link
Author: Zachriel
ejsecco
Quote
Abiogenesis occurred through a Divine Act. Life forms have changed over the many years, but only within narrow confined limits.

The evidence indicates otherwise. We know that entire ecosystems have come and gone. We can observe a fossil succession forming a nested hierarchy of descent.

ejsecco
Quote
One species did not give birth (or otherwise) to another.

This is also incorrect. We have strong evidence of speciation, observe gradients of reproductive isolation, and observe various mechanisms of reproductive isolation.

ejsecco
Quote
A blade of grass did not somehow evolve into an elephant.

Correct! Grass and elephants have their own unique evolutionary histories. Their common ancestor lived eons ago.

ejsecco
Quote
Nonexistence is the most stable state there is.

That is not known to be a fact and there is some evidence that it is not true. Consider vacuum energy.

Date: 2007/02/03 09:02:55, Link
Author: Zachriel
HaEris  
Quote
Have you noticed any time you debate the Evolution controversy with one of it’s fundamentalists, they quickly change the subject?

"Fundamentalists"? Leaving aside the improper appellation, I do see that they get banned from your site.

SBWillie  
Quote
Methodological naturalism is the statement that the non-material cannot exist and is therefore not worth investigating.

That is precisely incorrect. Methodological naturalism makes no philosophical claims whatsoever.

quizzlestick  
Quote
Exactly, there are so many gaps in the fossil record. This absence of evidence is some of the biggest evidence we have for the proof of ID. The only time that evolution will be proven is when every single gap known to science has been closed.

In a nutshell. God ID-of-the-Gaps.

Date: 2007/02/03 17:48:49, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (Henry J @ Feb. 03 2007,16:50)
   
Quote

     
Quote
Abiogenesis occurred through a Divine Act. Life forms have changed over the many years, but only within narrow confined limits.


The evidence indicates otherwise. We know that entire ecosystems have come and gone. We can observe a fossil succession forming a nested hierarchy of descent.


Oh, I dunno. The descendants of a species are, afaik, always in the same clade as that species - sounds pretty narrow and confined to me. :)

Henry

As long as you remember that people are fish (in the fish clade).

Date: 2007/02/04 07:24:26, Link
Author: Zachriel
DaveScot    
Quote
We haven’t cured cancer a hundred times over in mice. It wouldn’t be hard to find. Trained t-cells, also called immunotherapy, is one of two examples Gorski gave. I looked it up. It worked to some extent on some very specific cancers. It was also hideously expensive to the point of being impractical for widespread use.

Um, that means it was a cure, which you admit in your own statement. Eradicates cancer...
Targeted Immunotherapy Eradicates Cancer in Mice

DaveScot    
Quote
You’re certainly entitled to whatever opinion you want of Gorski but mine continues to be that he’s a supercilious bag of hot air who couldn’t make it as a surgeon and is now a sock puppet for moneyed interests in the cancer therapy industry.

* Combined effects of angiostatin and ionizing radiation in antitumour therapy
* Blockade of the Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Stress Response Increases the Antitumor Effects of Ionizing Radiation
* Potentiation of the Antitumor Effect of Ionizing Radiation by Brief Concomitant Exposures to Angiostatin

Gorski clearly doesn't know a thing about cancer research.

Date: 2007/02/04 10:29:50, Link
Author: Zachriel
DaveScot            
Quote
We are looking for examples of the claim that we’ve cured cancer 100 times over in mice but those cures fail to work in humans.

Close. This is the original claim.

great_ape            
Quote
I’m hoping this drug works out, but unfortunately we’ve cured cancer in rodents a hundred times over, and the results just haven’t translated to humans.


DaveScot            
Quote
The reason zach can’t post here is because he can’t read.

Actually, DaveScot, there is extensive literature on cure cancer 'in mice' and eradicate tumors 'in mice', but you apparently haven't bothered to read up on it. The reason mice are used for research is because they are related organisms to humans (mammals), can be infected with human cancers, reproduce quickly, and can be easily pure-bred for specific characteristics of interest. That many cancers can be cured in mice is of great importance and a reason for optimism. However, curing cancer in mice does not mean the technique can be easily translated to humans.

One should be cautious in any such claim, while keeping hopeful.

Date: 2007/02/04 10:56:44, Link
Author: Zachriel
DaveScot                    
Quote
Thanks for trying zach. If you ever get a clue maybe I’ll let you return here but until you do you’ll have to remain sniping stupidly from the sidelines.

Uncommon Descent IS the sidelines (as is this blog). The actual research is being done by working scientists and published in journals of their peers. The reason for my being banned is a matter of record.

   1. For pointing out that Scientific American is not a peer reviewed journal.
   2. For arguing that a human arm can be used as a natural sling.
   3. For defending a teacher of biology against unfair accusations of lying.

The first two were on-topic to the relevant threads on Uncommon Descent. The latter was not posted to Uncommon Descent, at all. If I were to post on Uncommon Descent, I would expect that my comments would appear promptly and without abuse of moderation designed to stifle legitimate discusssion.

As far as snide, guess who said this.                    
Quote
You’re certainly entitled to whatever opinion you want of Gorski but mine continues to be that he’s a supercilious bag of hot air who couldn’t make it as a surgeon and is now a sock puppet for moneyed interests in the cancer therapy industry.

When someone is so intent on being seen as right, then learning is often precluded.

Date: 2007/02/04 11:53:23, Link
Author: Zachriel
bFast        
Quote
I noticed that Gorski’s document doesn’t present any facts showing why DCA is doomed to fail, just a lot of energy. Sounds like the neo-Darwinian community as a whole.

You're in luck! Gorski considers DCA to be promising and worthy of fast-tracking to human trials.

Orac, a.k.a. David Gorski        
Quote
DCA seems promising enough to warrant a fast track into clinical trials in humans.


bFast      
Quote
Seems a total waste of time trying to find drugs to tread diseases because the diseases will just develop resistance.

Invoking the Red Queen Hypothesis doesn't mean you stop running.

bFast      
Quote
Does that mean that neo-Darwinian evoluton is the science stopper?

It just means you have to account for evolutionary change when devising strategies to combat disease. By the way, according to this interview with Dr. Evangelos Michelakis, the rodent tumours were shrunk by "up to 70%".

Date: 2007/02/05 07:53:11, Link
Author: Zachriel
O'Leary  
Quote
Are intelligent design and string theory equally untestable? Hmmm.

There are significant differences between Intelligent Design and String Theory. Intelligent Design is a *claim* that there is scientific evidence that the structures in biology are due to intelligent intervention. String Theory is not a *claim*, but a number of related hypothetical structures that are still being developed.

O'Leary  
Quote
String theory is supposed to be way cool, after all. So uncool so soon?

It's been a number of years and many scientists are concerned that theorists may be wasting their time unless they are constrained by observation. Various valid tests have since been proposed.

O'Leary  
Quote
1. the irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum
2. complex specified information as always the result of intelligence
3. and possibly the privileged planet hypothesis

1. Rebutted by homologous structures.
2. Fallacy of petitio principii (assuming the conclusion).
3. Not supported by observation.

All in all, this shows a poor understanding of the scientific method: hypothesis, prediction, observation, validation, repeat. String Theory is in the first stage of developing a valid hypothesis and theorists are being prodded to move to the second stage and make some strong, falsifiable predictions. Intelligent Design merely *claims* to be scientific without any of that messy empiricism.

Date: 2007/02/05 08:39:21, Link
Author: Zachriel
Joseph  
Quote
Next it is ID's position that the origin of CSI requires an intelligence.

Petitio principii.

Please provide a rigorous definition of CSI, explain how it is measured, and apply it to few known objects, such as a rock, a constellation, and a hurricane. Please be specific and quantitative.

Date: 2007/02/05 09:11:29, Link
Author: Zachriel
DaveScot adds some chaff to the Scott Adams thread.       
Quote
A question on the comments associated Dilbert’s blog. Most of his articles get somewhere between 300 and 500 comments. Does anyone actually read that many comments? If you think the answer might be that very few people will bother reading that many comments then you’ll understand why I’m so ruthless in managing the comments here... That means someone has to separate the wheat from the chaff. It’s largely a thankless job but someone has to do it.


Something Humean Scott Adams blogged comes to mind.    
Quote
My understanding of the human mind is that our reasons are just rationalizations for our urges.

Date: 2007/02/07 06:18:12, Link
Author: Zachriel
TRoutMac      
Quote
And by the way… whos’ going to stop breathing first in an effort to reduces our CO2 production. That any part of this argument rests on human production of CO2 when we breathe the stuff out all day long oughtta be enough to send up the red flags.

It's not that TRoutMac doesn't know much about the carbon cycle, something most learn about in high school, but that he is so sure of his conclusions even when based in ignorance.

Plants absorb atmospheric carbon during photosynthesis. Human ingest carbon from these plants and from animals that eat these plants. Human metabolize this carbon releasing the carbon back into the atmosphere. There is no net change in atmospheric CO2 from this process.

The excess atmospheric carbon that is suspected of a role in global climate change comes from releasing the carbon which has been sequestered over eons in fossil fuels. There is no doubt atmospheric carbon levels have risen in recent human history. There is no reasonable doubt the globe is warming. The only question is whether the correlation is causation, which computer modeling has now largely confirmed. That leaves the policy question of what should be done about it.

Date: 2007/02/07 15:30:24, Link
Author: Zachriel
DaveScot
Quote
Oh I know. When the ocean rises anyone who lives near sea level will drown instead of walk to higher ground. And the ones that don’t drown will forget to eat. That must be it, huh?


A precipitous rise in sea-levels leading to the mass migration of millions of people who are currently concentrated in low-lying areas on global coastlines, the loss of trillions of dollars of real estate, the reduction of arable land, and the increased bioload on the remaining land would be a disaster of epic proportions with vast political, economic and even military implications.

Date: 2007/02/07 21:14:02, Link
Author: Zachriel
Lawyer on Hoax of Dodos  
Quote
Real embryos look very different.

Three Embryos. Can you identify the species?

Concerning the Uncommon Descent article itself, there is no accompanying text with the Haeckel drawings. Why is that? Check out Pharyngula's take.

Date: 2007/02/10 10:15:29, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 10 2007,09:11)
DaveScot prevaricates.
   
Quote
Paleontologist Richard Leakey Says We Are Descended From Apes
DaveScot

You know for many years I’ve been taking care to avoid saying men evolved from apes because the pedant dominated science establishment is quick to point out that we and apes descend from a common ancestor and anyone who thinks we evolved from apes clearly doesn’t understand evolution. So now we have arguably the most recognized living name in paleontology, Richard Leakey, blurting out the proverbial “I’m so stupid I don’t know what common ancestry means”. What are we to make of that? I’m sure our good pedant friends in the science establishment, through Panda’s Thumb or some member blog, will let us know upon reading this.

Dave, why obfuscate by quoting Leakey's casual statement?  

Now is your chance to state it loud and clear:  "I, Dave Springer, believe that human beings and the extant great apes share a common ancestor."  

Go ahead, don't be shy. Grow some stones.

Of course, Leakey's comment was perfectly accurate. Humans are apes. They descended from apes. And they share a common ancestry with other, extant apes.

What happens is when someone of DaveScot's 'stature' incorrectly claims or implies that humans descended from extant apes. Here is an example over at Teleological Blog who posted a chart showing that humans descended from mice. My reply immediately follows his comment.

Zachriel: Your cladogram is faulty. Modern bacterium are as much derived from their ancestors as are fish or humans. Nor did humans evolve from modern mice, but both evolved from a common vertebrate ancestor.

Date: 2007/02/10 11:33:56, Link
Author: Zachriel
Meanwhile, over at Teleological Blog, in discussions with Uncommon Descent denizen JoeG, Zachriel has discarded the term "nested hierarchy" in favor of
         
Quote
The nested hierarchy pattern of interest is an ordered set such that each subset is strictly contained within its superset.

So the twigs on a tree, a cohort of Roman legionaries, descendents of an uncrossed lineage, are all examples of a nested hierarchy the pattern of interest.

(Too bad mathematicians don’t have a name for such a hierarchical arrangement of subsets strictly contained within supersets.)

Date: 2007/02/10 12:22:53, Link
Author: Zachriel
jerry    
Quote
The finding that this property exists in “reef coral, termites, and humans” which are in different phyla means that the process must have developed before the Cambrian Explosion or else this remarkable feature “evolved” independently several times... If it is pre Cambrian then it should be in all the members of the phyla in which these organisms belong. What are the odds that such a sophisticated mechanism evolved in the short time before the Cambrian.


Let's see. The Precambrian spans from the formation of the Earth about 4500 million years ago to the Cambrian 542 million years ago. The earliest signs of cellular life, which were already quite sophisticated, occurs at least 3500 million years ago. (Other evidence points to protolife at 3800 million years ago.) That means the "short time before the Cambrian" is ~3 billion years, more than ¾ of the time life is known to have existed on Earth.

Date: 2007/02/10 12:50:49, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (Zachriel @ Feb. 10 2007,11:33)
Meanwhile, over at Teleological Blog, in discussions with Uncommon Descent denizen JoeG, Zachriel has discarded the term "nested hierarchy" in favor of
           
Quote
The nested hierarchy pattern of interest is an ordered set such that each subset is strictly contained within its superset.

So the twigs on a tree, a cohort of Roman legionaries, descendents of an uncrossed lineage, are all examples of a nested hierarchy the pattern of interest.

(Too bad mathematicians don’t have a name for such a hierarchical arrangement of subsets strictly contained within supersets.)

JoeG didn't like Pattern of Interest. We've been updated to Pattern X, an ordered set such that each subset is strictly contained within its superset.

(I just hope we don't have problems with constructing sets. Last time he got befuddled about the empty set and subsets.)

Date: 2007/02/10 16:05:38, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (Zachriel @ Feb. 10 2007,12:50)
   
Quote (Zachriel @ Feb. 10 2007,11:33)
Meanwhile, over at Teleological Blog, in discussions with Uncommon Descent denizen JoeG, Zachriel has discarded the term "nested hierarchy" in favor of
               
Quote
The nested hierarchy pattern of interest is an ordered set such that each subset is strictly contained within its superset.

So the twigs on a tree, a cohort of Roman legionaries, descendents of an uncrossed lineage, are all examples of a nested hierarchy the pattern of interest.

(Too bad mathematicians don’t have a name for such a hierarchical arrangement of subsets strictly contained within supersets.)

JoeG didn't like Pattern of Interest. We've been updated to Pattern X, an ordered set such that each subset is strictly contained within its superset.

(I just hope we don't have problems with constructing sets. Last time he got befuddled about the empty set and subsets.)

Jumpin' Jehosephus!! Desperation sets in as JoeG realizes he can't just end the discussion. He waves his hands furiously.

JoeG    
Quote
I just refuse to follow you down a one-way, dead-end street.

Zachriel    
Quote
You are not required to participate in any such discussion. But, in order to follow my argument, you’ll have to, well, follow my argument. If it reaches a dead-end, that will be clear soon enough. My argument begins with a definition of a particular pattern, Pattern X.

Date: 2007/02/10 17:49:22, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 10 2007,16:37)
 
Quote (Zachriel @ Feb. 10 2007,16:05)
   JoeG            
Quote
I just refuse to follow you down a one-way, dead-end street.

Zachriel            
Quote
You are not required to participate in any such discussion. But, in order to follow my argument, you’ll have to, well, follow my argument. If it reaches a dead-end, that will be clear soon enough. My argument begins with a definition of a particular pattern, Pattern X.

This reminds me of a, probably apocryphal, story about Vince Lombardi.  After a game where his team played particulary bad, he called a meeting.  Standing in front of his team, he held up a ball and began, "Gentlemen.  This is a football.  Stop me if I am going to fast."

Yikes! The moderator had to step in and put an end to JoeG's misery.

Date: 2007/02/11 07:35:27, Link
Author: Zachriel
On the Sound of Mendelian Genetics Exploding thread at Uncommon Descent, it is mentioned that Luca Comai of The Comai Lab and evolutionary theoretician Reed A. Cartwright propose, in the peer journal The Plant Cell, a model that doesn't require the non-Mendelian mechanism "RNA backups" as suggested by Lolle et. al. Genome-wide non-mendelian inheritance of extra-genomic information in Arabidopsis.

PaV      
Quote
I know the kind of attitude they have, the religious fervor that drives them. So, frankly, I’m not too interested in his opinion. Their putative hypothesis does not correlate well with some of the results that Lolle, et. al. report, despite their protestations otherwise. The paper has the tone of someone who is desperately trying to save genetics: “Our mutator hypothesis may appear complicated, but it comports with the data.” Ever hear of Occham’s Razor?


Which brings me to the point. PaV doesn't know what Occam's Razor means.

Occam: "Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem" or "Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity". For instance, we don't assert that planets move under the laws of gravity with angel-assists. The angels are scientifically superfluous. (Sigh. In the olden days, everyone had to learn Latin. Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur. )

In fact, Comai and Cartwright propose one fewer entity than Lolle et. al. Who will be found right will be determined the old-fashioned way — by new observations and a scientific evaluation of the evidence. Any final explanation should have just as many "entities" as are required. No more. No less.

Date: 2007/02/11 11:24:08, Link
Author: Zachriel
JoeG
Quote
IOW there isn’t ANY reason to infer that traits are immutable, but that is exactly what is required for Zachriel’s premise to even have a chance.

The Creationist claiming that evolutionary theory requires the immutability of organic traits. I've got to admit, I found that comment to be very funny.

Date: 2007/02/11 14:42:13, Link
Author: Zachriel
DaveScot  
Quote
Phenotypically speaking, how do we know it wasn’t exactly like a modern chimp and the human lineage split off from it?

Evidence (paleontological, genomic).

DaveScot  
Quote
Or for that matter how do we know it wasn’t exactly like a modern human and chimps split off from it?

Evidence (paleontological, genomic).

DaveScot  
Quote
Evolution happens, except when it doesn’t. I only avoid saying what Leakey said (man descended from apes) because I’ve been conditioned like Pavlov’s dog to avoid saying it. As far as I know it might be perfectly accurate.

The word "ape" has several, closely related meanings, some of them imprecise. From his statements, DaveScot reveals that he doesn't understand the basics of evolutionary theory, nor does he understand that use of the term "ape" can result in confusion born of conflation unless its meaning is made clear in context.

In DaveScot's case, I think the conditioning was well-advised.

Date: 2007/02/11 18:39:41, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (dhogaza @ Feb. 11 2007,18:27)
Heh, it gets better.   Now Dave's quoting old conclusions based on satellite and radiosonde data that's been shown to be incorrect in the years since.

Apparently he's unaware that Christy, the source of the "troposphere is actually cooling" satellite analysis, has acknowledged the calculation errors he and his team made (including one sign error on an important term in one equation).  And that when corrected, the data actually correlates quite nicely with the ground temperature data.  A point Christy agreed with when he was part of the NAS expert panel put together at the request of the Bush administration not long after Bush took office.

Tch tch Dave.

DaveScot citing ancient records  
Quote
Friis-Christensen and Lassen (1991) and, more recently, Lean et al. (1995) have found ...


The Philosopher says the gods too are fond of a joke.

Date: 2007/02/12 08:21:18, Link
Author: Zachriel
More from the annals of an Uncommon Descent denizen who ventured out of the cloister.

teleologist    
Quote
You do understand that this is not a prediction right? It is a human contrived sorting system. A prediction of a phenomenon is what is required of science.

This is a common misunderstanding of taxonomy. As an example, I posed this question.

Zachriel    
Quote
We have a rabbit, a fish and a dog. Can we group two of these items based on observed traits?

rabbit, fish — dog
rabbit, dog — fish
fish, dog — rabbit

Which makes more sense, and how can you justify your answer?

Not surprisingly, JoeG continued his evasions and bravado. Teleologist didn't attempt an answer either, though perhaps he was actually thinking about the problem. After asking twice and waiting a day, I provided a partial answer.

Zachriel    
Quote
Well, let’s take a close look at our rabbit, fish and dog.

They are all three composed of complex cells with organelles and a nucleus containing genetic material called DNA. They are collections of differentiated cells that ingest other organisms for nourishment. They have an alimentary canal that food passes through. They have bilateral symmetry. They have a bony skull at one end with a brain and an array of sensory organs. They have a backbone composed of vertebrae which enclose a nerve cord. They each have jaws. They each make eggs.

But two of them have lungs instead of gills, four legs and a flexible neck. These same two have a sacral rib connecting the axial skeleton to the pelvic girdle. They have a layer of dead, horny cells that prevent evaporation, and a well-developed tongue with glands. Embryonic cells that make mineral-regulating glands in these two develop into mineral-regulating gills in the third. They are warm-blooded, The same two have hair, a lateral temporal fenestra, sebaceous glands, and heterodont dentition. There are vast similarities of many other bones, including in the limbs, vertebrae and jaw. They even share the same three ear-bones. The eggs are nourished interally by a placenta by the mother’s own body. After a live-birth, the mother’s then nurses her young with special mammary glands during a prolonged infancy.

All these features are correlated. And because of that, we can look just at the jaw and determine that the organism has mammary glands. We call look just at its hair and skin and know how many ear-bones it has.

Addendum: the temporal fenestra has been drastically modified in mammals by ventral processes of the frontal and the parietal that occlude the temporal fenestra. The location of the old fenestra is still visible between the zygomatic arch, the orbit, and the dorsal part of the skull, but it is no longer a hole in the skull.

I don't know if Teleologist is open to argument or not. But if he is, or if his readership is, then perhaps they will drop the argument that classification of organisms is a human imposed abstraction, rather than a strong, predictive correlation.

Date: 2007/02/12 19:14:47, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 12 2007,14:21)
Hey Zach...
http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/2061#comment-90610
       
Quote
What the “IDM” needs a is a “vanguard” who does this- makes sure the focus stays on what is really being debated.

And if the DI needs a really good ID PR man that can accomplish just that, all they have to do is ask.

Also, if they need their fridge repairing, he's a good bet.

Heh, heh. Teleologist opened a new thread, "Nested Hieararchy [sic]", but won't talk about the nested hierararchy hierarchy.

Teleologist      
Quote
But you missed my reason for refusing to discuss this topic, and that is until Darwinists can provide something other than rhetoric non-phenomenal diagrams there is nothing to talk about.




It's a job for Vanguard!!

Date: 2007/02/13 08:37:39, Link
Author: Zachriel
NCSE steve-o-meter at risk of being surpassed, prominent brain surgeon joins list of scientists rejecting Darwin’s hoax

Scordova, Scordova. You claim 700 signatories and maybe one day 1400. You just added a surgeon, but you neglected to provide his scientific credentials.

How many on your list are named Steve? Do you even understand what Project Steve is all about? Only about 1% of the population has the name Steve, Stephen, Stephanie, Stefan, Etienne or Esteban, and 2/3 of those on Project Steve are biologists.  That means you multiply the number in Project Steve by 100 to arrive at a reasonable estimate of those who would support the statement, or ~78,700.

In addition, your statement about Dissent on Darwinism is so broadly written, even evolutionary biologist Larry Moran might reasonably sign it — but won't.

Date: 2007/02/14 07:11:17, Link
Author: Zachriel
Look at this vast overstatement.

DaveScot      
Quote
No difference in phenotype can be predicted based on genotype differences. See ultraconserved phenotype.

which references this article on certain worm genomes.

Analysis of the sequence revealed that major evolutionary changes in genomes do not necessarily lead to gross physical changes in the adapted organism. "C. elegans and C. briggsae diverged 80 to 120 million years ago, somewhat longer ago than human and mouse," Stein wrote.

"Comparative genomics will be a very important hypothesis-generating tool," concluded Tom Blumenthal of the University of Colorado School of Medicine, whose analysis showed the high conservation of operons. "As we look closer at the comparisons, we will have ideas about how evolution has proceeded and what forces have been at work on the genes and the genomes as a whole."

Odd that the authors of the study keep making reference to closely related organisms and the mechanisms and effects of genome evolution. In any case, DaveScot is making a vast, huge overstatement.

Date: 2007/02/14 07:39:19, Link
Author: Zachriel
O'Leary    
Quote
Modern Darwinism is about materialism - the idea that the mind is an illusion and humans are just big-brained apes.

Humans are animals. But they are not just animals. They are also placental mammals. They are also big-brained apes. But they are not just mammals and big-brained apes.

O'Leary    
Quote
Modern Darwinism is about materialism - the idea that the mind is an illusion and humans are just big-brained apes.

If someone puts a stick in your eye, the pain is hardly an "illusion", but a sensation. That's because the pain is a representation of a real event. An example of an illusion would be a phantom pain in a severed limb.

Similarly, the experience of mind may be more properly referred to as a sensation. It's not properly an illusion because it represents a real activity of the brain.

This is a semantic distinction, but an important one, I think.

Date: 2007/02/14 08:16:19, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 14 2007,08:05)
 
Quote (Ichthyic @ Feb. 13 2007,19:43)
I'm a little puzzled over primatologists previously considering this kind of tool using behavior to be likely mereley "imitation", when chimps have been shown to exhibit other complex tool using behaviors (preparing sticks for extracting termites, for example) which obviously have nothing to do with imitation.

And don't disrespect imitation. Imitation has been promoted from "a cheap behavioral trick" (relative to insight and intelligence) and is now recognized as a very sophisticated form of cognition with important implications for the evolution of human 'theory of mind.'  Unlike mimicking, imitative learning consists of reproducing the intentional actions of others, including both the end result or goal at which they are aiming and the behavior or strategy by means of which they are attempting to accomplish that goal.

Culture IS imitation.

Date: 2007/02/14 16:52:02, Link
Author: Zachriel
TRoutMac  
Quote
The way I understand it, having read Icons of Evolution, was that the similarities depicted in Haeckel’s drawings are precisely what made them fraudulent… that comparing embryos at the earliest stages across several species yielding very FEW similarities.

Try actual photographs, TRoutMac.

Three Embryos. Can you identify the species?

So, TRoutMac. You get your information from books like Icons of Evolution. Can anything jog your preexisting beliefs, your faith in sources of pseudo-science?

Date: 2007/02/14 17:12:17, Link
Author: Zachriel
DaveScot    
Quote
[CO2] isn’t harmful to health unless it becomes such a large percentage of what you’re breathing there’s not enough oxygen left ...

That is incorrect. Excessive CO2 can be a problem even in an oxygen-rich environment. The condition is called Hypercapnia. The primary metabolic problem is blood acidosis. Symtoms range from flushing and irregular heartbeat to disorientation, convulsions, unconsciousness and death. Closed environments, such as the space station, scrub the air of CO2.

DaveScot    
Quote
I’ve got plenty of friends in upstate New York where I grew up that would be pleased as punch if they saw snow only as often as they see snow in Georgia. I bet Canadians would really enjoy having much of their country turn into lush farmland with a long growing season. The “harm” from global warming is subjective.

This is a very naive view of the world. Global warming may very well turn Russia into a new grain belt while leading to desertification of the American Great Plains. Lack of snow in upstate New York may lead to new insect infestations destroying crops and carrying disease.

The key to agricultural productivity is predictability. Farmers who once raised one crop may not have the expertise, seed or equipment to raise another. And with mass migration due to crop-losses and flooding, there could be severe disruptions in food supply. And this leads to political instability and a further breakdown in the social structure.

These changes are certainly not inevitable. But DaveScot's Pollyanna view does little to help someone feed their family after years of crop failures while the global culture adjusts. Children have to eat every day.

Date: 2007/02/15 07:07:29, Link
Author: Zachriel
I have long been of the opinion that most IDers hold their position due to non-scientific biases, and that they convince themselves that they have a valid argument based on fundamental misunderstandings of basic principles of science and through a conflation of essential terminology. That's why you will often see me start with the most fundamental principles, such as the basics of classification, when having such discussions with IDers. (E.g., Teleologist has now explicitly claimed we can't classify organisms based on observed traits. I can't make him look, but now others will recognize that his eyes are shut.)

The New Kansas Science Standards Redefine “Science” thread at Uncommon Descent is a case in point. The entire thread is definitely worth a read to anyone interested in how IDers approach the issue of science.

Dembski: Indeed, try to justify the “inalienable rights” ascribed in the Declaration of Independence not in terms of a creator but in terms of “material forces.” It doesn’t work.

mike1962: Isn’t intelligence a “force?”  

Jack Kreb attempts to add some sense to the discussion.      
Quote
Nowhere in the standards does it say that science is the only way to seek explanations, or that “what we observe around us” is the only type of thing that can be studied... The standards do not mention a whole raft of concepts important to human beings: love, justice, aesthetics and so on - but that doesn’t mean that science denies their existence.


GilDodgen: This is why parents who think that their children are more than glorified chemistry are angered by the indoctrination their children receive in the public schools

JGuy: Under the new rules, can you scientifically demonstrate that the lead in my car’s battery was actually forged in a star?

Doug: you would have us believe that science is only about exterior surfaces and that we should all just sit down and shut up and listen to the experts tell us to go ahead and marry men to men and tell our kids that it doesn’t matter because the muslim religion is just as good as the one that we have here in america so don’t worry because there is no heaven anyway, unless you’re budhist or muslim, in which case there might be, but if you burn our flag, it makes you cool like all the scientists who claim that all we are is a temporary agglomeration of atoms held together with organic vegetables and defended by vegetarian hippies. You just don’t get it.

Date: 2007/02/15 09:17:48, Link
Author: Zachriel
DaveScot  
Quote
For poor little Zach on ATBC... Sorry Zach. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas too, Zach, but like CO2 it isn’t a pollutant.

Um, you misrepresented your own statement and my response. This is the exchange:

DaveScot  
Quote
[CO2] isn’t harmful to health unless it becomes such a large percentage of what you’re breathing there’s not enough oxygen left ...


Zachriel  
Quote
That is incorrect. Excessive CO2 can be a problem even in an oxygen-rich environment. The condition is called Hypercapnia. The primary metabolic problem is blood acidosis. Symtoms range from flushing and irregular heartbeat to disorientation, convulsions, unconsciousness and death. Closed environments, such as the space station, scrub the air of CO2.


You made a specific statement concerning the concentration of CO2 and its effect on health. That statement was incorrect. You compound the error by claiming that I stated that CO2 was a "pollutant". I did not. (Whether it is considered a "pollutant" depends on the definition chosen and that may depend on the environment.)

Instead of simply admitting the error, you misrepresent the exchange. It appears being seen as right is more important to you than being right.

Date: 2007/02/15 09:24:05, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (Zachriel @ Feb. 15 2007,09:17)
DaveScot    
Quote
For poor little Zach on ATBC... Sorry Zach. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas too, Zach, but like CO2 it isn’t a pollutant.

Um, you misrepresented your own statement and my response.

However, DaveScot was correct that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is not a direct threat to human health. Nevertheless, his statement was incorrect. CO2 in high concentrations is harmful regardless of the oxygen levels.

Date: 2007/02/17 08:52:14, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (steve_h @ Feb. 17 2007,06:53)
Definition of science extended to include 'Gut Feeling' at UD.
       
Quote
Let me back up a sec.. when I say science, I don’t neccessarily mean science that you only find in books or labs w/ beakers, flasks & test tubes. Here it means also the innate sense of ’science’ that I think all of us have from birth.

Of course, that belies the very reason why the scientific method was developed. It's only necessary because people's "common sense" doesn't always provide valuable insights into phenomena beyond human scale of time or space.

"Common sense" says the Earth is stationary, says there are no spaces in what appears to be solid rock; says that the Sun moves around the Earth, that mountains and organisms have always been as they are; says that clouds are the lofty realms of giants and gods; says that stars are tiny lights set against a sphere at most a few miles away, and that the intricate motions of planets among those stars must be designed.

The Scientific Method

Date: 2007/02/17 09:27:58, Link
Author: Zachriel
Joseph
Quote
I believe it was Rosenhouse who trued to sell the idea that since random number generators can generate specified complexity then Dembski’s arguments fail. He held this belief even AFTER it was pointed out that RNGs are the product of a designing agency and as such all alleged SC derived by them can be traced back to that intelligent agency.

Joseph didn't provide a cite, but naturally occurring random numbers (such as from quantum effects or white noise) can be used rather than computer-generated pseudo-random number generators. Evolutionary algorithms work just as well at generating specified complexity. The order is imposed by the selection criteria — which is rather the point.

Date: 2007/02/17 09:38:53, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 17 2007,09:23)
DaveScot can't keep his bears straight: [quote]

DaveScot      
Quote
The earth and life on the earth is accustomed to these warming/cooling cycles and if we knew as much as we think we know we’d probably know that not only is the ecosphere adapted to these cycles, these cycles are needed for optimum long term health of the ecosphere and biodiversity just like forest ecosystems need regular forest fires for optimum health and biodiversity.

I'm not sure DaveScot really understands the problem of global climate change. It may or may not matter to the long-term viability of bacteria or cockroaches, if climate change causes widespread disaster in human and North American bear populations. I suppose it depends on your priorities.

Oh, and Yogi Bear Smokey Bear was right. Uncontrolled forest fires are not a good thing for bears, people or trees.


http://www.smokeybear.com/

Date: 2007/02/17 10:07:19, Link
Author: Zachriel
tribune7  
Quote
Once upon a time, it was thought the coelacanth had not existed for hundreds of millions of years. Would Shermer disbelieve Darwinian evolution if he found living trilobite?

A living trilobite would be very unlikely, but would not violate the nested hierarchy. However, human remains found in undisturbed strata associated with trilobites would indicate that humans predated their posited ancestor. That would violate the nested hierarchy, so either the phylogenetic tree is seriously wrong or the entire concept of descent leading to humans is wrong. All the evidence, including thousands of fossils, supports common descent of humans with other mammals.

Date: 2007/02/17 10:41:03, Link
Author: Zachriel
scordova        
Quote
Why then over 100,000,000 years is 600 some meters of continent not fully eroded into the sea? ... It does not immediately argue for a young earth, but it puts into doubt why there should be a geological column strata in the first place.

Gee. I wonder why geologists haven't consider erosion in their theories. I don't suppose geologists have ever written in their journals about the subject. No reason to look, I suppose. Hmm. I wonder how sedimentary rocks form, or how they explain river channels. By Golly! I think you're on to something there. Maybe a new geological paradigm! Now, all you have to do is actually look at some rocks.

scordova        
Quote
We have found evidence of lush fossil forests in Antartica. Why is that??? Was antartica a warm place once upon a time and then we had global cooling?

Um, try plate tectonics and Gondwana.

scordova        
Quote
What sort of fossils will we find?

You already indicated lush forests. How about dinosaurs? Do you think maybe we can use the geological sciences to support the biogeographical distribution of species over eons of time? Just a thought.

scordova        
Quote
That would be a good place to find pre-cambrian rabbits.

Good luck with that. Let us know how it turns out.

Date: 2007/02/17 11:03:27, Link
Author: Zachriel
Or you could take a hike local to your area, examine the geologic column, and verify the maps of geologists, such as those of William Smith — perhaps even finding a few common fossils.

The Scientific Method: It is the repeatability of scientific observations that allows us to have confidence in our conclusions.

Date: 2007/02/17 11:08:30, Link
Author: Zachriel
scordova
Quote
Even a master playwright like Shakespeare will design deeply flawed characters for the ultimate purpose of his story. In like manner, the Divine drama might be filled with “bad designs” for a reason.

That's all well and good for an analogy or a metaphysics, but that does nothing to change your basic misunderstanding of the scientific conclusions and how science has reached those conclusions. Whether the Earth is 6000 years old or not, the scientific evidence emphatically indicates otherwise.

Date: 2007/02/17 11:20:31, Link
Author: Zachriel
DaveScot  
Quote
Yogi Bear typified the era of 100% fire suppression.

Yogi Bear typified the era of Don't feed the Bears!

DaveScot  
Quote
The result of that was a buildup of fuel until the forests were tinderboxes ready to explode in catastrophic, uncontrollable fires of epic proportion. So actually, yeah, in hindsight it would have been better if people weren’t quite so careful.

No. DaveScot, it wouldn't be reasonable to allow people to carelessly set fires in crowded parks full of Boy Scouts. (Why do I have an image in my mind of paunchy, middle-aged drunks on a fishing expedition building a bonfire?) In nature, fires are typically set by lightning. But with the burgeoning human population, fires have become more and more of a problem. Forest management is the key to continued coexistence. Hence, Smokey Bear and prudent measures to control the outbreak of fire.

Date: 2007/02/17 17:01:53, Link
Author: Zachriel
franky172      
Quote
Scientific statements must make testable predictions

Joseph      
Quote
Do you have a citation that supports that premise?

To me a scientific statement is one borne from years of scientific research.

Yeah, franky 1-7-2. What were you thinking!? Just look in the Websters.
scientific method: principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.
hypothesis, a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences.

Well, then try the Britannica.

hypothetico-deductive method: procedure for the construction of a scientific theory that will account for results obtained through direct observation and experimentation and that will, through inference, predict further effects that can then be verified or disproved by empirical evidence derived from other experiments. Developed by Sir Isaac Newton during the late 17th century ...

Well, what does he know!? He's dead!

Date: 2007/02/18 07:29:19, Link
Author: Zachriel
DaveScot                  
Quote
the earth hasn’t been heating or cooling on average, some places are heating and some are cooling.

You have been lied to. Big time.

In order to support this assertion, he links to a study published by the Journal of Geophysical Research,  
Quote
Control of fossil-fuel particulate black carbon and organic matter, possibly the most effective method of slowing global warming
.
And then quotes from the Environmental Literacy Council,            
Quote
Studies continue to indicate that soot is a likely factor in climate change. In 2003, a computer simulation done by NASA suggested that black soot may be responsible for up to 25 percent of the observed global warming over the past century.

He adds,          
Quote

This page was last updated on November 14, 2006. ONLY RECENTLY. Translation: you haven’t heard about it yet because it’s embarrassing as #### that no one figured this out before and you’ll have to pry our broken C02 model out of our cold dead fingers.

The reason DaveScot may have missed the original study is because they hid this well-cited NASA paper in a secret publication, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Meanwhile, the study was a NASA featured "Top Story" in 2003. The authors of the NASA study note,
Quote
However, soot contributions to climate change do not alter the conclusion that anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been the main cause of recent global warming and will be the predominant climate forcing in the future.

It's all a Darwinist conspiracy.

Date: 2007/02/18 07:34:49, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (Alan Fox @ Feb. 18 2007,06:39)
I hope so, Deadman. This comment by Dave shows he is aware of the momentous nature of his research.

DaveScot  
Quote
Pretty incredible. I take one look at the real satellite temperature data instead of the pencil whipped crap that’s foisted upon the public and in a few hours figure out the real cause of global warming and then find the studies that confirm my suspicions. Gawd I’m good.

No need for those fancy computer models. Saves all that money on supercomputers. So, he's helping bring down the U.S. budget deficit, too.

Gaawwd, he's legendary.

Date: 2007/02/18 08:04:59, Link
Author: Zachriel
gpuccio        
Quote
Do you think that he chance of a monkey randomly producing Shakespeare’s works on a keybord may be increased if you add a key which, instead of typing a new character, just “moves” randomly a set of alredy written characters to another point?

Funny you should mention that.    
Quote
Zachriel's Phrase Mutation and Evolution Experiment
Though this be madness, yet there is method in ’t.
http://www.zachriel.com/phrasenation/

And yes, the chances do increase dramatically. That's because English is made up of often reused components; word-parts, prefixes, suffixes, Latin derivatives, common words and phrases. Recombination allows the rapid trial of these previously evolved components to create novelty.

gpuccio        
Quote
I think that the equivalence of all random manipolations should be easy to demonstrate mathematically, although I cannot do that.

As you don't know the mathematics, and your intuition is incorrect, shouldn't you be somewhat restrained in drawing conclusions?

Date: 2007/02/18 10:54:02, Link
Author: Zachriel
DaveScot          
Quote
4) CFC (0.3), ozone (0.4), and black soot on snow (0.8) perfectly account for the observed regional patterns of warming for, according to Hansen 2005, a total forcing of 1.5 from these factors.

Hansen 2005? DaveScot must mean this study:

Earth's Energy Imbalance: Confirmation and Implications          
Quote
Our climate model, driven mainly by increasing human-made greenhouse gases and aerosols among other forcings, calculates that Earth is now absorbing 0.85 ± 0.15 W/m2 more energy from the Sun than it is emitting to space.

And this Hansen:

Answers About the Earth's Energy Imbalance by James E. Hansen, Director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies          
Quote
This is the ‘smoking gun’ that we have been looking for (with regard to identifying the human role in causing global warming). There can no longer be genuine doubt that human-made gases are the dominant cause of observed warming.


------------
Addendum: DaveScot provides a link to my comment here.      
Quote
Peanut gallery contributor Zach posts a link to an article by Hansen which concludes the earth is absorbing 0.85 +- 0.15w/m^2 more energy than it is radiating back out into space.  

Not just "an article", but "the article" that DaveScot cited. According to Hansen's research, whom DaveScot references as a basis for his argument, "human-made gases are the dominant cause of observed warming". This indicates that 1. The earth is observed to be warming. 2. That humans are the main reason why the Earth is warming. Also, Hansen determined that there is a "likelihood of acceleration of ice sheet disintegration and sea level rise".

DaveScot      
Quote
So where is all that excess 0.85w/m^2 going? It’s going to turn ice at 0 degrees C into water at 0 degrees C and after that it can drive evaporation turning warm water into warm water vapor, all the while not driving up the temperature of the earth as a whole because the energy is simply being stored as chemical and kinetic energy.

And the ice is melting, too. I'm so glad that's settled.

Date: 2007/02/18 19:07:15, Link
Author: Zachriel
DaveScot    
Quote
Both are moderated (no big surprise, all the good sites are). Let’s see if they approve the comment and respond to it.

DaveScot    
Quote
realclimate.org has so far refused to approve my comment showing huge discrepancy between Hansen and IPCC in black carbon forcing. If they ignore it then I’ll just spin that into a main entry accusing them of a coverup. Heads I win, tails they lose. [shrug]

Oops. Forgot the other option: They approve your comment and explain why you're wrong. I note they were kind enough to include DaveScot's link back to Uncommon Descent for its "fascinating" content.

But what of what you know
that simply isn't true?

Date: 2007/02/19 06:35:40, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (Zachriel @ Feb. 18 2007,10:54)

Addendum: DaveScot provides a link to my comment here.            
Quote
Peanut gallery contributor Zach posts a link to an article by Hansen which concludes the earth is absorbing 0.85 +- 0.15w/m^2 more energy than it is radiating back out into space.

Not just "an article", but "the article" that DaveScot cited. According to Hansen's research, whom DaveScot references as a basis for his argument, "human-made gases are the dominant cause of observed warming". This indicates that 1. The earth is observed to be warming. 2. That humans are the main reason why the Earth is warming. Also, Hansen determined that there is a "likelihood of acceleration of ice sheet disintegration and sea level rise".

DaveScot            
Quote
So where is all that excess 0.85w/m^2 going? It’s going to turn ice at 0 degrees C into water at 0 degrees C and after that it can drive evaporation turning warm water into warm water vapor, all the while not driving up the temperature of the earth as a whole because the energy is simply being stored as chemical and kinetic energy.

And the ice is melting, too. I'm so glad that's settled.

I attached this Addendum to my original comment.

Date: 2007/02/19 13:58:21, Link
Author: Zachriel
jerry    
Quote
Evolution is a 4 tier theory.
The first tier is the origin of life or how did a cell and DNA, RNA and proteins arise.

The Theory of Evolution makes no claim concerning the origin of life, but abiogenesis is an active field of study in science and some sort of unification with evolutionary theory is plausible. All aspects of extant life can be shown to be due to biochemical activities, billions of years ago life did not exist on Earth, then once it appeared, it evolved and diversified.

jerry    
Quote
The second tier is how did a one cell organism form multi-cell organisms and this include how did such complex organisms as the eye arise as these multi-cell organisms arose... Also most of these systems must have developed before the Cambrian Explosion so there is relatively little geological time for these complexities to have developed.

Life existed for billions of years before the Cambrian Explosion. I guess it depends on what you mean by "little".

Date: 2007/02/19 14:35:01, Link
Author: Zachriel
GilDodgen
Quote
It is interesting that anti-IDers usually defend things that ID theory doesn’t challenge or place much importance on (that “evolution” has occurred, common ancestry, antibiotic resistance, etc.) in an attempt to refute ID.

Um, that is simply not true. Common descent is often disputed and rarely admitted. Much of the evidence for evolution is found in the divergence of organisms from common ancestral populations, so establishing the long evolutionary history of life is essential to any reasonable discourse on mechanisms.

If ID doesn't place much importance on one of the most profound facts in biology, that humans and apes and fish share common ancestors, then ID is vacuous.

Date: 2007/02/20 04:50:27, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 19 2007,19:08)
 
Quote (Zachriel @ Feb. 19 2007,14:58)
jerry        
Quote
Also most of these systems must have developed before the Cambrian Explosion so there is relatively little geological time for these complexities to have developed.

Geological time before the Cambrian Explosion: 4 billion years
Geological time since the Cambrian Explosion: 0.5 billion years

Megascopic Multicellular Organisms from the 1700-Million-Year-Old Tuanshanzi Formation

Fossil Evidence Of Worms Over One Billion Years Old

Date: 2007/02/20 04:54:14, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (Alan Fox @ Feb. 20 2007,01:52)
 
Quote
The goal of the Intelligent Design Movement is to achieve an open philosophy of science that permits consideration of any explanations toward which the evidence may be pointing. This is different from the current restrictive philosophy that rules out of consideration the possibility that a creator may be responsible for our existence, even if the evidence is pointing in that general direction.
Retired lawyer, Phillip Johnson

But no-one is objecting to Intelligent Design as philosophy. Science is restricted by not being equipped to detect or measure the supernatural.

Intelligent Design makes a claim to scientific validity. As such, it is false. (Perhaps you mean Deism or Pantheism.)

Date: 2007/02/20 05:00:49, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (steve_h @ Feb. 19 2007,15:26)
 
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 19 2007,13:41)
DS continues his solitary rant:
         
Quote
blah blah blah...So where is all that excess 0.85w/m^2 going? It’s going to turn ice at 0 degrees C into water at 0 degrees C and after that it can drive evaporation turning warm water into warm water vapor, all the while not driving up the temperature of the earth as a whole because the energy is simply being stored as chemical and kinetic energy.

If this was where all that excess energy was being stored what would the symptoms look like, Zach?

<snipped symptoms of born again kookiness>
Those would be the symptoms.

But at least we don't have to worry about the increased temperature melting the ice caps, causing desertification and playing havoc with the weather. All the incoming energy (which is another word for temperature, IIRC) will be simply be lost turning ice into water and water into vapour and dumped into a more energetic atmosphere.

Not quite. Temperature is related to energy. Roughly speaking, temperature is the average kinetic energy of molecules. However, you are right that DaveScot answers his own question. The Earth is heating. The climate is changing. The ice is melting. The sea levels are rising. And human technological activities are a significant factor in these changes.

Date: 2007/02/20 11:13:45, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (steve_h @ Feb. 20 2007,09:21)
 
Quote (Zachriel @ Feb. 20 2007,12:00)
Not quite. Temperature is related to energy. Roughly speaking, temperature is the average kinetic energy of molecules. However, you are right that DaveScot answers his own question. The Earth is heating. The climate is changing. The ice is melting. The sea levels are rising. And human technological activities are a significant factor in these changes.

I wasn't being entirely serious. It was a reference to
DaveScot insisting that (other) people check their facts before posting.

     
Quote
I’m guilty of taking it for granted that people in a discussion such as this know that the energy in photons is measured by degrees Kelvin. And of course degrees Kelvin is a measure of temperature and temperature is synonymous with heat. Next time you decide to be argumentative I suggest you do a better job of it. -ds

I stand un- re- anti- corrected. Next time I'll try to remember to check my non- un- pseudo- facts before posting.

Date: 2007/02/20 11:33:49, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (2ndclass @ Feb. 20 2007,11:02)
   
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 19 2007,13:22)
     
Quote
Fox’s blog has no google rank


The URL http://alanfox.blogspot.com/index.html has a google pagerank of 2 of 10.

Searching for "A place where IDers and Darwinists" brings up Alan's blog as the 1st result as it is part of the intro text. There are lots of other hits to pandasthumb, UD, all sorts. Searching with quotes brings up Alan's blog only.

And if you google "entropy on the earth decreases where intelligent agency is operating", you find the real reason that Dave won't participate on an unmoderated discussion.  He simply can't survive on a level playing field.

Alan's blog has demonstrated quite well that the IDers with the most bluster (DaveScot, Joe G) are also the biggest cowards.

Wow! That's quite a thread on Alan's Neutral Venue. Even has a great title, Gravity is the strongest force. I remember when DaveScot made that comment. But that's not as ridiculous as when he said, "Intelligence can violate 2LOT. In fact I just did it again by writing this comment!"

Date: 2007/02/20 13:24:47, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (2ndclass @ Feb. 20 2007,13:17)
Joseph pontificates on CSI:      
Quote
CSI can be understood as the convergence of physical information, for example the hardware of a computer and conceptual information, for example the software that allows the computer to perform a function, such as an operating system with application programs.

So a computer sans software is not CSI.  Likewise, software sans computer is not CSI.  But you put them together and you get CSI!  Brilliant!

My 2LoT is a little, um, rusty; but I think you have to take the square root of what Joseph said.

Date: 2007/02/20 13:34:37, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (Alan Fox @ Feb. 20 2007,10:52)
 
Quote
Intelligent Design makes a claim to scientific validity. As such, it is false. (Perhaps you mean Deism or Pantheism.)


No, Zachriel, though thanks for suggesting an escape.I meant philosophy. But, not being a philosopher, I should rephrase and say I was unaware that philosophers had declared that Intelligent Design is not philosophy, and as I tend to agree with Lenny's oft repeated remark of Marx and Engels that "philosophy is to real life as masturbation is to sexual intercourse" I am not sure it matters. Keeping an eye on those who were using ID as a vehicle for political objectives (unsuccessfully as it turned out) and being ready to counter them would be more productive.

Intelligent Design™ makes false scientific claims. I suppose it could be recast as philosophy without the scientific pretensions, but then I think it would be given another name. Are we having a semantic quibble? How would you define Intelligent Design?

Date: 2007/02/20 13:40:22, Link
Author: Zachriel
Alan, I withdraw my comment. I reread what you wrote in response to Phillip Johnson's remarks and I think I understand the gist of your post.

Date: 2007/02/20 15:18:00, Link
Author: Zachriel
Atom    
Quote
Specification deals with algorithmic complexity theory and compression

Algorithmic complexity as used here is probably a corruption of Kolmogorov Complexity (with specification being the inverse relation). The problem is that Kolmogorov complexity must be defined in terms of a specific description language, e.g. a Turing Machine. Importantly, Kolmogorov Complexity is an uncomputable function.

Atom    
Quote
Specification patterns “tap into” our background knowledge, making use of ideas we already have.

This is the tip-off. Specification is being defined in terms of what people know or expect. The entire argument is circular and specious. Great_ape asks,
   
Quote
how does one formalize and enumerate the notion of “ideas we already have”? That seems like an inherently hazy endeavor.

Date: 2007/02/20 15:36:42, Link
Author: Zachriel
Atom
Quote
Dembski uses the english language as well as his restricted pattern set, describing the BacFlag as a bi-directional rotary motor (or some similar phrase.)

So, just about everything nameable is specified. White noise is specified.

Atom
Quote
Sewell actually does enumerate the set you’re seeking, defining it (implicitly) as grammatically correct english descriptions of 1000 words or less.

The problem is that there is no way to look at a sequence and always know its shortest description. It may look completely random, but turn out to be easily specified. As we don't know the shortest possible description, there is no reason to limit ourselves to a certain number of words.

Another problem is the ambiguity inherent in the English language. White noise is all the same, but all different, too.

Date: 2007/02/20 16:52:12, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (Alan Fox @ Feb. 20 2007,16:44)
DaveScot's latest thread seems to conflict with some of his earlier comments, for instance  here and here.

I can't imagine why you would remember that.

DaveScot (then) 
Quote
Alan Fox is no longer with us. His email to Rieseberg said his finding were being used to dispute evolution. I have never disputed evolution (only the role of chance) and didn’t use Riesberg’s article to do anything other than dispute trrll’s assertion that evolution is unrepeatable.

DaveScot (now) 
Quote
There Is No Theory of Evolution: The major claims of evolution are the creation of novel cell types, tissue types, organs, and body plans. These are required to get from bacteria to baboons. No evolution of these by any means has been observed.

Date: 2007/02/21 06:54:23, Link
Author: Zachriel
bFast    
Quote
Firstly, we need to understand Shannon a bit. It is my understanding that (s)he works for AT&T (or some other phone company.) ... However, Shannon was never attempting to define information, but was attempting to detect information by establishing a detectable characteristic of the information.

Shannon, the Isaac Newton Father of Information Theory, did something far more important. He provided a *measure*.

I have read that thread several times, and they slip and float between the various definitions of information. They have yet to provide a valid measure of CSI, Complex Specified Information. The best I can figure is that 1) "Complex" means low compressibility in some unspecified description language (sorta-Kolmogorov-complex). 2) "Specified" means conforming to some external pattern in the mind of the beholder. 3) "Information" is possibly Shannon Information, except when it's not, then it's apparently the signature of God the Intelligent Designer.

Date: 2007/02/21 07:17:53, Link
Author: Zachriel
Joseph
Quote
That is because A) One must demonstrate what the ORIGINAL function was and B) One must show that the original function was NOT present in the original population in question.

Ostrich wings.

Joseph
Quote
The human appendix is a prime example- first one must demonstrate what its original function was and then one must show that the that function was NOT present in the original humans.

The appendix is the evolutionary remnant of the cellulose-digesting apparatus of herbivorous mammals. Humans don't digest cellulose.

Date: 2007/02/21 09:54:57, Link
Author: Zachriel
gpuccio  
Quote
Maybe Demski’s theories don’t explain everything, maybe they are sometimes incomplete or evolving, but the objection that many critics express, that his views are rather isolated in the field of information theory, is in my opinion just a demonstration of his greatness...


"Isolated in the field of information theory"? I checked the Information Theory Society and some its journals. There an awful lot about Claude Shannon, but I can't find any mention of Dembski or CSI. Rather, Dembski seems to be isolated outside of, and has had little or no influence on, the field of information theory.

Date: 2007/02/21 11:26:10, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 20 2007,15:47)
Zach, you're unique. Just like everbody else.

Gosh! I feel so special (in an ordinary sort of way).

Date: 2007/02/21 12:13:38, Link
Author: Zachriel
sagebrush gardener    
Quote
All biology research is ID research, and it is making NDE look more ridiculous every day.

Here's some research journals and recent articles.

Evolution: International Journal of Organic Evolution, the premier publication devoted to the study of organic evolution and the integration of the various fields of science concerned with evolution.
* Evolution of Resistance Characteristics
* Evolution of Colorful Display
* Evolution of Mating System
* Rates of Molecular Evolution
* Effects on Evolution on Mutational Robustness
* Role Selection vs. Chance

Biological Journal of the Linnean Society: A Journal of Evolution, a direct descendant of the oldest biological journal in the world, which published the epoch-making papers on evolution by Darwin and Wallace.
* Habitat Specific Rates of Evolution
* Signal Evolution in Lizards
* Patterns of Morphological Evolution
* Evolution in Hummingbirds
* Genome Evolution in Allotetraploid
* Polyploidy in Cotton
* Evolution of Adhesive Mechanisms in Spider Thread
* Evolution of Sexual Dimorphism in Plants

Date: 2007/02/21 20:38:48, Link
Author: Zachriel
Someone got DaveScot really, really angry.

Date: 2007/02/21 20:49:10, Link
Author: Zachriel
Meanwhile, DaveScot rewords my question and still gets the answer wrong.

Zachriel asks: What animal commonly found in a house weighs 150 pounds?

Zachriel as reworded by DaveScot: "What animal in the house commonly weighs 150 pounds?"

DaveScot: "Large breed dogs. Any other stupid questions I can answer for you in less than 30 seconds, Zach?"

Dogs can certainly weigh 150 lbs., but among dogs they are not common (DaveScot's rewording); and among animals found in houses, they are not common (original question) — especially when compared to other mammals found even more frequently in houses.

PZ does suggest that he has a pet kangaroo that weights ~150 lbs., but it is somewhat rare that people allow them in the house.

Date: 2007/02/21 21:50:00, Link
Author: Zachriel
shaner74    
Quote
This PZ has got some b*lls for talking the way he does. Who the #### made him god of science? What has he published, anyway?

I think PZ is an atheist, so he probably wouldn't think he was a god. But he is a professor at the University of Minnesota, so a lot of people may confuse him with one. He also seems to have an inordinate interest in embryonic Danio rerio (Zebra fish) and has published in a variety of peer journals, including Nature, Neuroscience, Comparative Neurology, Computer Methods & Programs in Biomedicine, and Heredity.

Those darn scientists — always studying stuff.

Date: 2007/02/22 06:42:11, Link
Author: Zachriel
gpuccio        
Quote
Let’s suppose that we observe only one sequence, and that it is composed of 500 ones. Then:

A random sequence such as 11111 is just as rare as 10010 or 11000. The reason why a long string of 1's is a suspicion of design is because we know the general properties of coins and that humans have a predilection for order. However, atoms are not coins. A salt crystal is the equivalent of all 1's. Other atoms naturally arrange themselves into all sorts of complex structures.

gpuccio        
Quote
This is in fact the basis for pointing out why though it is logically and physically possible for the molecules of oxygen in a room to all rush to one end, without intelligent intervention etc, it is so maximally improbable that the relevant fluctuations on that scale are simply not observed.

Not at all — e.g., if the "room" is highly accelerated or in a strong gravitational field. We call the latter an "atmosphere".

gpuccio        
Quote
suppose you have to bet real money…

Then you would be easy to take. Just for fun, here are some decimal digits. Are they specified or random? If you can't find a specification, does that "make them random"?

9380952572010654858632788
6593615338182796823030195
2035301852968995773622599
4138912497217752834791315

How about these?

02100333122220202011220300203103

Date: 2007/02/22 07:01:14, Link
Author: Zachriel
O'Leary          
Quote
From moderator Denyse ... This is your first warning from me, realpc.

I don't even wholly agree with realpc, but Gee Willikers.

realpc          
Quote
Evolutionary psychology is NOT based on Darwin’s theory of evolution, but on evolution theory in general.

I'm not sure that realpc has made a clear distinction, but evolutionary psychology is based on the biological and evolutionary origins of behavior, including common descent and selection. Darwin discussed the evolution of instinct in Origin of Species.

O'Leary          
Quote
If the number of common ancestors is small in relation to the whole population - as we are assured is a common situation - averages regarding behaviour cannot be used as a predictor of selective action - any more than you can call the next US election by finding out how your repair man plans to vote.

Bad example. We can reasonably predict the behavior of millions of voters by sampling just a few hundred. In any case, ancestral populations may or may not be large. Some behaviors are clearly instinctual and variations in instinctual behavior can be observed.

Date: 2007/02/22 08:54:07, Link
Author: Zachriel
PaV  
Quote
Here’s a definition of “specificiation” in plain English: “The right-ordering of a complex, highly improbable object.”

jerry  
Quote
What does “right-ordering” mean?

PaV  
Quote
“Right-ordering” means that the relationship among the various parts form the correct pattern.

No circularity here.

Date: 2007/02/22 10:42:17, Link
Author: Zachriel
franky172
Quote
That the tree of life is “messy” at the bottom lends credence to the notion that horizontal gene transfer played a much more significant role in pre-cellular life than was previously thought. In fact, it appears that the basics of inheritance and genetics as originally understood by Mendel et al. do not follow standard assumptions at these pre-biotic levels.

Patrick
Quote
1. Darwinism is true.
2. The data doesn’t correspond to our expectations.
3. Thus HGT MUST be capable of rendering the picture we see.

Let me help you.
1. Mendelian genetics is a theory of inheritance that applies broadly in biology
2. The data concerning the evolutionary origin of cellular life contradicts the expectations of Mendelian genetics.
3. In light of the evidence, we must modify genetic theory to account for the observations.

Date: 2007/02/22 15:52:25, Link
Author: Zachriel
1of63  
Quote
We have an observed process. It works for domesticated animals, why not for wild ones?

DaveScot  
Quote
We have also observed that in all cases where we can determine the origin of a machine its design sprang from the mind of an intelligent being.

Argument from ignorance. The less you know, the more solid your conclusion appears. In fact, there are many complex "machines" in non-living nature. Some such phenomena were once attributed to gods.

Natural selection can be *observed* to work in a like manner to artificial selection. Natural variations within a population are selected leading to change in the population over time. Novel variations can be *observed* to occur even in pure-bred populations, which are then also subject to selection.

Date: 2007/02/22 16:11:47, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (jeannot @ Feb. 22 2007,15:39)
     
Quote (Zachriel @ Feb. 22 2007,10:42)
franky172            
Quote
That the tree of life is “messy” at the bottom lends credence to the notion that horizontal gene transfer played a much more significant role in pre-cellular life than was previously thought.

When an where did those early and massive horizontal gene transfers happened?

AFAIK, the three empires (Archea, Bacteria and Eukaryotes) are clearly delimited using the data from 16S rRNA genes. Why should we suppose some HGT? Are there some discrepancies with phylogenies relying on other sequences?
The ancestors of LUCA can't be known, and if some HGT occurred before the split, we can't detect them, unless I'm completely mistaken.

Help me, Zach.

EDIT: OK I found some links.

The Three Domain Hypothesis has been under stress for quite some time, starting with mitochondrial resemblance to symbiotic bacteria.

Here's the traditional view:


Here's the modern view:


Note that animals still spring from a single limb, as do eukaryotes, more-or-less. (From Larry Moran's blog.)

Date: 2007/02/22 17:10:17, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (Zachriel @ Feb. 22 2007,16:11)
The Three Domain Hypothesis has been under stress for quite some time, starting with mitochondrial resemblance to symbiotic bacteria.

There's still a lot of uncertainty — and undoubtedly more surprises still to come. Remember, scientists are trying to reconstruct events from billions of years ago based only on very fragmentary evidence. Genomics is still in its infancy.

Date: 2007/02/22 20:21:08, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (Zachriel @ Feb. 22 2007,16:11)
Note that animals still spring from a single limb, as do eukaryotes, more-or-less.

There is still a great deal of uncertainty in resolving these questions, and there will undoubtedly be many surprises. Scientists are attempting to reconstruct, from very fragmentary evidence, events that occurred billions of years ago. Genomics and computational biology are still in their infancy.

Date: 2007/02/22 20:35:41, Link
Author: Zachriel
DaveScot uses the tried and true Appeal to Mockery.  
Quote
The New and Improved Tree of Life ... This is your brain on NeoDarwinism: ... This is your brain on NeoNePlusUltraDarwinism ...

And here I thought that ID was "ok" with common descent and that NeoDarwinism had to do with mechanisms.

Date: 2007/02/22 20:57:49, Link
Author: Zachriel
Jared White    
Quote
That’s a tree?

Actually, the diagram indicates it's a "tree" (with scare-quotes). The nested hierarchy, and hence common descent, may not properly apply at the base of the phylogenetic tree, and probably even less so closer to the origin of life.

As an example, the long bar crossing from bacteria to the base of eukaryotes labeled, "Bacteria that gave rise to mitochondria". Mitochondria have DNA more resembling bacteria than nuclear DNA, have more than one membrane with the inner one resembling a bacterial membrane, and mitochondria replicate by a process of binary fission much like bacteria. Detailed investigation strongly supports the assertion that they are endosymbiots.

Addendum: Carl R. Woese, On the evolution of cells
Quote
Aboriginal cell designs are taken to be simple and loosely organized enough that all cellular componentry can be altered and/or displaced through HGT [Horizontal Gene Transfer], making HGT the principal driving force in early cellular evolution... As a cell design becomes more complex and interconnected a critical point is reached where a more integrated cellular organization emerges, and vertically generated novelty can and does assume greater importance.

Date: 2007/02/23 06:55:47, Link
Author: Zachriel
DaveScot    
Quote
Does horizontal gene transfer, a mechanism known to be in operation today, invalidate common descent? If it does, I missed that memo somehow.

It limits the relevance of the Theory of Common Descent to within the three domains (and even then with known exceptions).

DaveScot    
Quote
Keep in mind there is no theory of evolution. There are only hypotheses of evolution.

As the Theory of Common Descent is part-and-parcel of the Theory of Evolution, and as you accept the Theory of Common Descent, you are clearly inconsistent.

gpuccio    
Quote
HGT is an interesting mechanism, but it is well documented only in prokaryotes (bacteria and archea), while it is very doubtful that it may have any relevance in higher forms of life.

Endogenous retroviruses are well-documented viral invasions of metazoan genomes. Also mitochondria in Eukaryotes, and plastids such as chloroplasts in plants.

gpuccio    
Quote
As already discussed elsewhere in this blog, anyway, HGT can never be a source of new information, only a way to “mix it up”.

Different mixtures represent information.

gpuccio    
Quote
Homology is evidence of common ancestry and non-intelligent evolution: that’s the usual neo-darwinist view, and it is certainly false.

Homology is primarily evidence of common descent. However, a close look at that evidence indicates the ad hoc and incremental nature of adaptation.

gpuccio    
Quote
It is evidence of reutilization of the code, but not of direct modifications of already existing beings.

Within observational limits, new organisms are modifications of existing organisms, with new adaptations being modifications of existing adaptations. Somes lineages are very well documented and Common descent is strongly supported back to the origin of Eukaryotes. And before that, there is substantial evidence of endogeny.

Date: 2007/02/23 07:18:20, Link
Author: Zachriel
Jehu          
Quote
“Type II topoisomerase cuts both strands, and passes an unbroken double strand through it then reanneals the cut strand.” ... I would venture to guess that the chance mutation of this function is outside the universal probability bound.

Though it can be difficult to unravel the evolution of molecules with such long pedigrees, you're in luck today. Notice the Roman number II on "Type II topoisomerase". It's one of a *family* of related molecules, as would be expected from an evolutionary history. But taking a bit closer look,

Crystal structure of NaeI—an evolutionary bridge between DNA endonuclease and topoisomerase: The crystal structure of NaeI at 2.3 A; resolution shows two domains, the Endo and Topo domains, which contain two structural motifs resembling the active site of restriction endonuclease and CAP DNA recognition. Structure-based sequence alignment demonstrated that the Endo domain of NaeI possesses a conserved core motif and catalytic residues in common with the other restriction endonucleases and with repair nucleases MutH, Vsr and m-exonuclease. This suggests a common evolutionary origin of these nucleases.

Of course, if this wasn't already known, you could claim it was a Gap in science. So everything else evolved — except Type II topoisomerase.

Arguments about the so-called Universal Probability Bound always degenerate into a claim that the molecule spontaneously assembled de novo. Of course, the Theory of Evolution posits quite the contrary position, that new adaptations are modifications of existing adaptations, and makes specific *empirical predictions* that are subject to verification. And when Qing Huai et. al. took a bit closer look, that's what they found.

Date: 2007/02/23 10:10:42, Link
Author: Zachriel
Joseph        
Quote
Science tells me otherwise. Ya see NH is a mental construct based on characteristic traits.

Word salad. The nested hierarchy is a pattern, just like elliptical orbits and the Fibonacci series are patterns. Their scientific relevance depends on their fit to observational data.

Joseph        
Quote
We have populations A, B, C, D (possessing unique character traits 1 2 3 4 5 6 7). They are all nested under hypothetical population Z...

A- 124
B- 25
C- 36
D- 137

(Oops B & C lost 1)

Amazingly, Joseph demonstrates (with a rather contrived example) that when mutating a third of a genome each generation, after a few such generations, common descent is hard to reconstruct from the descendents. (Please note that he states that they are nested by hereditary relationship.)

Nest of Letters, not just a family resemblance
http://www.zachriel.com/nested/

Joseph        
Quote
And if testable and falsifiable predictions are a requirement then the ToE is not science and doesn’t make any scientific statements.

The Theory of Evolution makes all sorts of empirical predictions, including that Type II topoisomerase will be one of a family of related nucleases, rather than something sprung fully armored formed without precursors from the head of Zeus mind of God the Intelligent Designer.



Joseph        
Quote
But I still say you are confusing a scientific statement with a scientific theory.

A scientific statement is an assertion that makes a verifiable claim about empirical evidence, typically including conditional clauses. It can be anything from a strongly supported scientific law, a statement of an order or relation of phenomena that so far as is known is invariable under the given conditions; to a hypothesis, a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences. A scientific theory is a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena, and is usually comprised of a number of related scientific assertions.

Date: 2007/02/23 10:32:03, Link
Author: Zachriel
Joseph  
Quote
“Species” is pretty ambiguous now. If we use the breeding criteria then there are some humans that may be called a different species than other humans.

Huh?? There is substantial gene-flow throughout human populations, and no reproductive barriers between even the most distantly related.

You need to get out more.

Date: 2007/02/23 14:19:54, Link
Author: Zachriel
gpuccio      
Quote
Another point: the presence of CSI implies the inference of an agent only if no know natural law can explain that pattern. In other words, we have to be able to exclude necessity, at the best of our knowledge. CSI only excludes chance.

And so the less we know, the more reliably we will reach the conclusion of an Intelligent Designer. If we don't know what causes the intricate movement of planets, it must be angels an Intelligent Designer. If we don't know what causes disease, it must be demons an Intelligent Designer. If we don't know what causes lightning, it must be an angry sky-god Intelligent Designer. And if we unreasonably reject the central tenets of the modern biological sciences, then it must be God-of-the-Gaps an unknown and unknowable (and we certainly can't say his name even if we know who it is {wink, wink} ) Intelligent Designer.

Date: 2007/02/23 14:29:28, Link
Author: Zachriel
tribune7  
Quote
Name one thing that has complex, specfic information that is not known to be designed.

angryoldfatman  
Quote
DNA!

Precisely. (And perfectly exposes the Petitio Principii inherent in the ID argument.)

Date: 2007/02/24 08:55:24, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (jeannot @ Feb. 23 2007,15:00)
     
Quote (Zachriel @ Feb. 22 2007,17:10)
       
Quote (Zachriel @ Feb. 22 2007,16:11)
The Three Domain Hypothesis has been under stress for quite some time, starting with mitochondrial resemblance to symbiotic bacteria.

There's still a lot of uncertainty — and undoubtedly more surprises still to come. Remember, scientists are trying to reconstruct events from billions of years ago based only on very fragmentary evidence. Genomics is still in its infancy.

Yes I know about endosymbiosis. I was thinking about nuclear genes (at least in eukaryotes).
It seems there were some massive genetic transfers between archea and bacteria.

What's happening is that different molecules are giving somewhat different phylogenetic trees at the deepest levels (though there is some discussion that these problems may be observational artifacts). It's still an open question, but a new paradigm may be taking hold. Carl Woese proposed the original Three Domain Hypothesis (as well as the RNA world hypothesis), and he has since modified his position somewhat.

Carl R. Woese, On the evolution of cells        
Quote
Aboriginal cell designs are taken to be simple and loosely organized enough that all cellular componentry can be altered and/or displaced through HGT [Horizontal Gene Transfer], making HGT the principal driving force in early cellular evolution... As a cell design becomes more complex and interconnected a critical point is reached where a more integrated cellular organization emerges, and vertically generated novelty can and does assume greater importance.

Orthodoxy still prefers the Three Domain Hypothesis (or Four or Five or Two Empire or some variant of Common Descent). One complication is exchange of genes between the nucleus and ribosomes. As usual, on the very edges of observational capability, there is some ambiguity. The real problem is whether it is possible to even reconstruct such a mixed-up phylogeny!

Date: 2007/02/24 09:19:07, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 24 2007,07:52)
   
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 23 2007,23:06)
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....hnology

         
Quote
23 February 2007
A Meaningful Universe Rigged For Humankind: ID, Music, And Technology
GilDodgen....



another tour de force from GilTard. Why don't I have an xray guitar, Gil? Think about it, if you can...

"Scientists state that hydrogen is the most plentiful substance in the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe."  - Frank Zappa

And I think that Zappa has been proven right with the discovery of dark matter. (There may be enough stupidity in the Universe to cause it to collapse into one gigantic black hole of ignorance.) In terms of scientific acumen, I put him right up there with Twain.

Date: 2007/02/25 07:44:12, Link
Author: Zachriel
kairosfocus (citing Egnor)  
Quote
How much new specified information can random variation and natural selection generate?

The problem is the poorly defined term, "specified information". But live by conflation, die by conflation. Treating a bacterium as a single 'complex specified machine' with a genome size of a few megabases...

Nylon is an artificial molecule. The evolution of a new 'complex specified machine' that is capable of digesting nylon, reproduction, and all the other requirements of bacterial life requires a 'complex specified machine' with a genome size of a few megabases. Now, perhaps we could suppose that this 'machine' might spontaneously assemble de novo. In that case, the odds are 4^few million >> Universal Probability Bound.

Or perhaps, this new 'machine' might evolve step-wise from an existing bacterium. Well, it turns out that nylon-eating bacteria have evolved more than once in recent history. So, a "complex specified machine" with a genome size of a few megabases can certainly evolve. New and highly-integrated information has been created.

Date: 2007/02/25 09:33:30, Link
Author: Zachriel
Patrick
Quote
Before even calculating CSI we first have to go through the explanatory filter, which would eliminate most cases.

Ah yes, the Explanatory Filter. If we already know the cause, then it's not Design. If we don't know the cause, it's Design. Ign'rance rules!!

Date: 2007/02/26 20:59:35, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (Lou FCD @ Feb. 26 2007,19:48)
And the Tard flows freely

People who argue specifically against ID are ID friendly.

My head hurts.

I noticed scordova didn't mention the sub-title of Reid's book.

 Biological Emergences: Evolution by Natural Experiment

I'm not sure if that will help your headache.

Date: 2007/02/28 06:26:54, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 27 2007,22:37)
LEADING ID "THEORIST" ADMITS:

"I’m suffering from a state of extreme cognitive dissonance" ...Gil Dodgen

Read it here

**shakes his fist at Richardthughes and spits thrice** (Damm those cheesy poof bits)

I watched the video. It looked like the intelligent agents (humans) couldn't uncoil the twisted strands of a rope, but the unintelligent topoisomerase could. I'm not sure if that is meant to be a demonstration of the subtleties of evolution or a comment on the acumen of the humans with the rope.

The Gordian Knot

Date: 2007/02/28 06:50:37, Link
Author: Zachriel
GilDodgen    
Quote
How could random variation and natural selection come up with a pair of biochemical scissors and a repair mechanism that cuts and splices the twisted DNA molecule in order to relieve torsional tension? What would be the functional, naturally-selectable intermediate steps in a hypothetical stochastically generated evolutionary process? It is clear that there could not possibly be any.

Your lack of knowledge or imagination is not scientific evidence. How could the Earth move? Or entire continents shift about? How can a microscopic organism bring down a strong and healthy person? How can we ever tell what stars are made of?

The origin of basic cellular systems is still only poorly understood. However, we start with common descent and note that common descent applies not just to macroscopic adaptations, but to molecular adaptations. Whether life started as a natural property of carbon and water, was a hugely improbable accident, was seeded by aliens or a passing comet, or was Specially Created by God, the evidence clearly indicates that life has evolved and diversified since that time. And even though the origin of life is shrouded in the mists of the intervening eons, the more we look, the more we see evidence consistent with an evolutionary origin. And that includes the mechanisms of DNA replication.

GilDodgen    
Quote
I’m suffering from a state of extreme cognitive dissonance. How can educated, intelligent scientists continue to defend the obviously indefensible, in light of what in now known about the nature of living systems (at all levels, not just the biochemical)?

When you attempt to answer that question honestly, then you will begin the path of learning.

Date: 2007/02/28 08:23:24, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (Jake @ Feb. 28 2007,08:03)
Jason Rennie:

     
Quote
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...

Oh no! It’s an international conspiracy of geologists, physicists, cosmologists, biologists, geneticists, paleontologists, astronomers, biochemists, microbiologists, phylogenists, systematists, climatologists, paleoclimatologists, ecologists, paleoecologists, dendronologists, oceanographers, anatomists, biophysicists, molecular biologists, morphologists, botanists, paleobotanists, physiologists, mathematicians, computational biologists, and {gasp} even Stephen Hawking!

It’s vast! And that gangsta rapper, MC Hawking the Hawkman, can be quite threatening (to the scientifically illiterate).

Date: 2007/02/28 08:37:05, Link
Author: Zachriel
gpuccio  
Quote
Dembski’s affirmation that CSI can never increase by random mechanisms remains unchallenged.

Of course, it's hard to get a straight answer to a metric for "CSI", but by any reasonable measure, that is simply a false claim. Evolutionary algorithms are more than capable of generating "CSI".

That Dembski can't even convince the mathematics community of the validity of his claims is telling.

Date: 2007/03/01 06:51:23, Link
Author: Zachriel
jerry  
Quote
ID could propose a multitude of hypotheses that are contrary to Darwinism as a science. For example, a speculative hypothesis that predicts mechanisms that controls the limit of change within an organism would be anti-Darwinism but not anti-ID. Such mechanisms could not have arisen by natural selection. How is a mechanism that limits the capabilities of an organism be a selected trait.

Not only can such mechanisms evolve, but they have. Accurate replication is clearly an advantage to an organism. It's the whole point, actually. And the more complex the organism, the more elaborate the DNA repair mechanisms tend to be, and these mechanisms can differentiate between different areas of the genome. There's even some evidence that organisms can modify their rate of evolution in specific ways in response to varying environmental stresses (though this is still somewhat on the edge of observational confidence).

Date: 2007/03/01 07:16:16, Link
Author: Zachriel
Mats
Quote
Dave, of course there is a theory of evolution. The fact that variations happen “proves” evolution! Clearly, You Don’t Know How Science Works™.
/sarcasm

Variation is an *observation*, not a theory. The change in these variations within a population is also an *observation*. This change is called evolution. The Theory of Evolution explains the mechanisms of evolution, including Common Descent, environmental and sexual selection, genetic drift and fixation, speciation, etc.

Date: 2007/03/01 07:29:13, Link
Author: Zachriel
late_model  
Quote
BTW-does anyone know why Darwin is always cited and not Wallace

The story of Darwin and Wallace is actually very interesting. Darwin had been marshalling evidence for his Theory for more than 20 years when he received a letter from Wallace outlining a very similar theory, writing to Lyell that "he could not have made a better short abstract!" Lyell and Hooker arranged for Darwin's and Wallace's theories to be presented to a meeting of the Linnaean Society in 1858. However, Darwin's theory was far more developed and the publication of Origin of Species the following year changed biology forever. Wallace freely admitted to Darwin's scientific priority.

Date: 2007/03/01 08:28:58, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (J-Dog @ Mar. 01 2007,08:18)
It's so easy, even a Caveman can do it...

Don't be so hard on yourself.

Date: 2007/03/01 09:42:44, Link
Author: Zachriel
Seeing as DaveScot brought it up again,

DaveScot  
Quote
On the other hand, dishonest scientists applaud suing a public school for adding the following disclaimer to a biology textbook

This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.

No. Evolution is a fact and a theory, just like gravity is a fact and a theory. Gravity remained a fact even when Newton's Theory of Gravity was replaced by Einstein's Theory of Gravity.

Date: 2007/03/01 11:29:14, Link
Author: Zachriel
gpuccio
Quote
...these molecules form a vast family of apparently unrelated proteins...

I assume the contradiction in that statement is self-evident.

Date: 2007/03/02 06:30:00, Link
Author: Zachriel
DaveScot    
Quote
Many worlds and multiverse hypotheses don’t pass the giggle test.

Yeah. Next thing you know, those crazy scientists will be saying that mountains rise up out of oceans or that we can tell what stars are made of by gazing at rainbows.

wingless    
Quote
Let’s not accuse scientists of being dishonest.

DaveScot    
Quote
If the shoe fits then yes, let us do just that.

Oh no! They're ALL lying!! It’s an international conspiracy of geologists, physicists, cosmologists, biologists, geneticists, paleontologists, astronomers, biochemists, microbiologists, phylogenists, systematists, climatologists, paleoclimatologists, ecologists, paleoecologists, dendronologists, oceanographers, anatomists, biophysicists, molecular biologists, morphologists, botanists, paleobotanists, physiologists, mathematicians, computational biologists, and {gasp} even Stephen Hawking!

It’s vast! And that gangsta rapper, MC Hawking the Hawkman, can be quite threatening (to the scientifically illiterate).

Date: 2007/03/02 06:41:43, Link
Author: Zachriel
Da capo ad nauseam. A musical term. A song with a chorus that repeats forever (or for as long as the beer holds out).

Evolution is just a theory.
Scientists to us do lie.
Intelligent Design is not about religion.
Evolution makes Jesus cry.

(ID math makes my head hurt, Oh,
the numbers are SO big.)

Evolution makes me giggle and barf,
wriggle and parse, wiggle my arse.

Da capo ad nauseam.

Date: 2007/03/02 06:50:19, Link
Author: Zachriel
inunison  
Quote
Perry Marchall put it this way:

1. All languages, codes, protocols and encoding / decoding mechanisms that we know the origin of come from a mind - there are no known exceptions

2. DNA is a language, a code, a protocol, and an encoding / decoding mechanism

3. Therefore DNA came from a mind.

Thank you, inunison, for providing such a clear example of fallacious reasoning. Not only do you assume your conclusion, but you base the strength of the syllogism on the extent of your ignorance. Bravo!

Let's rephrase that.
 
Quote
1. All languages, codes, protocols and encoding / decoding mechanisms that we know the origin of come from a human mind - there are no known exceptions

2. DNA is a language, a code, a protocol, and an encoding / decoding mechanism

3. Therefore DNA came from a human mind.

So you are God.

Date: 2007/03/02 08:26:58, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (Zachriel @ Mar. 02 2007,06:41)
Da capo ad nauseam. A musical term. A song with a chorus that repeats forever (or for as long as the beer holds out).



It's traditional to drink after every verse. It's also traditional to slap the bar wench's derrière at the end of the chorus. (The bar wench only puts up with this because she needs the money to finish her Master's in paleoclimatology so she can save the world from human-induced global climate change.)

Date: 2007/03/02 09:12:41, Link
Author: Zachriel
gpuccio  
Quote
Some scientists, if not dihonest, really need to understand what the scientific method is about.

Gpuccio confuses himself over semantics. The word "fact" has several related meanings. Often, the word refers to specific observables. Other times, it refers to valid inferences that are so strongly supported that they can be considered as facts.

Gravity is observed. The Theory of Gravity explains these observations. Gravity is a fact and a theory.

Evolution is observed. The Theory of Evolution explains these observations. Evolution is a fact and a theory.

Date: 2007/03/02 11:26:52, Link
Author: Zachriel
Larry Fafarman
Quote
Lord Ernest Rutherford said, “All science is either physics or stamp collecting.” This apparently gave biologists an inferiority complex, so they decided to come up with something that physics doesn’t have: a grand supreme overarching unifying “theory of everything,” Darwinism.

Um, Rutherford was not even born (1871) when Origin of Species was published (1859).

Date: 2007/03/03 11:39:24, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 02 2007,22:08)
I used to post about the amusing idiots in the comments at OE and UD. I don't do so much anymore. Some person on PT mentioned how many of the OE and UD people were deliberate trolls. And looking at the comments at both sites, I agree. I don't know what percentage are fake, but it's a lot, and some people have privately confirmed this. I'm not participating in this, as moderator I have to uphold higher standards, but it's pretty much impossible to tell the real rubes from the fake ones. That's why you'll only hear me laughing about the known rubes, like Davetard and Salvador. Like Conservapedia, it's now impossible to tell the real from the fake.

Lately I've been laughing at other things, like Philip Johnson complaining that they've been censored from the science journals, when they can't even manage to publish in the  one they control.

What a wasteland is ID.

Oh for the memories,

Any science fiction fans out there remember what Dr Who’s time machine was called?

tribune  
Quote
The TARDIS


Oh my.

Date: 2007/03/03 14:18:47, Link
Author: Zachriel
Joseph  
Quote
Observation-> hypothesis-> testing-> inference. It is as sound as any ’science’ the NDE offers.

ID takes the data, looks at the options, compares the data to those options and makes the best inference accordingly.

Look closely. ID takes observation and infers, but fails to propose testable hypotheses, much less actually subject them to falsifiable tests. According to Joseph, ID fails to conform to the scientific method.

Date: 2007/03/04 08:47:07, Link
Author: Zachriel
kairosfocus    
Quote
how much biofunctional information — here, starting with abiogenesis — can evolutionary materialist mechanisms generate, at what rate, in the gamut of the observed cosmos?

It can be observed that organic molecules will spontaneously assemble, with each atom precisely joined in a complex three-dimensional structure. However, there is no complete theory of abiogenesis.

Evolutionary change is measured in darwins. A falsifiable prediction of the Theory of Evolution is that the observed rate of morphological and genetic changes in extant populations by natural evolutionary processes must be greater than or equal to the changes that are observed in the fossil record. This has been confirmed by a variety of techniques.
Quote
A more recent paper evaluating the evolutionary rate in guppies in the wild found rates ranging from 4000 to 45,000 darwins (Reznick 1997). Note that a sustained rate of "only" 400 darwins is sufficient to transform a mouse into an elephant in a mere 10,000 years (Gingerich 1983).

I would note that an elephant is 'just' a modified mouse in terms of overall morphology.

Date: 2007/03/05 09:09:17, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (Ichthyic @ Mar. 04 2007,21:47)
       
Quote
Elephant are modified mice

I sure would hate to see the experiment where they tried to cross breed them.

Must be a John Davison experiment on "true speciation".

   
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 04 2007,21:55)
HERE'S A MOUSE WITH A TRUNK


I rest my case.

Date: 2007/03/06 14:23:38, Link
Author: Zachriel
GilDodgen  
Quote
When it comes to cosmological fine-tuning, one has two alternatives: 1) fine-tuning is the product of design, and a straightforward evaluation of the evidence would suggest such a conclusion, or 2) fine-tuning is an illusion created by the fact that there is an infinitude of random universes (for which there is no evidence, that are in-principle undetectable, and that must be assumed because of a philosophical commitment to the notion that design cannot possibly exist).

Which conclusion is the product of reasoning based on evidence, and which conclusion is the product of blind faith?

Or maybe some possibility you have yet to consider. Could the relationships be due to some underlying symmetry? All GilDodgen has done here is to have constructed a false dichotomy, then used an argument from incredulity to rule out one option.

The planets form intricate orbits against the fixed stars. This could be due to fine-tuning, or it could be that there are an infinitude of planetary systems and the Solar System is just the one we got. Naw!

Date: 2007/03/07 17:29:54, Link
Author: Zachriel
Rude
Quote
Their intellectual mussles are weak because they have never had to defend their position


Just how weak are YOUR intellectual mussels?

Date: 2007/03/08 06:29:26, Link
Author: Zachriel
idnet.com.au      
Quote
We just had a radio news item stating that bird DNA most resembles small dinosaur DNA showing how birds evolved by Darwinian Evolution from dinosaus.

It was from the current Nature.

I wondered where they got the dinosaur DNA from to compare it with birds?


Another confirmation of that controversial Cell Theory.

News @ Nature: But which came first: flying birds or the smaller genome? To find out, Chris Organ from Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and his colleagues estimated the genome sizes of the dinosaur ancestors of birds.

To get genetic information out of fossils that are hundreds of millions of years old, the team looked at the size of the bone cells. First, they established the relationship between the size of the bone cells and that of the genome in 26 living species of vertebrate, from fish to birds. Using sections of fossilized bone, they then measured the size of the pockets in which the bone cells would have sat in 31 species of extinct land-bound dinosaurs. From that they could estimate the size of the bone cells and, therefore, the size of the dinosaurs' genomes.

Date: 2007/03/08 06:58:40, Link
Author: Zachriel
gpuccio      
Quote
Eric Anderson: “Let’s see: a random event times a non-random selector still equals, yep, you guessed it, a random output."

Randomness in science refers to the well-defined statistical property of correlation or bias. Randomness is not the same as being arbitrary. Depending on the exact relationship, a function which includes randomness or arbitrariness may or may not resemble a random (flat probability) distribution.

gpuccio      
Quote
I would like to add a further reflection about natural selection, because it is a subject I have been considering much in the last few days.

O-kay.

gpuccio      
Quote
Selection always happens according to a conscious recognition, or at least to some well defined “law”.

Darwin made a point of defining "Natural Selection" (and drift) in 1859. Perhaps you should try to keep up with the scientific literature.

Darwin: This preservation of favourable variations and the rejection of injurious variations, I call Natural Selection. Variations neither useful nor injurious would not be affected by natural selection, and would be left a fluctuating element

gpuccio      
Quote
Natural selection is the result of a natural law. In other words, it is a consequence of necessity, and has the same status as the “separation” in my previous example. Well, but which is the law? I am not aware of any physical law which has something as “natural selection” as its corollary.

It is *observed* that heritable traits can lead to differential reproduction.

gpuccio      
Quote
But my impression is that rigorous mathematical modeling is not the main hobby of darwinists.

There's an entire field of study called "computational biology". I wonder if they do math?

gpuccio      
Quote
Natural selection is a necessary non random effect of randomness.

No, that would be genetic drift, something explained in part by Hardy-Weinberg in 1908. Natural selection is the effect of the environment and heritable variation on reproductive success. The environment is *observed* to be decidely non-random.

Date: 2007/03/08 07:16:35, Link
Author: Zachriel
gpuccio        
Quote
Eric Anderson: “Let’s see: a random event times a non-random selector still equals, yep, you guessed it, a random output."

Quote (Zachriel @ Mar. 08 2007,06:58)
Randomness in science refers to the well-defined statistical property of correlation or bias. Randomness is not the same as being arbitrary. Depending on the exact relationship, a function which includes randomness or arbitrariness may or may not resemble a random (flat probability) distribution.

E.g.,  A normal heartbeat is considered regular — even though it is subject to minor random fluctuations. According to Anderson's nonsensical reasoning, a normal heart beats randomly.

Date: 2007/03/08 07:32:10, Link
Author: Zachriel
Sladjo  
Quote
Have we decoded all functions in the DNA structure ?.. Do we know exactly what gene sequence is responsible for what function and trait ?… No… So, I think at this point we simply don’t know how an organism can be modified or can modify itself to cope with changes in the environment. I think we can only speculate on this.

Not knowing everything doesn't mean not knowing anything. The Theory of Evolution, including Common Descent, is well-established science.

Date: 2007/03/08 08:27:01, Link
Author: Zachriel
[quote=Lou FCD,Mar. 08 2007,07:34]      
Quote (k.e @ Mar. 07 2007,22:29)
Should we slow down for a Tard stop?

I sincerely appreciate the public service announcement. Not only is it wrong to shoot endangered species who lack the wherewithal to understand the threat to their existence (e.g. Raphus cucullatus) — especially when within the cloistered confines of a recognized refuge and sanctuary known as Uncommon Descent, but they are not considered palatable in any case.

Date: 2007/03/08 09:41:16, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 08 2007,09:10)
Davetard gets testy with Tims; believes in milometers but not kilometers:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/biology....t-97524

I don't think he believes what he writes anymore. We've only  seen man make perfect spheres. Therefore the Sun is man-made.


Tims      
Quote
I bring up mostly micro arguments because I am a molecular biologist

Doug      
Quote
Evolution is attacking common sense and decency by undermining the fabric of our superior western values. When we are presented with a world that is totally random, where the cause of life and love and liberty and morality and decency gets boiled down to its parts and the parts get separated from the whole then the parts get addressed in society apart from the whole which allows us to view the Brittany Spears debacle with exactly the same disinterest as homosexual intercourse being simulated on television, the American flag being defacated on during a pro PEACE rally, millions and millions of babies born to unwed and unprepared mothers being aborted every year and equivocating science with moral truth. Are you following me?

DaveScot      
Quote
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.

Doug's scientific acumen (citing the evidence of "Britanny Spears") passes the test, but yet another molecular biologist bites the dust.

Date: 2007/03/08 15:11:01, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (Zachriel @ Mar. 08 2007,06:29)
idnet.com.au          
Quote
We just had a radio news item stating that bird DNA most resembles small dinosaur DNA showing how birds evolved by Darwinian Evolution from dinosaus.

It was from the current Nature.

I wondered where they got the dinosaur DNA from to compare it with birds?


Another confirmation of that controversial Cell Theory.

News @ Nature: But which came first: flying birds or the smaller genome? To find out, Chris Organ from Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and his colleagues estimated the genome sizes of the dinosaur ancestors of birds.

To get genetic information out of fossils that are hundreds of millions of years old, the team looked at the size of the bone cells. First, they established the relationship between the size of the bone cells and that of the genome in 26 living species of vertebrate, from fish to birds. Using sections of fossilized bone, they then measured the size of the pockets in which the bone cells would have sat in 31 species of extinct land-bound dinosaurs. From that they could estimate the size of the bone cells and, therefore, the size of the dinosaurs' genomes.

shaner74  
Quote
I read it too. If I recall correctly, they made a rather large assumption (Darwinists making assumptions - go figure!). They determined the size of bone cells (osteocytes) correlate directly with genome size. Then they looked at fossilized dino bone, and concluded dinosaur genomes are small. So essentially, they have assumed dino genomes are small without having dino DNA.

It's not an assumption if they demonstrated a correlation. It's an inference, consistent with independent research that had already shown other cell-types were similarly correlated.

Said Professor Scott Edwards,  "In fact, our work shows these streamlined genomes arose long before the first birds and flight, and can be added to the list of dinosaur traits previously thought to be found only in modern birds, including feathers, pulmonary innovations, and parental care and nesting."

idnet.com.au  
Quote
There may be a rough correlation between bone cell size and DNA content/ genome size, but that does not justufy the headlines highlighting the extrapolation (DNA similarity) rather than the original finding (bone cell size correlation).

The correlation justifies the inference. The reason genome-size is important is because it is related to a high metabolism.

Date: 2007/03/09 07:33:22, Link
Author: Zachriel
scordova            
Quote
the fact remains Darwin and math don’t mix. Darwin viewed math to be repugnant, and his lack of mathematical insight permeates his illogical ideas about the evolution of life.

Mathematics permeates modern evolutionary theory, such as in the analysis of the phylogenetic tree or the statistics of natural selection and genetic drift. Try reading some journals or something.

Bioinformatics, new developments in genome bioinformatics and computational biology.
http://bioinformatics.oxfordjournals.org/

Eric Anderson            
Quote
One of the things that struck me when I read Origin was that Darwin provided essentially no numerical, quantifiable calculations or analyses — virtually no math to speak of.

No, Darwin did something better than meeting the requirements of your strawman. Darwin provided a strongly supported scientific theory that made a number of testable claims that have been vindicated by generations of research. (He also did significant biological studies from barnacles to earthworms to the fertilization of orchids, not to mention his adventures on the Beagle.)

BarryA            
Quote
If all scientific conclusions are contingent, why does our student assume that only conclusions that an intelligent agent acted are non-contingent inquiry enders?

Because what IDers have already said is based on fallacy and wishful thinking. Because IDers have nothing more to say. Because their ideas are scientifically sterile and lead to no new insights.

JMP83            
Quote
want to make a plea to Design Theorists like Bill Dembski and others. PLEASE GET TO WORK.

We have got to find something to get momentum going again.

The reason you have to even make such a plea is telling. There is no work to be done in ID. It's an intellectual deadend. Compare to just what one 19th century naturalist accomplished.

Remember Darwin when you are gardening in the soil and see an earthworm.

Date: 2007/03/09 08:45:15, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (Raevmo @ Mar. 09 2007,08:08)
       
Quote
scordova            
the fact remains Darwin and math don’t mix. Darwin viewed math to be repugnant, and his lack of mathematical insight permeates his illogical ideas about the evolution of life.

The level of math in a random copy of Evolution is way over ... Scordova's head.

I'll take that challenge!
Evolution: International Journal of Organic Evolution, January 2007

HOST LIFE SPAN AND THE EVOLUTION OF RESISTANCE CHARACTERISTICS


PHYLOGENETIC EVIDENCE OF HOST-SPECIFIC CRYPTIC SPECIES IN THE ANTHER SMUT FUNGUS: Phylogenetic trees were reconstructed by maximum parsimony (MP), neighbor joining (NJ), and Bayesian inference. MP and NJ analyses were performed using PAUP version 4.0b10 (Swofford 2003).

SPECIALIZATION AND LOCAL ADAPTATION OF A FUNGAL PARASITE ON TWO HOST PLANT SPECIES AS REVEALED BY TWO FITNESS TRAITS


SEXUAL DIMORPHISM IN THE QUANTITATIVE-GENETIC ARCHITECTURE OF FLORAL, LEAF, AND ALLOCATION TRAITS IN SILENE LATIFOLIA


ANTAGONISTIC MULTILEVEL SELECTION ON SIZE AND ARCHITECTURE IN VARIABLE DENSITY SETTINGS


ECOLOGICAL DIVERGENCE ASSOCIATED WITH MATING SYSTEM CAUSES NEARLY COMPLETE REPRODUCTIVE ISOLATION BETWEEN SYMPATRIC MIMULUS SPECIES


CONDITION DEPENDENCE, QUANTITATIVE GENETICS, AND THE POTENTIAL SIGNAL CONTENT OF IRIDESCENT ULTRAVIOLET BUTTERFLY COLORATION: We calculated 95% confidence intervals for each heritability estimate by multiplying its standard error by the t = 0.05 value (1.96 in all cases), which indicated whether each estimate differed significantly from zero... The thermal variability treatments impinged negatively upon both peak UV brightness (F2,671 = 19.19, P < 0.001), and angular breadth (F2,678 = 60.92, P < 0.001), but did not affect UV hue (F2,679 = 2.43, P = 0.088), orange chroma (F2,677 = 1.20; P = 0.30), or orange hue (F2,679 = 2.66, P = 0.070), and only marginally affected orange brightness (F2,677 = 3.31, P < 0.05).

EVOLUTIONARY REPLACEMENT OF COMPONENTS IN A SALAMANDER PHEROMONE SIGNALING COMPLEX: MORE EVIDENCE FOR PHENOTYPIC-MOLECULAR DECOUPLING


And so on and so on. Gosh! It's ALL math.

Date: 2007/03/09 11:17:12, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (k.e @ Mar. 09 2007,09:49)
Zachriel Posted on Mar. 09 2007,16:45
     
Quote
I'll take that challenge!


Oh really? Must you? (he said dryly) You're a cruel cruel man  Zachriel.

A trivial slapdown executed with non trivial material...where did that happen before....oh yeah ....the infamous Behe book pile at Dover.

Well I could match it with another pathetic detail.

An Algebra for Theoretical Genetics the 1940 Ph.D. thesis at MIT produced by Claude Elwood Shannon.

aka......Claude E. Shannon: Founder of Information Theory  and decribed by SCIAM as "...an extraordinary scientist who single-handedly launched classical information theory " and "Shannon's M.I.T. master's thesis in electrical engineering has been called the most important of the 20th century"

Yes THE REAL NEWTON OF INFORMATION THEORY.

Hold it there. I thought Dembski was the "Isaac Newton of Information Theory". As far as I understood, it was only a matter of time before Dembski received an honorary knighthood, and is certainly next in line for the Lucasian Chair of Mathematics at Cambridge once Stephen Hawking retires (or if tragically lost in space).

Date: 2007/03/09 11:29:38, Link
Author: Zachriel
scordova  
Quote
In contrast to Darwin, there was the ID proponent and creationist James Clerk Maxwell who was a math and physics genius.

Maxwell: In the case of living beings, however, the generation of individuals is always going on, each individual differing more or less from its parent. Each individual during its whole life is undergoing modification, and it either survives and propagates its species, or dies early, accordingly as it is more or less adapted to the circumstances of its environment. Hence, it has been found possible to frame a theory of the distribution of organisms into species by means of generation, variation, and discriminative destruction.

Date: 2007/03/09 15:36:23, Link
Author: Zachriel
For those who celebrate,



Thank God It's Wife of Wóden Day!!!

Date: 2007/03/09 21:12:46, Link
Author: Zachriel
Sigh.

Great_ape                
Quote
If you are referring to neutral theory, neutral theory provides a means to statistically evaluate claims for selection by providing a null hypothesis. A multitude of examples of positive selection on characters are published and continue to be published. Neutral theory has cemented the case for positive molecular selection.

I meant to warn Great_ape about the inevitable conflation of the term "Darwinism". But, alas, it was too late.

scordova                
Quote
A multitude of papers is no substitute for the truth. These papers are being presented as science when they are merely assertions and circularly reasoned arguments.

Just hand-waving. Great_ape is referring to numerous published observational studies that follow from theoretical predictions, fruitful sources of new hypotheses. You also ignored the point about the null-hypothesis.

scordova                
Quote
Policing such large regions of conserved regions incurs a cost and is inconsistent with the population resources available.

See Nachman’s U-Paradox to get an idea of why this is prohibitive.

Do you mean Michael Nachman who recently published Detecting selection at the molecular level, Human Adaptive Evolution and The genetic basis of adaptation?

scordova          
Quote
“What’s most mysterious is that we don’t know any molecular mechanism that would demand conservation like this,” Haussler says.

No mechanism? Not even natural selection!

A Gap!! A Gap!! Call the ID Squad before they fill it!

Is that David Haussler of Haussler Labs who published that fascinating study on rapid evolution of the human brain? Gee, it's been nearly three years since Haussler et al. published Ultraconserved Elements in the Human Genome. I wonder if anyone has followed up on that... Dembski? Behe? Oh well. Just a couple of bioinformaticians. You know. Math.

Signatures of adaptive evolution within human non-coding sequence : Although the amount of the human genome that harbours functional, yet non-coding, elements remains ill-determined, models of sequence evolution are unanimous in predicting at least as much functional non-coding sequence as protein-coding material in the genome...

(Actually, take a look at the list of articles that cite Ultraconserved. The mark of a good paper is the number of new studies it sparks.)

scordova                
Quote
There is always the obligatory salute to Darwin. I will quote Kimura himself (who makes the obligatory salute to Darwin, while simultaneously refuting Darwin)... This is double speak by Kimura, but even then it betrays a significant truth.

In other words, you are calling Kimura a liar, but you want to somehow cite his research.

In any case, you are conflating two uses of the word "Darwinism". Darwinism can mean the Theory of Evolution generally, or among neutralists it often refers to natural selection. No scientist of note, not even Darwin, believes that natural selection is the only mechanism of evolution.

scordova                
Quote
The double speak phrase is “neutral in natural selection.” If it’s neutral, it’s not in natural selection.

The actual phrase is "almost neutral in natural selection". The difference is very important, and a subject of some scientific interest with regards to Nearly Neutral Theory. It also eliminates the so-called double-speak. As Great_ape points out, neutral evolution is the null-hypothesis with natural selection being a measurable effect.

scordova                
Quote
At this stage we can only disagree, but the time will come when one of us will be shown wrong.

Thank God It's Wife of Wóden Day!!!  That day has come and gone.

Date: 2007/03/10 08:07:13, Link
Author: Zachriel
Psst

Yeah you. Do you want to acquire a bootleg, er quality copy of the 1965 Wistar Conference, Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution? Hot stuff, I tell ya. Vintage. But only for um educational purposes, if you know what I mean, heh.

Is it legal? Well, sure it is. My uncle, he knows a lawyer, got him out of some trouble once, says, you know, who's to say. What's legal anyway? Only what they can prove. And if you keep your mouth shut...

Here you go, Buddy. Thanks. Just don't tell Wistar, okay.

Date: 2007/03/10 09:04:41, Link
Author: Zachriel
From regular Uncommon Descent denizen, Joseph, over at Teleological Blog.

--
Zachriel: The environment is decidedly non-random.            
Quote
Joseph: We know that is false. Environments change.

Heartbeats change. Are heartbeats random? Does gravity have a direction? Does Sunlight? Is the diurnal cycle random? You clearly have no idea what randomness implies.

--
Zachriel: Heredity is non-random.            
Quote
Joseph: We know that is also false. There is no way to tell what will be inherited from which parent.

My Goodness! Humans beget humans. Sharks beget sharks. If the ancestors have four limbs and two eyes, their descendents will tend to have four limbs and two eyes. Children are not a random assortment of characteristics, but closely resemble their parents. It's a fundamental observation!

This goes to the very heart of what it means to make a scientific assertion. When I claim that “Heredity is non-random”, it means that there are predictable correlations between the characteristics of parents and children that can be confirmed by independent observers.

Is there anyone on Teleological Blog willing to explain this to Joseph?

Date: 2007/03/10 09:44:01, Link
Author: Zachriel
Meta-question:

Is there a reason why there is a long delay when a comment pushes onto the next page? I'm crosslinking to Teleological Blog and I'm having trouble coordinating the posts.

Update: As soon as I posted this comment, my previous comment appeared. Coincidence?

Date: 2007/03/11 10:46:26, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (blipey @ Mar. 10 2007,22:48)
An innocent funny by our friend Joe Gallien

Yikes:        
Quote
many of us who are sure that is just plain nonsensical, scientifically unsupported and totally goes against all intuition.

How can you possibly have a discussion with someone who doesn't know the difference between "science" and "intuition"?

Over at Teleologist Blog, I have repeatedly asked Joe to provide a definition of "random," a concept he keeps mangling. Finally, at Uncommon Descent, Joseph provided this (though, it's not an actual definition, but provided as synonyms):

Merriam-Webster              
Quote
RANDOM, HAPHAZARD, CASUAL mean determined by accident rather than design.

Joe thinks when scientists use the word "random", they mean "casual"? (Casual Random dress Fridays at the Lab! Dress with your eyes closed.) Interestingly, Joe had to read past the statistical definition.

Merriam-Webster      
Quote
2 a : relating to, having, or being elements or events with definite probability of occurrence <random processes> b : being or relating to a set or to an element of a set each of whose elements has equal probability of occurrence <a random sample>; also : characterized by procedures designed to obtain such sets or elements <random sampling>

Date: 2007/03/11 11:19:06, Link
Author: Zachriel
Joseph      
Quote
IDist: “Evolution by random chance is highly unlikely and puts the onus on the claimant because it is outside the unverisal probability bound.”

Darwinist: “No it isn’t, see the probability of finding these RNA structures is quite good.”

IDist: “Demonstration please.”

Darwinist: “Can’t do that because eveyone knows it would take eons of time.”

IDists: “You just admitted your inference is outside of science.”

The thread concerns Robustness and Evolvability in Living Systems by Andreas Wagner, who cites a variety of evidence to support an evolutionary explanation for organic robustness. The assertion concerning RNA sequence space is supported by a wide variety of studies, including exhaustive enumeration.

Joseph      
Quote
IDists: "Thank you.”

You're welcome.

Date: 2007/03/11 11:27:04, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (GCT @ Mar. 11 2007,09:38)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 11 2007,10:14)
This post is a test of Zachriel's observation that his first rollover post did not appear until a second post was made.

EDIT: That worked.  I had posted the above, but it did not appear for 5-10 minutes.  I added this post and the above immediately appeared in the re-load of the page following this post. We have captured a Wordpress bug.

Actually, this problem has been around for a while.  I thought it had been taken care of, but I guess I was wrong.

One way to view the message is to go into the address bar and index the number at the end by 30.  IOW, increase the number at the end of the address by 30 and it will display the next page.  I agree it should do that anyway, but you will at least be able to see it now.

Hey! That means After the Bar Closes is 96.67% pure. That must be what "Uncommonly Dense" refers to.

Date: 2007/03/12 20:29:52, Link
Author: Zachriel
JoeG            
Quote
Mate selection (in many organisms) is random. IOW there is no telling who will mate with who. Humans are a great example of this.

Uncommon Descent denizen, Joseph, is now insisting that mate selection in humans is random. Of course, this ignores Helen of Troy whose face launched a thousand ships. And the high school dating scene. And the going rate for prostitutes. And why they always talk up your blind-date's personality. And why that rich guy with the fancy car and perfect teeth is always surrounded by young buxom blonds. And why having a 'lady wingman' works. And gossip. And glamour magazines. And sexual magnetism. And Vive la Difference! And why you never mess with a mobster's trophy spouse. And why only eunuchs work in the Sultan's harem.

Helen of Troy


teleologist            
Quote
JoeG, I commend you for being tenacious.

Hear! Hear!

Date: 2007/03/12 21:03:01, Link
Author: Zachriel
gpuccio  
Quote
By the way, and speaking of intellectual persecution, have you ever checked the site of the Department of Biological Sciences, at Lehigh University, where Behe works?

Please compare Behe’s very dignified disclaimer here:

http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/faculty/behe.html

with the shameful “claimer” of one of his colleagues here:

http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/itzkowtz.html

or with the following “politically correct” citations on the pages of other members of the staff:

http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/.....asands.htm

http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/faculty/barry.htm

and, finally, with the “official” statement of the department here:

http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/news/evolution.htm

Evidently, a single man is creating much embarassment to a lot of “respectable” scientists, just by thinking freely in the same institution! No further comment needed…

On Behe's website, there is a picture of a mousetrap (with the parts labeled).

Date: 2007/03/13 11:43:23, Link
Author: Zachriel
It's getting ugly over at Teleological Blog. Now, Joseph is claiming that being human is not hereditary.

Joseph:  
Quote
Any chance of you telling us which gene, genes or DNA sequence is responsible for us being a human? Because if you can’t then you just admitted your claim is not based on science. IOW “human” is not a heritable “trait”.

Zachriel: That’s just silly. Being human is hereditary. Heredity is observed regardless of any particular theory of genetics.

Date: 2007/03/14 06:44:00, Link
Author: Zachriel
PaV      
Quote
Now, if malaria can occur anywhere on the globe, even colder regions, then maybe the only reason that it is found in certain populations is simply because of the in-breeeding of those populations, and no more.

Malaria is transmitted by Anopheles mosquitoes.

BBC  Ninety per cent of all malaria cases are in sub-Saharan Africa where it is the main cause of death and a major threat to child health...Although it is mainly a disease of tropical and sub-tropical countries, malaria has been identified in eastern European countries such as Russia and Turkey and recently a handful of cases were diagnosed in the US.

So, malaria is spreading. The article notes several reasons why this is so, including changes to the environment, caused by road-building, mining and irrigation projects and includes a helpful map captioned, Imported malaria is a growing problem.



Now, what I would suggest PaV do next time is a little research. Be skeptical of your own claims. Try to find out why your preliminary opinion seems contrary to common opinion. By justifying your assertion, you may learn more about the subject, and contribute positively to the discussion. In other words, next time please provide a cite. People might actually take you seriously and you wouldn't want to mislead them.

PaV      
Quote
And perhaps the only reason it still is found anywhere is simply because it is only the homozygous form that is deadly.

As to the evolutionary point, malaria has been endemic in sub-Saharan Africa for thousands of years, and the mutation has evolved independently at least four times. Of note is that the descendents of the African diaspora have a predictably reduced incidence of the sickle cell trait.

Date: 2007/03/15 16:45:57, Link
Author: Zachriel
PaV                  
Quote
Looking at the [malaria] statistics, I was quite surprised...But, here’s the whopper!!!

Pop. #6 Nigeria: S-allele: I/U= 3.17; AA-homozyg: I/U= 3.23!!!!!

Yes, that’s right, the AA-homozygotes had a “slight” advantage, i.e., 3.23/3.17= 0.02 selective advantage.

You're calculating I/U, that is, the infected to non-infected ratio. So, yes AA has a "slight" advantage — for the malarial parasite. In fact, every single case indicated a higher percentage of infections for those without the sickle-cell allele.



Of course, just because there is a correlation, doesn't indicate whether the correlation is statistically significant. While PaV is still struggling with basic ratios (and rules for rounding), for those interested, the [malaria] study used an example from history to teach how we can use statistical analysis to determine if a correlation based on limited data is significant.

So, we have Haldane's suggestion in 1949. Then we have preliminary data first collected in 1965. Careful analysis indicates a significant correlation. What comes next? Class? ...blank stares... Class!? ...mumble, mumble... Right. Hypothesis and further testing. Perhaps, we should collect more data ...


Protective Effect of Sickle Cell Trait Against Malaria-Associated Mortality And Morbidity: This study allowed us to determine that sickle cell trait provides 60% protection against overall mortality and most of this protection occurs between 2-16 months of life before the on set of clinical immunity in areas with intense transmission of malaria.

... or determine if there is a correlation between the persistence of the S-allele and prevalence of malaria in migrating populations, or even attempt to find the posited mechanism.

PaV    
Quote
But, of course, you can do the calculation, and then tell everyone how sickle-cell anemia confirms Darwinism!

Date: 2007/03/15 21:22:32, Link
Author: Zachriel
PaV                  
Quote
But, of course, you can do the calculation, and then tell everyone how sickle-cell anemia confirms Darwinism!

Great_ape              
Quote
Someone in you guys’ camp should probably spell this one out for PaV. I fear I lack the necessary restraint this evening.

PaV              
Quote
I haven’t the foggiest notion of how these numbers support the notion that sickle-cell anemia confers resistance to carriers.

That's because the case study you cited was based on a limited data set from the 1960's, and you didn't read it to learn, but to make a rhetorical point. If you read the lesson, you would realize that it requires statistical analysis to determine whether or not the apparent correlation is significant or just statistical noise. Even then, it is only a measure of confidence. Nevertheless, a tentative answer was important. Not only does malaria cause great suffering and death, often in children, but this early research generated valuable hypotheses for further exploration.



So then what comes next? Class? ...mumble... Class!? ...er, mumble, more data?... Very good! Hypothesis and further testing.

Allison and others have contributed important research that has been confirmed and extended in the intervening decades, much of which has profound medical benefits to the understanding and treatment of disease. Most scientists are not trying to *prove evolution*. In this case, they were trying to solve problems in epidemiology. And like most scientists, they rely on other experts, probably professional health care providers who helped collect the data for the study.

If you had to wait to have *absolute certainty*, or to *know everything*, science would never advance. Instead, scientists tease and pry answers out of the data, then use these tentative answers to frame new research to verify, contradict, solidify, or extend the initial findings.

Intelligent Design offers nothing. No valid scientific hypotheses. Not spiritual solace. Sterile. Dead.

Date: 2007/03/16 07:10:09, Link
Author: Zachriel
scordova provides a cite supporting the effect of natural selection in human populations, while HodorH adjusts for appropriate bolding.            
Quote
Indeed, after 50 years of investigation, we can’t convincingly demonstrate selection for most of the red-blood-cell diseases, other than sickle-cell anaemia, that are probably coevolving with the strong selective force of malaria.

Gosh, not just evolving, but coevolving. Well, I guess that's settled then. Did you know that there have been more than one such mutation, and are dated to have occurred about the same time the first Homo sapiens walked out of Africa, the same time that the common ancestor of the malarial parasite evolved. Knowledge of this common ancestor may help with the development of a vaccine. Malarial Eve. Fascinating.

Genetic Studies Shed Light on Malaria Parasite's Origins and Drug Resistance
Sickle Cell Disease: History And Origin

scordova            
Quote
What may be happening with the fixing of sickle-cell anemia in the wild is the issue of the strength of selection and the other factors.

Uh, yeah.

scordova            
Quote
At some point, if the selection force is so dilute, it can not be a factor, the trait will be appropriately modeled as neutral. It’s like trying to listen to someone whispering to you across a crowded noisy room.

Or nearly neutral. It's amazing how well people can hear across a crowded noisy room, even when people are whispering  — especially if their name is mentioned and if they are the topic of conversation. I would also mention that broad spectrum technology allows the reception of signals that are below the noise floor. However, the point is taken. It requires statistical analysis which only provides a measure of confidence. Many an argument has started over a misheard word.


Travis Bickle: You talkin' to me?

Date: 2007/03/16 11:53:56, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 16 2007,10:25)
Nice one PaV

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....t-98284

             
Quote
Your analysis just blindly looks at statistics. I won’t bother to quote Twain again.

PaV then adds            
Quote
Look at the numbers for S.

Do I really have to point out the irony.

PaV        
Quote
If, indeed, the S-allele has some advantage, then why in an area that is apparently being ravaged by malaria do we see no difference in infection rates?

We do see a difference. In every case, there is an advantage to having the S-allele. And there could be many reasons why the exact percentage varies; differences in data-collection techniques, other immunities not being tested, statistical noise, etc. But as great_ape pointed out, it's like rolling ten heads in a row.

So then what comes next? Class? ...silent stares... Class!? ...er, recess, heh...

Date: 2007/03/17 09:35:47, Link
Author: Zachriel
kairosfocus              
Quote
...something is wrong in the presentation of the statistics in the relevant case study [1965] in the textbook. HH’s excerpt in no 58 — which comes from a 1999 peer reviewed journal article [long after the story we are discussing gained wide circulation and general acceptance] — is telling, unless it is demonstrably false:

Longitudinal study of Plasmodium falciparum infection and immune responses in infants with or without the sickle cell trait                                    
Quote
Haemoglobin S could have a protective role against malaria but evidence is sparse and the operating mechanisms are poorly known.

kairosfocus adds                                
Quote
So, which is it: has htre story gained currency based on solid evidence but i the teeth of absence of it? Has there been subsequent to 1999, the provision of the missing evidence and mechanisms?

For some reason kairosfocus

1) doesn't understand that the original conclusions from the case study [1965] were tentatively reached based on limited data.

2) doesn't read, because the 1999 study flatly concludes            
Quote
Sickle cell trait related antimalarial protection varies with age.

3) never learned the scientific method.

What happened after the original case study [1965]? What came next? Class? ...blank stares... Class!? ...mumble, mumble... Right. Hypothesis and further testing. Guided by the original study, scientists collected more data ... And further testing supported the original finding while adding important details. ...blank stares...

So statistics and an understanding of evolutionary biology can help us in the fight against disease that causes so much suffering, especially in children. ...eyes open...

Date: 2007/03/17 10:50:18, Link
Author: Zachriel
PaV may be having trouble reading, as well.

Predicted declines in sickle allele frequency in Jamaica using empirical data.                  
Quote
The high frequency of the sickle allele in some parts of Africa is understood to be a consequence of high malarial endemicity. One corollary of this is that the sickle allele frequency should be declining in populations of African ancestry that are no longer exposed to malaria. We have previously shown that there has been no change in sickle allele frequency in malaria-free Jamaica between two large-scale neonatal screening exercises conducted in 1973-1981 and 1995-2003.

PaV                  
Quote
Now I’ve demonstrated that S-allele frequency hasn’t changed in the absence of the “natural-selector”, i.e., malaria.

In fact, S-trait prevalence is reduced in nearly all geographic areas of the African diaspora without malaria. Jamaica has only been malaria-free for about 50 years. The paper suggests their results may be due to a "recent, marked increase" in fitness of SS homozygous individuals.



Predicted declines in sickle allele frequency in Jamaica using empirical data.                  
Quote
We found that although model predictions were broadly consistent with observed values in the 1973-1981 cohort, the predicted change in allele frequency between the two cohorts was larger than the observed, nonsignificant, reduction. Close agreement between predicted and observed values was only achieved by simulating a recent, marked increase in HbSS fitness. Thus, the "unexpected" persistence of the sickle allele in Jamaica may reflect the fact that the actual fitness among SS individuals is higher than that previously realized.

So, PaV. Let's assume your intuition is correct and this anomaly supports your contrarian position. So then what comes next? Class? ...hypothesis! ..more data! ... recess, heh... Very good! Class dismissed.  ...yeah!... Oh, and next week, we relax our assumptions and allow individuals to mate nonrandomly! There will be lab work and a very stimulating simulation. I'm sure you'll enjoy that topic.


By the way, PaV, you may want to take your malaria pills when you travel to Jamaica to collect your data. Though Jamaica has been considered non-endemic for 50 years, hundreds of cases of malaria have recently been reported.

Date: 2007/03/18 08:29:52, Link
Author: Zachriel
kairosfocus        
Quote
PS: I add that from the “predicted but not observed declines in Jamaica” study, there is also an issue of HOMOZYGOTE SS viability thus “protective” effect, or at least sufficient non-lethality to survive and persist in the population.

I should think that sickle cell anemia is far more survivable and less debilitating in modern Jamaica than when people were forced to work as slaves in sugar cane fields. I could be wrong.  

(A sickle cell crisis can be triggered by excessive exercise, dehydration, or stress. Symptoms vary considerably, but include acute pain, infection, stroke, organ failure and death. It's doubtful most slaveowners of the period would consistently allow people to take a few days off for rest and recovery followed by a lifetime of light duty. But I could be wrong.)

kairosfocus        
Quote
[Note too, the reference to counselling, i.e. to hoped-for artificial selection; aka microevolution by intelligent design. H’mm, isn’t that what Darwin used as a “substitute” for NS in his own studies and reported on in Origin?]

Very Mendelian. Heaven forbid we counsel a married couple, each of whom is a carrier of the sickle cell trait, that one in four of their children may inherit sickle cell disease.

Date: 2007/03/21 06:41:25, Link
Author: Zachriel
PaV            
Quote
Where is the data?  

This is why most people can't sustain a line of argument with IDers. IDers forget so easily that you have to continually restart the argument. The data PaV is requesting is in the very case study under discussion, along with a variety of other cites that have been provided. Suggestion, hypothesis, prediction, data, confirmation, insight.  
Quote
In 1949, J. B. S. Haldane suggested that the reason that the deleterious S allele occurs in high frequency in some human populations is because individuals who are heterozygous for the allele (genotype AS) do not suffer from the severe anemia due to cell sickling, but also enjoy some resistance to malaria. He based this proposition solely on the observation of higher than expected frequencies of allele S in regions where malaria is endemic.

PaV            
Quote
Now, I don’t consider this NS, but simple stochastic genetic behavior. What we have is a “defective” hemoglobin molecule that has, as an unintended consequence, some remedial effect in the case of malaria.  

Gee whiz. The allele frequency can be shown to have changed over generations in response to the environment. This isn't "NS" because, well, PaV doesn't want it to be, or can't allow it to be admitted.

PaV            
Quote
 If, indeed, this were NS at work, then in malaria free areas, over the long run, this allele should vanish—IOW, NS would “punish” it. But you see, this study strongly suggests this isn’t the case.

The timeframe is only a few generations. As sickle cell trait is recessive and not always lethal when homozygous, it would be expected to decrease in frequency, but not necessarily disappear.

PaV            
Quote
The Hardy-Weinberg Law seems to be taking over.

Hardy-Weinberg assumes the absence of selection, certainly not the case with populations currently harboring the trait. Sickle cell is a significant parenting issue among descendents of the African Diaspora.

Don't forget to let us know how your research in support of your "hypothesis" works out. And don't forget your pills!

Date: 2007/03/22 20:03:09, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 22 2007,12:52)
I don't know if the IDers' ability to keep me entertained will last the year.

ID is scientifically vacuous and intellectually sterile. Any such discussion is bound to be repetitious. When the ID argument is analyzed, most such fallacies revolve around the fundamental principles of scientific methodology and semantics. Actual evidence is rarely the issue.

As the political influence of Intelligent Design wanes, then the pedagogical purpose (and presumably entertainment value) of responding wanes as well.

Date: 2007/03/24 11:11:39, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 24 2007,06:14)
           
Wilkins and I responded in Biology and Philosophy in 2001. Nothing from Dembski in that venue...

Excellent article — and quite entertaining.

Wilkins & Elsberry        
Quote
What the filter lacks that real-world design inferences already have is a "Don't know" decision.
       
Quote
The problem with a simple conclusion that something is designed, is its lack of informativeness.

An insightful discussion of these statements leads into critical aspects of the philosophy of science and why "Intelligent Design" is inherently vacuous.

Date: 2007/03/24 21:34:39, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 24 2007,19:00)
If us thinking they're morons is part of their secret plan, then I must say, they've got us right where they want us.

I might be a little old-fashioned, but I always thought the purpose of publishing was to convince your peers that you might have a valid point, not that you are a moron. Silly me.

Date: 2007/03/25 08:39:41, Link
Author: Zachriel
Joseph                      
Quote
It is funny to see how many people misunderstand natural selection.

No! Don't do it! Don't respond to Joseph without the requisite training and equipment!

jasper                      
Quote
Yes, that is funny, especially since you managed to do so in your post.

Argh!! Too late! Too late.

   
Quote
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'



'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'

Joseph doesn't know what "random" means or "pattern". He uses words in his own manner without regard to their accepted definitions and repudiates contingent definitions for the purpose of furthering discussion.

Random, 2 a: relating to, having, or being elements or events with definite probability of occurrence b: being or relating to a set or to an element of a set each of whose elements has equal probability of occurrence ; also : characterized by procedures designed to obtain such sets or elements

The term randomness is often used in statistics to signify well defined statistical properties, such as lack of bias or correlation. Random is different from arbitrary, because to say that a variable is random means that the variable follows a probability distribution; arbitrary, on the other hand, implies that there is no such determinable probability distribution for the variable.

Joseph                      
Quote
Variation is random. Differential survival is random. And heredity is random.

No, Joseph. Heredity is non-random. According to the Human Genome Project, heredity is the handing down of certain traits from parents to their offspring, and almost all (99.9%) nucleotide bases are exactly the same in all people. That means the vast majority of an offspring's genome (and morphological characteristics) can be predicted with great accuracy by examining a parent's genome (or morphological characteristics), even in sexually reproducing species. There are just a relatively few traits that are subject to random sexual recombination, but even these are often linked to other traits.

The environment is non-random, e.g. gravity has specific, predictable consequences.

Joseph                      
Quote
Finding a mate, mating successfully, and passing on your beneficial trait are all left to chance.

Frankly, the claim that mate selection is random is just bizarre. It very much depends on the organism. Consider deer bucks competing for a harem, or a high school dance. Joseph needs to get out more.

Date: 2007/03/25 12:36:25, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 25 2007,04:55)
Does it feel to anyone else that ID is now mostly an historical event?

Intelligent Design is not a scientific research program, but a political movement (primarily American) that has used the language of science to persuade a lay-public to institute various societal changes, and is just one battle in a larger, cyclical social conflict. Its relegation to history is consistent with the general retreat as non reality-based philosophy founders on the rocks of reality.

Date: 2007/03/25 12:57:01, Link
Author: Zachriel
JasonTheGreek
Quote
Courts have ruled, in the past, that blacks aren’t full people, that segregation was constitutional, and that men could be held as slaves.

Actually, two of those three were established by custom, republican government, and the U.S. Constitution (well before Darwin published his Theory of Evolution).

Date: 2007/03/25 13:25:34, Link
Author: Zachriel
     
Quote (N.Wells @ Mar. 25 2007,11:41)
         
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 24 2007,19:07)
           
Quote
Believe it or not, it really helps that the other side..we’re such morons


Richard, I think that needs a little more trimming to be perfect.

Given the demonstrated willingness of Dr. Dr. Dembski and his fellow ideologues such as Salvador to quote-mine and pubjack and to claim that there is nothing wrong with such actions, I think it only fair that to note that at 5:07 PM on 24 March 2007, in comment #4 on the UD thread, http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwini....-102717
William Dembski said,            
Quote
we’re such morons.

I strongly disagree.  

Dembski          
Quote
...we’re such morons.

The ellipsis gives you complete deniability concerning an accusation of quote-mining (as long as you can keep a straight face (like I am right now)).

Dembski    
Quote
It’s not a strategy. It’s a fact, one that can be exploited.

Exploited for what purpose? What could possibly be your goal if not to convince your peers of the rightness of your position?

Date: 2007/03/26 08:59:48, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 26 2007,06:59)
In short, although Miller was not, apparently, addressing himself to any of Dembski's arguments in the BBC special, and certainly not during his Doverloo testimony, his criticisms would have been appropriate to Dembski's argument vis the flagellum as combintorial object in NFL, which were again restated in this exchange, if he had.

kairosfocus    
Quote
Further to this, Mr Miller either knows, or should know based on duty to do due diligence, that he consistently severely misrepresents the inference to complex, specified information... if a microstate or clustrer of microstatesis both hihgly improbable and functionally specified, it is not at all likely to be reached by chance.

No one claims that organisms arose by chance alone. That is the strawman that underlies Dembski's argument.

kairosfocus    
Quote
The classic examples are things like finding 500 coins, all heads-up...

Um, then Miller was properly representing the argument as one of pure combinatorial chance. (Atoms will align themselves in just such a manner. They're called crystals. If you magnetize coins, they also align.)

Date: 2007/03/26 11:54:20, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 26 2007,10:30)
Hey Zach...

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-103278

   
Quote
Tell you what Jasper- YOU provide a valid definition of random and we will see if it works.

I take random to mean: determined by accident rather than design. In some cases the following is relevant: lacking a definite plan, purpose, or pattern.

Variation, in the evolutionary sense lacks a definite plan or purpose.

Wikipedia states the following:

A random process is a repeating process whose outcomes follow no describable deterministic pattern, but follow a probability distribution.

And THAT also fits what I stated.

But anyways- it is always a good thing when the opposing view has been chopped up so badly all that all the opposition has left is unsupported accusations and semantic quibbling.

BTW are you (Jasper) any relation to an imp named Zachriel?


So, Joe, I roll two six sided dice. Is the outcome random, or not? BAD, BAD TARD.

On the issue of heredity,

Copy the a text (e.g. the Bible), letter-for-letter, as carefully as you can. Of course, there may be a letter or two that are incorrect, or simply illegible to later transcribers. Does that make the transcribed texts "random"? Or is it just the errors that are random?

The whole point of heredity is to re-produce. Mutations are random (with respect to benefit).

Date: 2007/03/27 08:43:49, Link
Author: Zachriel
Pharyngula gives Richard Hughes a tip of the Noodly Appendage.



Well, a Gold Star anyway.

Date: 2007/03/30 09:06:06, Link
Author: Zachriel
Not knowing everything does not mean not knowing anything.

Joseph          
Quote
We have been studying Stonehenge for how long and still only have vague notions about it. Using your logic that should mean we declare Stonehenge a wholly natural product that did not require agency involvement.

We have strong scientific evidence that Stonehenge was built by a particular species of tool-making primate called "humans". These organisms are bipedal, have twelve-pair ribs and three ear bones in each of two ears. They have a variety of cultural adaptations that have resulted in the erection of a variety of lithic monuments. They appear to communicate by flapping their meat at each other.

Joseph          
Quote
By looking at an automobile can you tell me who designed it and how it was manufactured?

Humans are also considered the most likely cause of "automobiles", a special type of meat container.

Joseph          
Quote
I think it is pretty safe to say that Dr Sermonti knows more about genetics than the Pixie does.

Perhaps. But the vast majority of geneticists disagree with Sermonti's position. An appeal to authority is valid when

 * The cited authority has sufficient expertise.
 * The authority is making a statement within their area of expertise.
 * The area of expertise is a valid field of study.
 * There is adequate agreement among experts in the field and the cited authority is expressing that consensus.
 * There is no evidence of undue bias.

The proper argument against a valid appeal to authority is to the evidence, which is exactly what The Pixie has presented. Joseph's appeal to authority fails because Sermonti has been unable to convince his own peers of the validity of his views.

Joseph referencing Sermonti for the umpteenth time:    
Quote
Prof. Sermonti ... maintains that Science is of the same stuff as the Fairy Tales.

Like Snow-White, Red-riding-hood and Cinderella.

Date: 2007/03/30 09:44:54, Link
Author: Zachriel
William Dembski citing Sewell citing Loennig    
Quote
The Evolution of the Long-Necked Giraffe: This is still true even when the trend is clearly running against them, that is, when the problems for the theory become greater and greater with new scientific data.

Winning by a Neck: Tall Giraffes Avoid Competing with Shorter Browsers. Cameron and du Toit in American Naturalist 2007

Winning by a Neck: Sexual Selection in the Evolution of Giraffe. Simmons and Scheepers in American Naturalist 1996

Apparently, natural selection (environmental and sexual) leads to specific empirical predictions that can be studied.

Date: 2007/03/30 10:26:55, Link
Author: Zachriel
The Pixie  
Quote
“But can you think of any evidence that would indicate arson, but not suggest how it was done?”

Joseph has repeatedly failed to respond to this challenge, even after indicating that he could.

Joseph  
Quote
“The God’s Must Be Crazy”- A coke bottle drops from an airplane flying over a remote part of Africa. The main character never saw a Coke bottle before. He didn’t know what it was but he knew it didn’t come from Mother Nature. He didn’t have to know Coca-Cola. He didn’t have to know anything about glass-blowing or glass-blowers.

The Bushman mythology also includes the spirit world's influence on rain, healing and the success of the hunt. Whether the Coke bottle was inhabited or gifted by spirits is not a scientific question.  

Joseph  
Quote
“Mainstream” science disallows a design inference a priori.

That is not correct. Archaeology is one such science that makes a point of studying design, more specifically, artifacts, artisans and their art. Science disallows appeal to an ineffable designer as a substitute for evidence, a.k.a. God of the Gaps.

Date: 2007/03/30 11:43:02, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 30 2007,10:09)
Pixie is destroying Joseph.

The Pixie insists    
Quote
Come on, just one specific example to prove me wrong. Simple or complex. Say what the evidence is that would lead you to conclude design, and I will see if I can tell you anything about how it was done.

If Joseph would actually consider this question critically, it might result in a bit of understanding on how artifacts are scientificially studied, the limits to our ability to understand such processes, and how dependent we are on what we have already experienced. The primary methodology of forensics is to compare a particular case to previous instances in order to link the evidence with the method and with the perpetrator. In fact, the identification of the cause of a fire, human or otherwise, is the entire point of fire investigation.

Contrariwise, Intelligent Design.

jerry  
Quote
This game of pressing for the nature of the designer has been tried many times before and it shows the shallowness of those asking the question.

(If you're not familiar with Terry Bisson, don't forget to click the links on "meat" above.)

Date: 2007/03/30 12:08:22, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (N.Wells @ Mar. 30 2007,10:48)
 
Quote
Joseph: “By looking at an automobile can you tell me who designed it and how it was manufactured? I doubt it.”

Pixie: Look at the front of most cars you will see a symbol or emblem; might say “Ford” on it, for instance. That will tell you the name of the company that designed and created it. A big clue I think.

Heh. Not just any non-avian biped, but one named "Ford". Quite an astute observer that Pixie is.

Date: 2007/03/30 13:28:56, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (2ndclass @ Mar. 30 2007,12:17)
Joseph:    
Quote
ID does NOT say that evolution cannot produce IC. That you would say such a thing exposes your ID ignorance. Thanks, although it has been very obvious that you don’t understand the basics.

If you ask 3 top-tier IDers a basic question like "Can evolution produce IC?", you'll get 4 different answers.  Joe's accusation that Pixie is ignorant of ID assumes that there's a single ID "theory" to be ignorant of.  Sorry, Joe, the tent's way too big for that.

That's because there are multiple definitions of IC (Irreducible Complexity). Behe has defined IC as  "composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning". But IC can be produced by step-by-step evolutionary processes, such as by removal of components, by cooption, or by duplication and specialization.

A simplistic example is a function A which is duplicated into A1 and A2. It is possible for each component to evolve to optimize aspects of the overall function while losing the ability to perform the entire original function in isolation. Complex and irreducible cascades can be created in this fashion.

Date: 2007/03/30 14:00:42, Link
Author: Zachriel
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 30 2007,12:32)
BlarneyA demonstrates that an aptitude for accounting does not a scientific mindset make.  
       
Quote
The Illusion of Knowledge Revisited
BarryA

...Both Darwinism and the standard model are based upon inferences from observations, not direct observations.  They are in a different epistemic category from, say, the heliocentric solar system, which has been observed directly.

Set aside the unintended irony of the title of his post.  

The heliocentric solar system was amenable to "direct observation" as such (say, by means of the first Voyager) only because of the success of inferences from observations that were leveraged into Newton's mathematical model of gravitation and its generalization to celestial mechanics - a model that waited nearly three centuries for "direct observation" yet was secure nonetheless. BlarneyA sets out to dis inferential reasoning within science (a tired trope within creationist epicycles) and instead refutes himself, without knowing it.

The movement of the Earth was well-established by indirect observations. Early, direct observations included Bradley's discovery of stellar aberration in 1725, Bessel's measurement of stellar parallax in 1838, and Foucault's pendulum in 1851.

Date: 2007/03/30 16:26:08, Link
Author: Zachriel
mike1962  
Quote
The bottom line is, it is easy to wave the hand with a knowing grin and a mocking tone and say enough mutations within enough time can produce anything, and this may be hypothetically true.

Assuming by "mutations" you mean evolutionary mechanisms, then that is incorrect. Most of the available search space will not be searched, indeed, can never be searched. Consider the analogous situation with words (with suitable parameters for mutation and recombination). Though we can demonstrably evolve very long words such as 'denominationalists', we will never evolve 'qqqqqq' via step-wise changes. That's because there is no possible predecessor word to 'qqqqqq'. Similarly, we know that a Griffin or Centaur could not have evolved through known evolutionary mechanisms, but are artificial constructs.

Date: 2007/03/30 16:32:07, Link
Author: Zachriel
Acquiesce
Quote
The problem with orthodox darwinism, as shown by the adaptive evolution of the horse, is that rather than there being a single short direct line in which the intermediates fit, the procession is tree-like in that it contains collateral branches, vastly increasing the numbers of transitionals.

That's not a problem, but a prediction. The tree-like structure is one of the most important evidences of common descent.

<