AE BB DB Explorer


Action:
Author:


form_srcid: argystokes

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is 38.107.191.97

View Author detected.

view author posts:

Retrieve source record and display it.

form_author:

form_srcid: argystokes

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

DB_err:

DB_result: Resource id #4

Date: 2006/01/25 14:58:00, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Well, the only animal genomes that have been sequenced are humans, rats, dogs, chickens, and fruit flies.  I'm unaware of any studies (and I'm sure your internet search is as good as mine).  I don't suppose there's really any impetus for the comparison.

I'd guess we're about as similar to dolphins as we are to cows, as they both belong in the same clade.  The higher intelligence of humans and dolphins would be an example of convergent evolution.

Date: 2006/01/31 18:09:07, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Ah, it's good to see the SW is back up to their normal quality.  The article last week on Reichert and the Green River Killer was atrocious.

Date: 2006/01/31 19:28:12, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Ug.  I retract my statement.  The writer compares the Dover plaintiffs' legal team to the Steelers' offensive line, when we've got a 3-pro-bowler O-line right here in Seattle.  Sheesh.

Date: 2006/02/07 04:46:59, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
####, too slow already!  Maybe they realized that intelligently-designed antibiotic resistance wasn't consonant with their theology, erm, science.

Date: 2006/02/08 09:20:26, Link 128.95.21.138
Author: argystokes
A hilarious "Oh Sh!t" moment from JAD:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/782#comments

Check out comments 18 and 19 in particular.

I love it so!

Date: 2006/02/22 15:41:27, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Wow, Sal's used the Schrodinger equation to prove the existence of God!  This, of course, has nothing to do with design detection.  I'm sure it's relevant somehow.

Date: 2006/03/09 20:09:55, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Silly Milly, that's (-1) points for referring to yourself in the 3rd person!

Date: 2006/03/14 06:33:38, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote


My take: The poll is significant because my opinion (as a lay-person) counts just as much under the Constitution as the opinion of someone in the National Academy. Darwinists, with their elitist mentality, are trying to violate my equal protection RIGHTS under the 14th amendment and have me be ruled by those of a class not recognized in the Constitution: “scientists” (by the Academy definition)

Comment by Ryan — March 13, 2006 @ 8:53 pm


That's right folks.  Under the equal protection clause, ALL aspects of EVERYTHING have to be taught.  Imagine replacing "scientists" with "historians" and see where it takes you.  I hope this guy sticks around, he may be near as dumb as Red Reader.

Unless I get some evidence that anyone here is dumber than Red Reader, this will be your last post -ds

Date: 2006/03/15 11:35:19, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Shi slides on in here and declares:

Quote
Almost all facts that appear to falsify Darwinism have been explained away by invoking ad hoc hypothesis. I have recently found a fact that can falsify Darwinism. To my knowledge, this fact has never been previously recognized as odd by either the creationists or Darwinists. No one seem to have paid attention to it. But that is not surprising because none of the present ideas will lead people to it. I came to it from a novel perspective which I will share with the public in the future. This fact is the only one you need to use to falsify Darwinism because no Darwinists that I have met had any clue.


... and is now preaching to scientists about humility?  Holy macirony!

Date: 2006/03/15 14:05:08, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote (shi @ Mar. 15 2006,19:14)

Please do not misrepresent me.  To make the record clear, I believe most people (scientist, ID people, religious people, Darwin people) are honest human beings.  But all it takes is one single individual to cause the majority of the society to think in one way or the other.  If that individual is an honest truth seeker, we have a major advance in knowledge, as illustrated by countless individuals in history.  On the other hand, if we have an influential individual that is honestly fooling himself and the society, we will have the majority of the society repeating together with him what he is telling us.  In such a case, I would not accuse the majority of people being dishonest.  Rather, I would call that influential individual a fool if he is honest and a liar if he is dishonest.


It's really too bad that science doesn't have some sort of method of review by scientific peers to make sure this doesn't happen.

Also, for what reason would you doubt the common ancestry of chimps and hunams?  The molecular and paleontological evidence is certainly striking.  What other origin for chimps would you suggest, if they are not closely related to the other great apes such as humans and gorillas?

Date: 2006/03/21 13:07:54, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote (Tiax @ Mar. 21 2006,18:26)
I put up a post saying "I don't think Jingle Bells is on par with Faust," just to see if I can get Dave to kick me out of his country.  I'm not even sure that Jingle Bells is a christmas song, but it seemed like a good enough choice to get Dave's permission to call myself an unamerican devil worshipper.

Quote
I put up a post saying "I don't think Jingle Bells is on par with Faust," just to see if I can get Dave to kick me out of his country.  I'm not even sure that Jingle Bells is a christmas song, but it seemed like a good enough choice to get Dave's permission to call myself an unamerican devil worshipper.


Jingle Bells is most certainly not a Christmas song, but rather a "sleighing song" (or perhaps, if one is so inclined, a slaying song).  Nevertheless, my sister's elementary banned it for being a Christmas song.

I also noticed that the post was filed under "Intelligent Design."  Is part intelligent design's scientific toolbox identifying acts designed to be non-fundiChristian?  It would appear so.

Date: 2006/03/26 17:47:43, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Tiax, your comment in the missing link blog is a thing of beauty.  And when Dembski's Hand of Justice finds out what "dt" means, you'll join us among the banned.  Congrats!

Date: 2006/03/26 18:54:57, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Hello, Uncommon Descent denizens.  This is the place where we gather to make mockery of your blog moderaters, and sometimes your fellow commenters.  It's sort of like MST3K.

If you're sick of the antics of the crowd over there, please grab a beer, sit back, and join our little forum as we take a lighthearted look at the ricockulous antics of WAD et al.

Date: 2006/04/04 21:04:14, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Henry J-

Yes, it would require two viruses in the same cell.  If there are two viruses in a cell, then there are two sets of DNA (or RNA - depending on the virus) in the cell as well.  While packaging up its DNA into a new viral partical, Virus A might "accidentally" pick up some DNA from Virus B as well.  This is the type of scenario that is being proposed for the conversion of H5N1 from an Avian flu to a really nasty Human flu.

On topic, from Michaels7 in the ACLU thread:
Quote
Not familiar with constitutional law, but could any of you tell me what specific ‘constitutional right’ is being protected or enforced? Is this the establishment clause? And thus ID = religion meme?

In reality, the only way it could be against the constitution even with the prior false ruling of establishment clause to the contrary is if a “teacher” specifically states while teaching ID, that the Designer is God, Allah, Bhudda, or any one of 3000 Hindu Gods. I’m not sure how this case was lost unless the judge had intent to squash it all along or the ID lawyers could not make this point of distinction stick clearly.

I think the next case should be brought up by a teacher who challenges with ID as scientific, utilizing IRC and CSI.


Yeah, if Behe had been on the stand to defend irreducible complexity, there's no way ID would have lost!

Date: 2006/04/12 18:36:48, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Henry J,

As I understand it, a zygote is a single cell, a blastocyst is a clump of cells, and an embryo is a clump of cells that has implanted into the uterus.

Date: 2006/04/26 19:06:19, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
...and can He microwave a burrito so hot that even He can't eat it?

Date: 2006/05/01 17:14:55, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
I think Fross is about to go....

Quote
#

“The rate of expansion of the universe since the Big Bang (Gen 1:1) would cause a time dialation effect …
Which in turn would cause mankind to argue about the age of the universe ..”

That is true and I never thought about that! Spacetime would be distorted and this would also make a spherical earth look flat from a certain vantage point. Seriously, I think those ancients were onto something here.

Comment by Fross — May 1, 2006 @ 8:43 pm

Date: 2006/05/04 19:33:28, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote
Evolution isn’t seen after the fact. It’s presumed after the fact. Big difference. -ds


Oh, absolutely.  A trait has a particular abundance in a population at time point A, then has a different abundance at time point B.  But it's presumed that the population evolved, cuz, you know, the population might still be the same, even though it's different.  Or something.

On the other hand, that laughter hypothesis does seem pretty asinine.

Date: 2006/05/06 19:14:15, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote
When the mormons knock on your door, do you argue with them all day, trying to convert them?


On the other hand, if you ask them to mow your lawn, there's a pretty decent chance that they will.

Date: 2006/05/08 15:40:21, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
... and it's gone...  what was the post about?

Date: 2006/05/09 10:24:37, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Hi AFDave,

I'm looking forward to your thesis on why common design is a superior interpretation of the evidence than common descent.  I'd like to make sure you include a section on endogenous retroviral sequences and how they factor into your hypothesis, keeping in mind that it doesn't matter whether or not ERVs have function, but only that we can recognize ERV sequences as such.

Date: 2006/05/12 16:36:15, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Hi AFDave,

Let me see if I can add something to the conversation.

You've been arguing that what appears to be a broken GLO in primates may not be in fact broken at all, but is rather a designed stretch of DNA that performs some unknown function (we'll call this "pseudo-GLO").  You haven't stated it explicitly, but I think we can infer that this putative function has nothing to do with Vitamin C synthesis (seeing as primates and guinea pigs can't do it).  That is, pseudo-GLO has a function entirely distinct from regular GLO.

If pseudo-GLO has a distinct function, we could use the framework of common design (as well as common descent) to predict that pseudo-GLO would be found in organisms that have functioning GLO.  This is because there is no reason to predict that a gene unrelated to Vitamin C would only be found in GLO-deficient species.

So there are two possible scenarios:
(1) Pseudo-GLO is found throughout the animal kingdom (either ubiquitously, randomly, or in nested hierarchies).  This type of scenario, where a species has a functional gene and a pseudogene is not uncommon.

(2) Pseudo-GLO is only found in species unable to synthesize vitamin C.

It seems to me that a design hypothesis would only predict scenario (1), for reasons discussed above.  Common descent would predict either scenario (2), or scenario (1) with nested hierarchies of Pseudo-GLO (this would be the result of a duplication of GLO followed by the inactivation of one of the copies, which still persists in the population).  Seeing pseudo-GLOs (especially those that look very much alike) randomly throughout the animal kingdom would certainly be a surprise to me (I can think of a mechanism by which it might occur, but we won't get in to that).  Ubiquitous pseudo-GLO would strongly imply that it has an important function, but would not really support either common descent or common design over the other.

I haven't done the research to find out which is the case, but there should be sufficient online tools to find out which is the correct scenario.  With the relatively low number of genomes sequenced, it is probably not possible right now (using good ole look-it-up-online methods) to differentiate between the subscenarios of scenario (1).

I'm willing to look up the information for you (assuming you don't know how to do a BLAST search) if you're willing to concede that scenario (2) does not logically fit with a special creation model.

So how's about it, Dave?  Shall we do some science?

Date: 2006/05/16 05:12:16, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
AF Dave wrote:

Quote
If Scenario 1 above is confirmed, then it is perfectly logical to assume that the Creator designed apes and humans separately, then mutations later caused the GULO gene to break independently in both.  What is so unbelievable about this?


Lack of parsimony (and remember, it's not just apes but monkees too).

If you went to church and saw half a dozen kids sitting together, and all had HUGE noses (way bigger than anyone else there, except for one of the adults sitting with them), you could conclude that each kid had a separate set of parents, and just happen to all be sitting together.  Or you could bust out Occam's Razor and conclude that they are siblings.  Oh, they also look a lot alike aside from their noses as well.  And there's no such thing as a bignose club.

Date: 2006/05/16 05:46:30, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote
How does common design suggest that these breaks occurred multiple times independently?


Well, jeez, we've had a whole 6 thousand years for it to happen, that's how!

Date: 2006/05/16 06:06:42, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote
Quote

If you went to church and saw half a dozen kids sitting together, and all had HUGE noses (way bigger than anyone else there, except for one of the adults sitting with them), you could conclude that each kid had a separate set of parents, and just happen to all be sitting together.  Or you could bust out Occam's Razor and conclude that they are siblings.  Oh, they also look a lot alike aside from their noses as well.  And there's no such thing as a bignose club.


Kids with big noses and other features that look alike is in an entirely different universe than what we are talking about.


So in other words, you accept the principal of parsimony only when it's convenient.  Got it.

Date: 2006/05/16 11:32:25, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote
If you had 5 billion TIMES 5 billion years, it would still not be a plausible story to me, the odds are so staggeringly small for life as we see it to come into existence and develop the way evolutionists say it developed.


What the phalloidin are you yammering on about now?  Didn't you use the cosmic fine-tuning argument as your primary proof for God just a few days ago?  Are you seriously saying that the universe is perfectly fine-tuned for life, but not fine-tuned enough for life to exist without divine intervention?


Date: 2006/05/16 11:35:17, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
argy stokes!

Date: 2006/05/16 12:02:36, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Ha!  Now I'm the author of the two most worthless posts ever, sucka!

Date: 2006/05/17 04:03:24, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote
Oh, by the way ... maybe I should have clarified this earlier ... YECs have no problem with the idea of Apes and Monkeys having a common ancestor.  We actually agree that they did.  I think Noah took a pair of genetically rich "ape/monkeys" on the ark and these diversified into the many varieties we see today.


You believe in the diversification of hundreds of primate species in just the last few thousand years?  My friend, you're a bigger believer in macroevolution than anyone else here!

Date: 2006/05/17 17:36:14, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
I suppose that we're living in the year 36 ABB*, then.

[strike]And answer the question, superdeaddude's just looking for a number, it shouldn't take that long to type.[/strike]  Aaaaaaaaand, now I'm the one lacking reading comprehension

*After Beatles Breakup

Date: 2006/05/18 06:31:25, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote
This is my first proposal on this thread.  Do you seeing anything about an "inerrant Bible"?  I don't.


From the preamble in the first post of the thread:

Quote
There is massive support for the existence of God and for the literal truth revealed in the Bible.  Stay with me through all of my points and I will show it to you in terms you can understand!


So you claimed that you would show that the Bible is literally true (ie, inerrant).  Go jump in a lake, Dave.  Your pants are on fire.

Date: 2006/05/18 18:29:59, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Thomas Neal?

Date: 2006/05/18 20:12:27, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
I know we're not supposed to post his comments here, but I can't resist.  This is the most sensible (and awesome) thing JAD has said in decades, I'm sure.  From his NEW blog:

Quote
Larry's forum is interesting. When there is no moderation, the mindless jackals of cyberspace are attracted like flies to meat to vent their hideous spleens in gay abandon.


And there's your new handle, STJ.  "Hideous Spleen."

Date: 2006/05/21 13:56:07, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote
Antievolution.org Discussion Board welcomes our newest member johnnyb making a total of 604 registered members.


I hope he's here to defend the stupidity documented here in this thread.  I'm sick of AFDave, anyway.

Date: 2006/05/22 05:09:18, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote
Here's the deal.  IF there is a Creator, then it follows that HE gets to make the rules, not us.  IF He says "Go destroy all the Amalekites" and He was the one that created the Amalekites, then how can we say, "No, that's wrong?"


Yeah!  And if I want to kill my children, and I was the one who created my children, then how can you say, "No, that's wrong?"

Date: 2006/05/22 05:18:03, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Wes,

Can we get that post archived (1141) on the mirror site?  Something tells me it won't be around for very long.

Date: 2006/05/22 06:43:09, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Ah, ye olde Thylacine.  Here are some videos of the last known survivor.

(Wipes tear)

Date: 2006/05/24 08:55:42, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
OK, I just have a couple quick questions for AFDave on his Creator God Hypothesis (in bold so it doesn't get lost in all the comments)

1.  Did humans have an immune system before the fall?
2.  If so, why?  If not, where did it come from?


EDIT:  If your answer is "I don't know," then what would you predict?

Date: 2006/05/24 17:13:03, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
For Stockwell et al,

It is probably imprudent at this point to try to try and educate AFD any further on scientific matters.  He's admitted he isn't interested in the science.  What he wants is science's best arguments for things that contradict his literal reading of the Bible so that he preemptively teach the 6 year olds the "refutations" for the evidence.  That way, when they hear the evidence at school or read it in a book, they'll think "I've heard this before, and that nice man Dave Hawkins showed me why it was wrong," without examining the evidence for themselves.  Remember the very first thing he said when he came here?  "Give the 5 best arguments for evolution in your own words."

At this point it really is time to force Dave to come up with arguments and evidences of his "UPDATED Creator God Hypothesis," which should really be just as amusing as watching him dance around scientific explanations with deliberate obtuseness.  You know, annoying Lenny style, or variations thereof.  Otherwise we're just helping him lie for Jesus.

Date: 2006/05/25 04:43:59, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote (afdave @ May 25 2006,05:32)
World Book, 1993 edition, "Evolution" entry ...      
Quote
 
Evolutionary theory holds that all species probably evolved from a single form of life which lived about 3-1/2 billion years ago ... The theory of evolution is supported by a vast amount of evidence from many scientific fields.  When a theory is supported by so much evidence, it becomes accepted as a scientific fact.  Almost all scientists consider the theory of evolution to be a scientific fact
Keep in mind, the kid reading this is assuming ToE=All life from single celled ancestor=Proven Fact.  The article then sprinkles in a fair amount of truth regarding speciation, etc. and then under "Evidence of Evolution" under the heading "Direct observation of evolution", we read ...        
Quote
 
Other examples of rapid, observable evolutionary change have occurred among certain insects and disease-eating bacteria ... Some disease-causing bacteria have become resistant to antibiotics in a similar way.
So what does the kid take away from this?  ToE=All life came from a Single Cell ancestor=Scientific fact, and by the way, disease resistant bacteria proves it.

Only if the kid were an idiot.  The article you're quoting doesn't say that antibiotic resistant bacteria "prove" "macroevolution." Need I parse it for you?  It says

1. Scientists accept evolution from a common ancestor and
2. Evolutionary change has been observed and
3. Antibiotic resistance is an example of observed evolution

Now don't lie about it again.

Date: 2006/05/25 04:58:39, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
[sigh]

I suppose that counts too, doesn't it?

OK, Dave, forget all that stuff except where I told you not to repeat the lie.

Date: 2006/05/25 05:23:22, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
You know, the ones resistant to phage infection.  I'm sure that's what he's talking about, right?  What I want to know is what are "disease-eating bacteria?"

Date: 2006/05/25 07:15:23, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote
Argystokes ...
Quote
1.  Did humans have an immune system before the fall?
2.  If so, why?  If not, where did it come from?
Good question.  I'll look into it and see if anything can be determined.


Hey, remember that part where I said, "If the answer is, 'I don't know,' what would you predict?"

How about some predictions of your Creator God Hypothesis, and fewer analogies?

Date: 2006/05/25 15:11:25, Link 159.189.208.82
Author: argystokes
BWE -

Pirates!

Date: 2006/05/25 15:43:58, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Great Ape is anti-ID.  His comment was definitely parody.

Date: 2006/05/25 15:54:04, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote
Then you must be an idiot.  Because I'll wager that you read just this kind of stuff in World Book and National Geographic and at the museum and so on when you were a kid and combined with everything else you learned about evolution, you came to the conclusion that the Bible is a fairy tale and there is no need for a Creator God because look ...


If you really must know, learning evolution had nothing to do with me "losing my faith" (if a 9 year old can have faith).  It was simply lack of evidence (no prayers answered, never any miracles occurring, etc.).  And lack of evidence is still the reason for my atheism.  I don't remember if I'd learned about evolution yet.  Definitely knew a lot about dinosaurs at the time, though.

Date: 2006/05/25 16:28:02, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Careful Steve, it would be a great shame for Godwin's Law to be invoked on the greatest thread in history.

Date: 2006/05/25 18:04:56, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote
Sheesh, this is getting pathetic. He almost sounds like he believes his own denials.


You know what, I think he does.  And he probably really is insane.  It's probably best not to egg him on at all.  That'd be like making fun of the kids in the special olympics.

Date: 2006/05/26 07:02:12, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Hey, Dave, about that immune system...

Date: 2006/05/26 07:22:42, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote
One does not need to be able to identify all the original kinds in order to have a valid hypothesis that there were, in fact, distinct created kinds.


Yeah!  He doesn't need to ape your pathetic level of detail!

Date: 2006/05/26 12:26:45, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Eric,

It's a flat circle, ie, a disc:
Quote
Have ye not known? have ye not heard? hath it not been told you from the beginning? have ye not understood from the foundations of the earth?

"22": It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

"23": That bringeth the princes to nothing; he maketh the judges of the earth as vanity.
(KJV Isaiah 41:21-23)

Date: 2006/05/27 04:03:55, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Well, Dave, when are you going to answer my question about the immune system?

Also,
AFDave,

Just a quick question:
Why AREN'T you presenting your YEC evidence?

I think that these things should be answered before Incorygible gives you any more answers.  Right, Incorygible?

Date: 2006/05/27 10:00:08, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote
Hey Argy ... this betrays your mistaken impression that I wanted some info from Incorygible.


Hmm, I wonder where I got that impression?

 
Quote
Incorygible--  

I have analyzed your '1985 Evolutionary Predictions' piece ...

Questions ...

You say you start with the fossil record back in 1985 ...

1) How did you come up with the 8mya and 5mya numbers?  
2) On what basis did you propose that gorillas diverged at 8mya, then chimps and humans diverged at 5mya?


...

 
Quote
If you will recall, he said it was important to him to hear my analysis of his piece.


Ah, so your analysis is "I dunno, I'm too lazy to look up some of the pertinant information.  You look it up for me, but don't get back to me."  Got it.

Oh, and do you predict that humans had an immune system before the fall?  If so, why, and if not, where did it come from?

Date: 2006/05/27 15:17:15, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote

4. I'm sure there are others


Some allow the bacterium to pump the drug out of the cell.

Date: 2006/05/28 07:54:42, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Yeah, I've heard this argument used before.  It was by some guy called Half-Life on IIDB a few months ago.  That guy actually realized (or pretended to realize) the error of his ways and freaked out a bit, then disappeared.

Questions for Dave:
1.  How do you know the writing is 5500 years old
2.  Immune system before the fall...?

Date: 2006/05/29 07:25:26, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Dave, are you going to answer my immune system question?  I'm beginning to think you are insincere about your belief in your UPDATED Creator God Hypothesis.  In case you forgot,

Does your hypothesis predict that humans had an immune system before the fall, or not?  If so, why, and if not, where did it come from?

Is there something particularly embarrassing about this question that makes you ignore it repeatedly?

Date: 2006/06/01 06:51:24, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
I will hereby consider your silence regarding my immune system question, which I have asked half a dozen times, to be admission that your model cannot make any prediction regarding this.  I won't be back.

Date: 2006/06/01 07:11:22, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
RGD,

While I think a case could be made that AFDave's intentional deception of children and his discouragement of their critical thinking may be a form of abuse, I think accusations of molestation are over the top and inappropriate.  Unless you can demonstrate that Dave derives some sexual pleasure from brainwashing the kids, you ought to stop referring to Dave as a child molestor.

Date: 2006/06/03 04:09:31, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Dude, we've got a whole thread dedicated to that blog.  No need to post their crap here.

Date: 2006/06/05 05:54:56, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote
Just something comforting --for the 300,000 children under the age of FIVE who die each year of AIDS--eh, GoP?


Based on global prevalence, this seems to be too high by an order of magnitude.  Do you have a source for this, Deadman?

Date: 2006/06/05 06:13:52, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
I would doubt that engineers are more likely to be creationists than most other people.  I think that scientists are much less likely to be creationists, for obvious reasons.  Engineers, however, often seem to think of themselves as scientists, so they feel qualified to pontificate at length as if they are an authority on the subject.

I think Chris' equation fits the bill pretty nicely.

Date: 2006/06/05 06:21:21, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Well, that 610,000 is for children under 15 years, not under 5, but I'll not belabor the point.

Date: 2006/06/05 07:16:44, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
I yield, God Damnit!

Date: 2006/06/05 08:54:27, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
AFD:

Well, I said I was done, but since you've been answering questions today, I think I'll try again (6th time I believe):

1.  Does your Creator God Hypothesis predict that humans had an immune system before the fall, or not?
2.  If so, what was it for, and if not, where did it come from?

Date: 2006/06/05 20:04:42, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote
PT is more, uh, uptown than ATBC...


Nonsense!  I heard it from Andrea Bottaro that PvM's going to try and top Steve Story's Poll with "Who is most likely to produce fertile offspring with a chimpanzee, Larry Fafarman, Dembski, or Berlinski?"  And he'll also find a way to sneak in the phrase "Scientifically vacuous" or "Scientific vacuity."

Well, at least one of those things is true.

Date: 2006/06/06 18:08:23, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote (afdave @ June 06 2006,20:48)
QUESTIONS

Argystokes ...      
Quote
1.  Does your Creator God Hypothesis predict that humans had an immune system before the fall, or not?
2.  If so, what was it for, and if not, where did it come from?
I don't know.  I'm spending all my time studying the RATE Group now, so I'll file this away and let you know as soon as I find out.  I have not done a search to see if ICR has a position on this.

 

They don't.  Neither does AiG.  I'm not asking about them.  It's your hypothesis (see the thread title?).  What do you predict, disregarding outside sources.  It's OK to be wrong... science sometimes is.  I'm just looking for a two sentence explanation.  No need for research; just pick which makes more sense to you.  H311, just go with how you feel, since according to Doug Moran, that counts as evidence too!

Date: 2006/06/06 20:46:53, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Arden, that's quite the facelift!

Did you do it for Thordaddy?  I hear he does like those smooth cheeks...

Date: 2006/06/06 20:52:49, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote
No, but there is one for what T-daddy likes.


Here's another:
             
             vvv
           ((oo))
         ---| ^|        
        /     \/     (__)
       /Tdad\\    (oo)
       |  /---^^---\/  
       | /|         ||  
       || ||------|||

Date: 2006/06/06 21:13:38, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote
All DNA uses three base codons, the codon patterns are the same, etc.


Survey says:


BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Date: 2006/06/07 12:09:17, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Oh no, he's using the Chewbacca Defense!

Date: 2006/06/08 21:00:03, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
As Stephen Colbert said, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."

Date: 2006/06/09 05:24:16, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote
Immune systems basically distinguish ‘self’ from ‘non-self,’ which would be important for maintaining bodily integrity even in the pre-Fall world. Of course such systems became even more important in the post-Fall world, to protect against such disease-causing organisms.


Maintaining bodily integrity?  In a perfect world?  What does that even mean?  I'll tell you.  It means that Don Batten (editor), Ken Ham, Jonathan Sarfati, and Carl Wieland are delightfully stupid.

Date: 2006/06/09 13:04:05, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
I for one would love the ID folks to change to IE and start including theistic evolutionists in their big tent.  Then they could really send the message, "It's not science we're fighting, it's atheism!"

Which would get them totally boned in every court case, as they have for the last 25 years.

Date: 2006/06/10 17:37:23, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote (Ichthyic @ June 10 2006,19:01)
 
Quote
Did Paley fail so badly in modeling a geocentric universe that he suicided his thread?


?

no, it's still there, and he thinks he's about to make a "revelation" of some kind.

Take a look at today's post on Good Math/Bad Math.  It's about geocentrism.  If Paley ever finishes his model someone ought to send it to Mark.

Date: 2006/06/12 05:24:29, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote
You have this exactly backwards.  Since we're comparing the differences, 40% is the more accurate figure.  You are just being mentally blocked by what you call your own "common sense" - which is really just another way of saying "willful ignorance".  I suspect you are just trying to brush off the "1/2%" amounts as margins of error, when that is simply not the case.


But you see, Dave knows 8 year olds won't know the difference, and that's all that matters for Honest Dave.

Quote
Did you ask your fighter pilot buddies yet about that term for what a dishonest shirker is called?  It starts with Shi…


I remember that guy... I guess now we know where his name comes from!

Date: 2006/06/12 05:29:23, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Looks like Michaels7 might want to cut back on the smack

Quote
Is heroin a call? Not by us, but thru Him, all things are possible.


No, dear, that's addiction calling, not Him.

Date: 2006/06/12 05:42:28, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
So, Dave, are chimpanzees genetically more similar to humans or gorillas, and is this difference statistically significant?

Date: 2006/06/12 06:39:18, Link 128.95.21.138
Author: argystokes
Whoops, it looks like you missed my question.  AFD, are chimpanzees statistically significantly more similar genetically to humans or gorillas?  I'd like to hear you answer this question directly.

Date: 2006/06/12 07:19:06, Link 128.95.21.138
Author: argystokes
Quote (afdave @ June 12 2006,10:09)
Argy...      
Quote
Whoops, it looks like you missed my question.  AFD, are chimpanzees statistically significantly more similar genetically to humans or gorillas?  I'd like to hear you answer this question directly.
Sure, if by 'statistical significance' you mean a difference that we can measure.  Obviously, we can measure 1/2%.

But it is nothing to write home about if you are using the data to try to show how much closer chimps are to humans than gorillas are.

No, that's NOT what statistical significance means, and I'm not making up new definitions for it, so you haven't answered my question.

From StatSoft, Inc.
 
Quote
The statistical significance of a result is the probability that the observed relationship (e.g., between variables) or a difference (e.g., between means) in a sample occurred by pure chance ("luck of the draw"), and that in the population from which the sample was drawn, no such relationship or differences exist. Using less technical terms, one could say that the statistical significance of a result tells us something about the degree to which the result is "true" (in the sense of being "representative of the population"). [technical definition follows]

Date: 2006/06/12 07:37:12, Link 128.95.21.138
Author: argystokes
Quote (BWE @ June 12 2006,10:33)
Davey, why do you ignore the point that I accepted your bet and you never paid up?

Or do you still think that you could win?

He also deleted your conversation with him on his blog. Possibly the whole post; I don't remember what the original topic was.

Date: 2006/06/14 05:49:39, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote (afdave @ June 14 2006,08:43)
In other words ... JonF is tired of being shown how his rebuttals aren't working and can only come up with vague one-liners.

Good.  We will move on to the next topic.

I don't think those questions are particularly vague, Dave.  Let's see your calculations.

Date: 2006/06/14 05:53:52, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
post removed by author

Date: 2006/06/14 07:03:11, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote (incorygible @ June 14 2006,09:17)
Quote (argystokes @ June 14 2006,10:49)
I don't think those questions are particularly vague, Dave.  Let's see your calculations.

argystokes, there HAS to be a better way to celebrate your birthday!  (Have good one.  ;)  )

Heh, already did (yesterday).  Now I'm just avoiding studying for prelims.

Date: 2006/06/15 08:02:43, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote
You apparently don't understand the issue of separation of church and state.  You need to read 'The Myth of Separation' by David Barton.  Here is an article from him, but you should read his book.  David Barton's works are some of the best documented you will ever find.  He is one of the few academics that I know of that almost exclusively uses the higher legal standard for documenting his quotes.  Most academics use a lesser standard than this.  Here is what he says ...


Uh oh, Dave.  Barton has been caught using unsourced quotes (likely made up by himself) and forced to admit it:

http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=20

Of course, I know you've read this page for two reasons:
(1) I pointed it out to you on your blog.  Then you deleted the entire thread (why would you do that, Dave?)
(2) Your description of the "higher legal standard" comes directly from the intro paragraph to the page where Barton admits the quotes are unsourced.

But if Barton uses a "higher standard" for sourcing his quotes, then why do the fake ones appear in his book anyway?  He is essentially arguing, "Since once in a while I source my quotes, and sometimes other academics don't source quotes, I use a higher standard of excellence in my work than them."  Ridiculous.

Now you have a new project:
Prove that most academics use unsourced quotes to bolster their claims.  Here, I'll throw you a bone:
Quote
"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism." - Thomas Jefferson

...is a made-up quote.

See, this stuff is easy to find.  I'm sure you'll be able to prove that folks who write books that say the US was founded on freedom of and freedom from religion are just making stuff up, right?

Date: 2006/06/16 06:02:52, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Stephen -

Check out the thread on board mechanics.  In short, you can find the invisible posts by changing the last number in the url.  For example:

CODE=02;f=14;t=1950 change to CODE=02;f=14;t=1958

Date: 2006/06/19 05:15:57, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Dave, some people say you're boring, which I just can't understand.  The hilarity of conversations that go like this is just impossible to not laugh at:

Dave: Here's a sentence in 3 languages to prove portuguese is french and spanish mixed!

Arden: Here's 3 more languages to add.  See, they all look the same.  It's called a language family.

Dave: My chart of 3 languages is MORE DETAILED than your chart of 6, which includes my chart!

Date: 2006/06/19 06:14:14, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
I'm talking about this:

 
Quote
Arden...  
 
Quote

Here's the chart AFD gave:

Spanish haber hombre cuerpo noche hijo hecho bueno y
Portug haver homem corpo noite filho feito bom e
French avoir homme corps nuit fils fait bon et

Here are three additional languages Dave neglected:

Romanian: avea om corp noapte fiu facut bun si
Italian: avere uomo corpo notte figlio fatto buono e
Catalan: haver home cos nit fill  fet bo i

Linguistic evidence, Dave, linguistic evidence.  OK.  Fine linguistic evidence.  I've given it several times.  Here it is again.  Arden, your chart shows that your 3 languages belong to the same family ... wonderful.  We knew that already.  Not very novel info.  But again, my chart gives more detail in that it shows a definite influence on Spanish by French to produce Portuguese ALL WITHIN the same language family.
(my emphasis)

Of course, having to synthesize two parts of a chart is very difficult, so the illustrious hairless Chatfield did it for you (see p. 74):
 
Quote
Dave, you ignored this the first three times I posted it. I want your comments now.

You posted a cognate set with French, Portuguese and Spanish that you (delusionally) thought supported your argument.

I have doubled the data. Here it is, again:

Portuguese: haver homem corpo noite filho feito bom e
Spanish: haber hombre cuerpo noche hijo hecho bueno y
Catalan: haver home cos nit fill  fet bo i
French: avoir homme corps nuit fils fait bon et
Italian: avere uomo corpo notte figlio fatto buono e
Romanian: avea om corp noapte fiu facut bun si

Now, with your amount of basic data DOUBLED here, would you like to tell me why your original data proved your point, and why this new data does not completely destroy your theory?


Are you suffering from brain rot?

Yip.........Yip.....Yip...Yip...YipYipYipYipYipYip, ahhhhh huh, ahhhhhhh huh

Date: 2006/06/20 14:40:34, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Faid,

Quote
Without ever backing out in my claims, I pointed out to him how wrong he was... and we claimed he won.


Beware them typos, there be quote miners in these waters... (this message will disappear upon correction of typo)

Date: 2006/06/22 06:45:24, Link 128.208.60.20
Author: argystokes
Ah, Randy has finally "come out" against eating polyester and wearing shellfish:
Quote
#

That’s okay. They’ve already excised inconvenient verses from Leviticus. Why not move on and excise Genesis? The question is…at what point do they stop being ‘Christian’ and become something else?

Comment by rmagruder — June 22, 2006 @ 11:36 am


Don't hate homos?  Accept modern science?  What kind of a Christian are you?!

Date: 2006/06/22 06:55:22, Link 128.208.60.20
Author: argystokes
Boh Ring!

More fluddinark, please.

Date: 2006/06/22 07:21:10, Link 128.208.60.20
Author: argystokes
Quote (improvius @ June 22 2006,10:08)
Quote (afdave @ June 22 2006,11:45)
JUSTIFYING YOUR SKEPTICISM, OR, MISERY LOVES COMPANY

It was interesting to read the latest psychoanalysis of me and to hear your responses to the new guy.  I have often thought it strange that some of you guys are worried about the lurkers "converting" to YECism here.  Personally, I don't expect it now and I never have.  It appears to me that people come to Panda's Thumb looking for justification to be a skeptic.  They are looking for scientific sounding reasons to reject the Bible and set up their own morality and it helps to have some like minded people that affirm what they want to believe.  Now as sure as I say this, I will piled on with denials like "We come here to discuss science, you moron!  What in the world are you talking about?"  Well yes.  Part of it is science, but there is a very subtle thing going on here.  The subtle thing is that you have a lot of truth, but its mixed in with a lot of error concealed in sometimes inconspicuous places.  Combine this with a blindness which all humans are subject to when they want to believe something, and you have a very powerful deception.  Everyone is familiar with the 'Love is blind' concept.  Well this is the same way.  Skeptics can't stand those "goddam christians/muslims/jews/hindus/" and the feeling is so strong that, like the love-struck teenager, they cannot see the glaring errors in their theories.  

Woo-hoo!  Now that's the stuff I've been waiting to hear.  Man, I thought Dave was never going to come right out and say it.

Personally, I'm waiting for the "I used to be an atheist, because I was angry with God" testimony.  That one always gives me the giggles.

Date: 2006/06/22 12:06:29, Link 128.208.60.20
Author: argystokes
Quote
Fine.  I agree GENETIC distance is close.  What's your point?  My point is that if all you look at is genetics then you are blissfully naive and hopelessly misguided.  You've had a virtual lobotomy and you don't even know it.


Tell me Dave, what [edit: are the units of] hereditary material of organisms called?  You probably learned it in elementary school.

Date: 2006/06/22 12:17:07, Link 128.208.60.20
Author: argystokes
Ah, Eric, you gave it all away!

Dave, forget my last question.  It's summer.  Go grab a mitt and throw a baseball around with your son.  Seriously.

Date: 2006/06/23 08:23:01, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Here's a question, Dave.  Early on in this thread you said you believed that the evidence convinced you the Bible is correct absolutely, rather than the other way around.  My question is, which evidences for a young earth/implications of a young earth with flood disaster would you believe if you had never even heard of the Bible?  Obviously it can't be all of them; for example, your only "evidence" for N. American Amerinds having written language is based upon the Bible.

As an aside, in your opinion (since churches disagree on this matter), if one dies never having heard of the Bible or God, do they go to ####?

Date: 2006/06/23 09:04:59, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote (stevestory @ June 23 2006,11:58)
 
Quote
Thou shalt not kill never applied to God ... people are owned by Him ... He can do as He pleases with them.
This is why muslims call themselves Slaves of Allah.



Date: 2006/06/23 13:24:24, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote
Argy...    
Quote
My question is, which evidences for a young earth/implications of a young earth with flood disaster would you believe if you had never even heard of the Bible?
Other historical records would be the best.  Then stratigraphy, C14, dendro, etc.


I guess I was unclear.  I mean which of the evidences that you have talked about over the 87 pages of comments here would you support having never heard of the Bible.  A worldwide flood?  Catastrophic movement of the continents?  Earth created in 6 days?  Common ancestry of siamangs and chimps, but not chimps and humans? Age of the earth? Age of stars?  Separate creation of languages?  Vapor canopies?  I'm sure you can think of others.

 
Quote
   
Quote
As an aside, in your opinion (since churches disagree on this matter), if one dies never having heard of the Bible or God, do they go to ####?
This is just opinion ... I cannot quote you a Scripture passage on this ... I think people can learn about God from Nature and can believe on Him.


(I'll take that as a yes).  I suppose that explains the high prevalence of omnimax monotheism among peoples never introduced to the Abrahamic religions.

Date: 2006/06/24 04:13:51, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Looks like I got forgotten this morning.  Here's my question again:
Quote
I guess I was unclear.  I mean which of the evidences that you have talked about over the 87 pages of comments here would you support having never heard of the Bible.  A worldwide flood?  Catastrophic movement of the continents?  Earth created in 6 days?  Common ancestry of siamangs and chimps, but not chimps and humans? Age of the earth? Age of stars?  Separate creation of languages?  Vapor canopies?  I'm sure you can think of others.

Date: 2006/06/24 18:20:15, Link 128.208.60.20
Author: argystokes
Quote (improvius @ June 24 2006,21:15)
Quote (afdave @ June 24 2006,12:31)
Quote
You are mentally incapable of accepting such evidence.  See?  I'll ask you yet again:  How would you discern true from false evidence that would refute your beliefs?
It's real easy.  Just go find some piece of archaeological evidence that contradicts some statement of the Bible and I will accept it.  Go try.  You are so sure the Bible is wrong, it should be easy for you.

Se, Dave?  You STILL can't answer the question.  Your brain just can't handle it.

Perhaps I'll try.

Dave:  Give a hypothetical example of an archaeological piece of data contradicting the Bible, and the specific methods used to generate that data.

Date: 2006/06/25 08:22:08, Link 128.208.60.20
Author: argystokes
Quote (deadman_932 @ June 25 2006,11:07)
Okay, Dave, Let's look at your "unbiased expert" Don Batten, who says    
Quote
However, when the interpretation of scientific data contradicts the true history of the world as revealed in the Bible, then it’s the interpretation of the data that is at fault.
 Unbiased? Uh, yeah, right.

Such is the same for the rest of Dave's sources.  From AiG:
Quote
No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.

and ICR:
Quote
The Bible, consisting of the thirty-nine canonical books of the Old Testament and the twenty-seven canonical books of the New Testament, is the divinely-inspired revelation of the Creator to man. Its unique, plenary, verbal inspiration guarantees that these writings, as originally and miraculously given, are infallible and completely authoritative on all matters with which they deal, free from error of any sort, scientific[sic] and historical as well as moral and theological.


Of course, we atheistic scientists also have a statement of faith.  From the Federation of American Graduate Schools in Science:
Quote
The goal of science is to exterminate faith in Christ, whose teachings are antithetical to our secular humanist worldview.  Data suggesting consonance between natural history and Biblical scripture should be viewed with skepticism, and rejected if contradicted by data that favors a godless worldview.


Fair is fair, I guess.

Date: 2006/06/25 09:32:53, Link 128.208.60.20
Author: argystokes
Quote (plasmasnake23 @ June 25 2006,12:28)
This is a very small point but I fail to see how all of genesis can be an eyewitness account when man isn't created until the sixth day.

It's an eyewitness account by God!  And who are you going to believe, scientists, or God?

Date: 2006/06/25 12:38:36, Link 128.208.60.20
Author: argystokes
Quote (Richardthughes @ June 25 2006,15:13)
Quote (Joseph Beres @ June 25 2006,16:38)
From dave
   
Quote
[Admin Announcement] Get Back to Intelligent Design

I’ve been lax in keeping the topic here on intelligent design and away from everyone’s favorite religion (or lack thereof). I’m as guilty as anyone. To remedy this situation I’m going to be deleting any comments I see with gratuitous references to religion until further notice. I’ll make an exception for any of our authors who’ve PhDs in both theology and mathematics.


PhDs in theology and mathematics huh? Guess that leaves Dembski out.

Dembski has a 13 page CV.

Get a grip. May I suggest a 14th page to include what he had for lunch and top 5 breeds of Dog?

That's not really very long.  I've seen CVs over 100 pages.  Of course, that requires extensive publishing in peer reviewed literature.

Date: 2006/06/26 04:46:41, Link 128.208.60.20
Author: argystokes
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ June 26 2006,07:25)
Guys, I find your various speculations about my motivation, education, etc. to be quite amusing, but ya'll might be overthinking the issue a bit. Ya'll are trying to pigeonhole me, but if there's one thing I am, it's different. Also, I look at the broad picture....what's a lifetime of "foolish" beliefs to an eternity of bliss? If I'm wrong (and I'm not, that's where faith comes in) I haven't lost anything -- I might not be a good Christian but God has given my life purpose, so it's a win-win situation.


Unless the Muslims are right.  Or there's a joker God.

Date: 2006/06/27 09:28:49, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Larry's brother is Dave.  A sensible enough guy, it seems.  I think he's an NCSE member.

Date: 2006/06/27 11:56:00, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote
I would be glad if someone C&Ped a Bible verse that supposedly show this.  Here's a verse that shows that Isaiah knew that the earth was round ...  
Quote

Isa 40:22 It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.


Um, Dave, that doesn't say anything about the earth being round... quite the opposite, really.  Maybe it's a poor translation?

Date: 2006/06/28 16:47:38, Link 128.208.60.20
Author: argystokes
Click back a couple of pages and you'll see a couple more threads totally about 50 more pages. Ay Eff Dee-licious!

oh, and,

Dave, what evidence would you accept as being contradictory to genesis?  Please cite both the hypothetical data and the methods used to generate the data.  Please be as specific as possible

I think that's about the tenth time you've been asked, by at least 3 different people.

Date: 2006/06/29 11:55:12, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote (afdave @ June 29 2006,09:10)
Argy...  
Quote
Dave, what evidence would you accept as being contradictory to genesis?  Please cite both the hypothetical data and the methods used to generate the data.  Please be as specific as possible
Here's some ...

1) Written historical records back to 100,000 or so BC instead of 5500 BC
2) Lots more 'humanoid' fossils than we have now and lots less equivocal ones
3) Existing 'sub-human' cultures found in various parts of the world.
4) Evidence for a Super-Homo-Sapiens race such as the one Hitler thought he had.
5) A true transitional nature of the fossil record -- it is woefully lacking in transitional forms
6) Demonstrated macroevolution in the lab -- like the creation of some Super Fruit flies or something.
7) Observation that mankind behaves just like an animal, nothing more.
8) Archaeological finds contradicting the Bible

There's just a few for you ...

Read the question and answer again.  Especially the parts about "data" and "methods."

Date: 2006/06/30 06:51:10, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
AFD...
Quote
Improv...
Quote
The question that you keep DODGING is what criteria are you using to evaluate the data?  The answer would seem to be that you simply dismiss any data that disagrees with your bible.


Wow ... you're a tough one to make happy.  What criteria?  Let's see ... how about whether the data are consistent with what I read in my history book - the Bible?  How do you argue with that?  Examples:  the Bible talks about Hittites.  We go out and do some digging and see if we can find Hittites.  Voila!  There they are.  The Bible talks about king Ahab of Israel.  Let's go dig ... Voila!  There he is on Shalmaneser's Stela ... and so on.  There have been literally HUNDREDS (maybe thousands) of finds confirming the historicity of the Bible.  And to me, some of the most spectacular ones are the finds in Mesopotamia confirming that civilization did in fact begin in Mesopotamia, and it was a very high level of civilization--neat architecture, agriculture, music, metallurgy, etc--just as my History Book (the Bible) said.


The context of the question is what would CONTRADICT the Bible?  Do I need to ask my question again, or will you just continue to not answer it?

Date: 2006/06/30 07:28:37, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote (afdave @ June 30 2006,10:23)
Argy...  
Quote
The context of the question is what would CONTRADICT the Bible?  Do I need to ask my question again, or will you just continue to not answer it?
If you want a real world example of something, Mormon archaeology is a good one.  In short, there IS NO Mormon archaeology because they cannot find any of the places listed in the Book of Mormon, such as Zarahemla and Bountiful, etc.  Here's what respected Mormon archaeologist  Professor Dee F. Green said,  
Quote
The first myth we need to eliminate is that Book of Mormon archaeology exists ... If one is to study Book of Mormon archaeology, then one must have a ccorpus of data with which to deal.  We do not. ... no Book of Mormon location is known with reference to modern topography.  Biblical archaeology can be studied because we do know where Jerusalem and Jericho were and are, but we do not know where Zarahemla and Bountiful (nor any location for that matter) were and are. ... a concentration on geography should be the first order of business, but we have already seen that twenty years of such an approach has left us empty-handed.   Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, "Mormons and Archaeology: An Outside View," Summer 1969, pp. 77-78.


What I am saying, Argy, is that there has been plenty of opportunity for archaeologists to refute the Bible.  This has has been done with the Book of Mormon and it has been proven by this and many other ways to be a fraud.  

But not so with the Bible.  Many an archaeologist would have loved for the Bible to be proven false, but it has been proven accurate instead.

So I am at a loss to tell you how to proceed in disproving the Bible.  I am afraid you are in for a tough challenge.

I see.  It is conceptually impossible to refute anything in the Bible.  One can only lack confirming evidence.  Geez, Dave, since EVERYTHING is consistent with the Bible, why are you railing against evolution?

Date: 2006/07/01 04:19:42, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Man, if Dave says "Scientists think the Colorado River flowed UPWARDS," I might kill myself.  From laughter, of course.

Date: 2006/07/02 13:35:05, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote (afdave @ July 02 2006,15:17)
Creationists "habla espanol" quite well, thank you ...

Creationists hablan espanol!

Date: 2006/07/04 20:06:04, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Dave and Deadman,

I was just perusing AiG's arguments that creationists should not use, when I came across this one:

Quote
“There are gaps in the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11, so the earth may be 10,000 years old or even more.”

This is not so. The language is clear that they are strict chronologies, especially because they give the age of the father at the birth of the next name in line. So the earth is only about 6,000 years old.


So perhaps, Dave, it is time for you to set a precise date for the flood.

Date: 2006/07/05 05:36:35, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Improvius,

Of course they support his view.  He can't even imagine something that wouldn't.

Date: 2006/07/05 15:22:28, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Eve and Adam must have both been hermaphrodites.  Otherwise Eve would have been XY when created from Adam's rib.

Date: 2006/07/06 06:04:50, Link 128.95.11.237
Author: argystokes
Quote
5. Why do all the independent C14 calibration curves agree with each other to within a few percent?


Quote
5) You lie and fudge and twist and stretch and swallow elephants because you guys need support your bogus 200,000 year history of mankind


Ah, accusing the entire mainstream science community of scientific fraud.  Conspiralicious!

Date: 2006/07/06 09:34:49, Link 128.95.11.237
Author: argystokes
Quote (stevestory @ July 05 2006,16:55)
Glenn Morton, former AFDave type who smartened up, said:
Quote


But one thing that those unaffected by this demon don't understand is that the victim is not lying about the data. The demon only lets his victim see what the demon wants him to see and thus the victim, whose sensory input is horribly askew, feels that he is totally honest about the data.


This is exactly what I mean when I say I don't think AFDave is lying. He simply can't believe anything which opposes his religious conviction. It simply must be false, somehow.

I think the most blatant example of an AFDave lie was when he said that the evidence convinced him the Genesis story was true, rather than vice versa.  This is evidenced by the fact that he cannot even imagine what data contradicting Genesis would look like.

Date: 2006/07/16 08:07:45, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Whoa!  Did I read that right?  One day of continental drift?  VROOOOOOOOOOOOM!

Date: 2006/07/17 20:14:31, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Alas, now I'll never get the boot with a bold-tard comment:

WAD said...
Quote
Here’s your second chance to make this thread productive. Stay on topic. Janiebelle has been booted. NEW RULE AT UD: No more bold insertions into existing comments. I’ve done it as has DaveScot. That’s now a thing of the past. One-comment-one-poster is now the rule.


Was there anything particularly embarrassing for Dembski in that thread, or was it just JanieBelle posting a bazillion comments?

Date: 2006/07/18 09:51:44, Link 128.95.11.237
Author: argystokes
Looks like a photo of a book.  That line on the right would be the page split.

Date: 2006/07/18 15:42:58, Link 128.95.11.237
Author: argystokes
I don't think we'll miss Dave as much as some people think.   More Biblebabble, less antiACLU rants, and I suppose that means less variety. O'Leary is a sure thing to provides oodles of Bible-stupid, and Dembski's attempts at science are always hilarious.  Tkae, for example,
Quote
July 18, 2006
Molecular DNA Switch Found to be the Same for All Life

   The molecular machinery that starts the process by which a biological cell divides into two identical daughter cells apparently worked so well early on that evolution has conserved it across the eons in all forms of life on Earth. Researchers with the U.S. Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and the University of California at Berkeley have shown that the core machinery for initiating DNA replication is the same for all three domains of life — Archaea, Bacteria and Eukarya.

   MORE

Given that, according to Carl Woese, the three domains are not descended from a common ancestor (see here), is it plausible that this same switch could have arisen apart from design three times?


Which PvM has already handled here..

Date: 2006/07/18 18:24:05, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote
Edit: Argy beat me on my own thread. I see the student has become the master.


DaveTard once said something very similar of me.  With as much time as I waste hanging around here, I suppose it's inevitable.

Date: 2006/07/19 06:00:38, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote (improvius @ July 19 2006,08:42)
I remember building a model of the battleship Missouri when I was a kid.  So I guess in Dave's world, a child with some glue, a pair of tweezers, and some appropriately-shaped plastic pieces can produce a full-scale, functioning WWII battleship in just a couple of days.

No, this analogy is wrong.  A GIANT child with an assload of glue, monstrous tweezers, and big ole plastic pieces DID produce WWII battle ships.

Date: 2006/07/20 06:08:48, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote
3. Abuse involving race, religion, social class, sexual preference, et cetera, is a banning offence. We judge people on the strength of their arguments, and expect the same treatment from others.


So no more picking on atheists, right? *sputter**cough**choke*

Date: 2006/07/20 06:58:01, Link 128.95.11.237
Author: argystokes
The thought of anyone taking lessons on not being windy from Glen brings an effluence of chuckles and tears...

Date: 2006/07/21 07:20:13, Link 128.95.11.237
Author: argystokes
Quote
Oh, and note that his initials are DT.  Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.


What's more, he normally signs his posts Dave T.

Date: 2006/07/21 13:46:20, Link 128.95.11.237
Author: argystokes
Quote
I hope you will clarify your comment for me, because for the life of me it looks like you are suggesting that the words, “Fross, how about” constitutes commentary on what follows. I know that neither you nor any other reasonable person would ever say anything that stupid, so please clue me in on what you really meant.


That's one to remember and use against Barry next time he asks a question on UD.  Just answer, "How about, [insert irrelevant quote here]," then when called on it, say you weren't making commentary, just posting.

And it's good to see Dembski posting papers having nothing to do with ID, and declaring them "ID research papers," when he clearly hasn't even read anything but the abstract.

Date: 2006/07/21 15:04:50, Link 128.95.11.237
Author: argystokes
He probably had an automatic disemvoweller set up for certain IP addresses.  SteveS, when you got disemvowelled, were you posting from a different location than when your comments got through?

Date: 2006/07/21 17:31:43, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Did Dembski change the thread title, or did I just notice the term "unwitting?"

Date: 2006/07/22 13:29:25, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
So maybe you could point Puck to the answer instead of having to explain it for him?  Or do you just <b>know</b> that the answer must exist?

Date: 2006/07/22 15:34:23, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote
Birds=Dinosaurs is one of the best ones I've heard yet on this thread ...


The next thing you know, these silly evolutionists will be saying birds are chordates!  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Date: 2006/07/24 19:30:13, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Over on that Cornell blog, Sal leaves a gem (comment #22):
Quote
#

Let me suggest this thread would not be a good place to peer-review of Dembski’s math. We can proceed with the discussion without delving into the higher recesses of it. Especially the math that is already well accepted in the disciplines of statistics.


Hey now!  Don't look at that math!  Just trust me, Dembski's a genius.  And when I'm really good, sometimes he lets me have a biscuit.

Date: 2006/07/25 15:19:18, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote (afdave @ July 25 2006,17:56)
What did I concede?

That the Bible you use to form your opinions on reality isn't inerrant.

Date: 2006/07/25 17:12:31, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote
Argy ...    
Quote

That the Bible you use to form your opinions on reality isn't inerrant.

No, I'm not conceding anything ... you need to go read Diogenes' post ... the original text is inerrant ... the copies are not.

You see?  Why is that so hard to grasp?


Um, you said that you use the NKJV.  That's not the original text.  It's a copy.  As you said, the copies are not inerrant.

QED, bitch.

Date: 2006/07/25 17:25:32, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote
Antievolution.org Discussion Board welcomes our newest member Alexandra making a total of 666 registered members.


Hard times coming Dave; the beast is upon us.  Or Nero perhaps.

And you're right, I can't "admit" a perfect God, who is, as you say, unpredictable and unexplainable.  It's meaningless.  And that was too many commas for such a short sentence.

Date: 2006/07/25 17:43:13, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
I fixed it for you...
Quote (afdave @ July 25 2006,20:31)
OK.  One more time real slowly for those among us whose heads are spinning in circles ...

1) You stumble across this book see?  Commonly called the Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince ...
2) You hear some fundies claiming that it's supernatural, so you investigate
3) After a thorough investigation, you agree
4) You conclude from your examination of the evidence that this book is supernatural ... superintended by a Supernatural God, who apparently created all things
5) Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince doesn't have one of those "Any similarities between event or people in this book..." disclaimers.
6) There are many claims in Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince which cannot be proven, but there are many which can
7) Considering the huge amount of statements which can be proven and which HAVE BEEN proven to be true, you conclude that the Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince just might be true

No circularity.  Just logic.

Date: 2006/07/26 05:59:43, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Important scientific questions for the design movement to answer:
Quote
Questions: (1) Leaving aside Calvinism, is Howard Van Till a Christian at all? Would he even accept that designation? (2) Given that he has veered so far from Calvin College’s statement of faith, is it legitimate for him to maintain his formal affiliation with the school as “professor emeritus”? Are professors emeritus held to the same standards as nonretired faculty?

Date: 2006/07/27 08:22:47, Link 128.95.11.237
Author: argystokes
Quote (afdave @ July 27 2006,11:17)
Eric...
Quote
I can "assume" that my apartment building was built in 30 seconds by billions of microscopic apartment-constucting fairies 75 years ago, and that certainly explains the existence of my apartment building, by your logic.


Your theory of how YOU cam into existence is almost that fantastic!

Well, you see when a man and a woman love each other very much...

Date: 2006/07/27 19:38:59, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote
Aftershave ... no, I'm NOT sorry I said the NKJV is not without errors.  I'm quite sure it has a few.  This has no bearing on the concept of inerrancy of the originals.  Get a clue.  Go back and do your remedial reading.


Now that the original texts of the Old Testament have been found, I'm sure you'll read up and see which parts have been translated correctly to the NKJV...
Quote
Old Testament Original document found! Not In Hebrew!


A couple of boys interned in an israeli guarded palestinian "neighborhood" unearthed what religious scholors are calling the "Greatest Find In History"- A perfectly preserved scroll which turned out to be the original copy of the old testament. In Swahili! The various translation difficulties that have plagued translators throughout the ages are resolved. For example, many famous scholars have argued that Yohm can mean either "Era" or "day", chief among them is a man named Mr. Lando Calrissium who published a brilliant scholarly endeavor proving conclusively that it means "Era" in Genesis so we don't have to think that the earth is only 6000 years old. THis emmensely important work reconciled huge swaths of scientific investigation with the words of the Bible. Other important contributions have included his much more accurate translations of the flood story to show that it was definitely describing a local event and therefore also was not contradicting important scientific discoveries.

Imagine our surprise when we discovered that there were serious errors in the Hebrew translation. "All our work is bunk" lamented Lando. "After reading that disclaimer inside the front cover we were all feeling pretty foolish."

The scrolls had a sticker, stuck to the top of each scroll. The sticker, made of ultrafine lambskin and affixed with a clearish milkyish glue, read:

   This scroll contains material on the chronology and events of creation. This information is not a fact regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered as the pure allegory for the human condition that it indeed is.

   Approved By
   Yamashukalevi, grand Archmage of the tribe of israel written in the language of the swahili, the language which brings the listener closer to this god that we are making up.
   Thursday, March 28, 4021 BCE.

Lando is busy at work on his new translation of the Swahili where he will prove conclusively that aliens built the pyramids.


Welcome back, BWE.

Date: 2006/08/02 18:05:00, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote
Lets throw this out to the group, what do you guys mean when you say random mutation?  I'm now very interested to see what we come up with.


Nondirected.

Date: 2006/08/03 11:05:59, Link 128.95.21.138
Author: argystokes
Quote
For example, when confronted with a novel toxin (i.e. antibiotic), do bacteria indeed rely on a strictly random search for resistance (akin to stumbling in the dark), or do their genomes have the ability to trigger (and bias) changes towards specific gene sites so that the right enzymes are produced in enough organisms to ensure  the survival of at least a remnant?    If a bacterial genome had to roll fewer genetic "dice" to come up with winning numbers, all the more power to it.  That "Roman Emperor" of nature - natural selection- would surely have given the thumbs up to any such genetic search engine and perpetuated it (assuming it exists as I envisage).

This hypothesis is scientific in that it can be tested.  


It has.  I'll see if I can dig up the paper, but this discussion deserves its own thread.

Date: 2006/08/03 11:21:12, Link 128.95.21.138
Author: argystokes
This review came out a couple of years ago.  It dismisses the concept of directed mutation; that is, the idea that cells sense what area of the genome "needs" to mutate in response to its environment.  The main thrust of the paper, however, is that cells can increase their overall mutation rate in response to environmental stressors, leading to an increased chance of achieving beneficial mutations.  This kind of hypermutation remains controversial, and rebuttals to this article have been published.  Here's the introduction; I don't want to violate any copyright laws:
Quote
Adaptive Mutation: How Growth under Selection Stimulates Lac+ Reversion by Increasing Target Copy Number
John R. Roth1* and Dan I. Andersson2,3
Microbiology Section, University of California, Davis, Davis, California 95616,1 Department of Bacteriology, Swedish Institute for Infectious Disease Control, S-171 82 Solna,2 Microbiology and Tumour Biology Center, Karolinska Institute, S-171 77, Solna, Sweden3

From the time of Darwin until about 1950, a controversy continued over whether selective stress induces mutations or only affects the relative reproductive success of organisms with different genotypes (30). The controversy was resolved by the classic experiments of Luria and Delbrück (27) and of Lederberg and Lederberg (25), who showed that some bacterial mutants arise prior to application of the selection that allows their detection and thus could not have been caused by selective conditions. However, these experiments used lethal selections and therefore did not eliminate the possibility that another fraction of total mutations might be formed in response to stress and be detected only by nonlethal selection. Shapiro and Cairns et al. reopened the controversy by pointing out this caveat and presenting data that seemed to support stress-induced mutation (7, 45).

Because very few genetic systems behave in ways that suggest stress-induced mutation, the rare cases that seem to exhibit such behavior have attracted close attention. In one case, mutants were later shown to preexist selection (14, 28, 29, 44). For the system devised by Cairns and Foster (5), we suggest that reversion occurs by a multistep process initiated prior to selection and the appearance of stress-induced mutagenesis results from growth under strong selection.


Proponents of directed mutation, which seems to be a necessity for any kind of front-loading hypothesis, should also check out:
Foster, P. L., and J. Cairns. 1992. Mechanisms of directed mutation. Genetics 131:783-789.

Date: 2006/08/03 14:51:03, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Apollo,

I've begun a new thread to discuss directed mutation.  It can be found here

Date: 2006/08/03 16:40:57, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Icky:

I'll bet you an e-beer that Apollo at least attempts to engage the issues.  I'm not getting the exteme arrogance vibes that usually accompany IDC visitors here.

Date: 2006/08/03 16:44:33, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
That paper looks like a good read, Chris.  Perhaps I'll have some time for it later on, but for now, I'm going to spend some time with my favorite bitch.

Date: 2006/08/03 20:10:39, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote
or would you plead the 5th amendment if I asked you if you downloaded tunes?)


We pirates thieve for ourselves, not for others!

Apollo asked:
Quote
I gleaned two possibilities from this post: pre-adaptations and/or adaptations that occur under the gun of strong selection.  Both are certainly possible.  However, could some (or most?) pre-adaptations result from "preferential" mutation systems?  Who is to say that only strong selection could trigger this alleged mechanism.


I'm afraid I don't really understand what you're saying here.  Could you clarify?  I think you might be using some idiosyncratic terminology.

Septic said:
Quote
Anyway, just reading the intro seemed to leave the possibility open for further review, unless I was missing something.

Well, papers don't often say, "We have conclusively disproven Professor B's hypothesis and recommend no further research."  Why doncha read the whole thing; it's not too long, and should be easily comprehensible for a biochemist.

Date: 2006/08/04 10:44:15, Link 128.95.21.138
Author: argystokes
Apollo,

Thanks for not having me put hours into a detailed explanation only to have it ignored or deliberately misconstrued, as others have.

Icky,

That's one e-beer to you.  Make it a Hale's Red Menace, straight outta Ballard.

Date: 2006/08/04 15:12:09, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Hmm, that smells like poo to me...

Date: 2006/08/04 16:15:52, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Finally given up, eh, Steve?  Ease up on that vodka, we don't need you turning into another JAD or GHurd...

Date: 2006/08/05 14:46:34, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 05 2006,17:40)
Quote

it does beg the question about why so many “famous’ people are declaring they are homosexuals.


The minor annoyance of 'beg the question' aside, has anybody else noticed 'so many' famous people declaring their gayness? I haven't.

When you're a 20 (or so) year old in a Bible Seminary, 1 in 200 probably seems like a lot.  I mean, seriously, how many openly gay individuals do you think there are at that institute.  I bet less than one.  And that's the way he likes it!

Date: 2006/08/06 20:09:52, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote
You (and JonF and Deadman) really have not figured me out yet, have you?  Good.  This serves my purpose very well.


Oh dear god.  Poe's Law?

Date: 2006/08/07 09:42:46, Link 128.95.21.138
Author: argystokes
Hello, Dave.  Are you writing a book?

Date: 2006/08/08 11:38:36, Link 128.95.21.138
Author: argystokes
JasonTheGreek on theistic evolutionists:
Quote
This is what always gets me. So, a theistic evolutionist would say that he just thinks that God guided evolution, though he has zero evidence to back up the belief? Isn’t a belief without a shred of evidence to back it up just idiotic to begin with?


This on a site where most of the commentators believe in Noah's Ark and Zombie Gods.

Date: 2006/08/09 06:04:41, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Oh.  Dear.  Grawd.
Quote
Paley updated and videoized

Kids growing up watching this video are going to find it harder later in life to swallow Darwinian evolution:

http://www.kids4truth.com/watchmaker/watch.html
Filed under: Intelligent Design — William Dembski @ 10:49 am

Date: 2006/08/11 12:38:14, Link 128.95.21.138
Author: argystokes
I think O'Leary's been rubbing off on Dembski.  That woman makes k.e sound like HL Mencken.

Date: 2006/08/11 12:57:10, Link 128.95.21.138
Author: argystokes
Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 11 2006,15:44)
Quote (argystokes @ Aug. 11 2006,18:38)
I think O'Leary's been rubbing off on Dembski.  That woman makes k.e sound like HL Mencken.

lol. I used to hate KE's posts, but now I look at him as like a crazy hippie poet, and his posts aren't bad.

I feel the exact same way.  But truly, the Church Lady writes like a 9th grader.

Date: 2006/08/11 20:35:25, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
I'm sure it's fun to annoy STJ, but really, now.

Date: 2006/08/12 15:13:28, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
When it comes to research, less is more!
Quote
The very fact that the Darwinist side presented a stack of *58 books and articles* on the immune system, shows that it in fact has *no* “detailed testable answers to the question of how the immune system could have arisen by random mutation and natural selection.”

If it did, it would only have to read out *one page* in all those 58 books and articles where it is. That they didn’t, proves Behe’s claim that there is *no* such “detailed testable answer… to the question of how the immune system could have arisen by random mutation and natural selection.”

Stephen E. Jones
http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/

Comment by senojes — August 12, 2006 @ 6:38 pm


I suppose he imagines the immune system as comprising two types of little dudes, one who captures particles and the other who declares, "Take him away!" or "He's OK.  Let him go."

6 ebeers points if anyone gets that reference.

Date: 2006/08/12 20:25:20, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Barry Arrington brags:
Quote
I take heart in the fact that my main point, after over 100 comments on this site and all the comments on PT, remains unrebutted.


Gosh, it's so impressive that his points remain unrebutted when rebuttals are not allowed to be shown.  Good ole honest Barry.

Date: 2006/08/15 18:28:46, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Congratulations, Dave!  You've won an award!

Date: 2006/08/16 06:07:50, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Dave's comments are getting more and more Farfromreality.  He used to jump from topic to topic, and actually respond to the occassional question (though rarely answering it).  Now he's just stuck on repeating one nonsense thought.  I half expect Dave's brother Hersey to come here and apologize for him, and for Dave to accuse his brother of being Ed Brayton in disguise.

Date: 2006/08/16 21:12:44, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
BOH-RING!

Date: 2006/08/17 07:44:30, Link 128.95.21.138
Author: argystokes
Faid, I'm afraid you're terribly wrong.

Quote
I have no names to describe you, dave. You are beyond name-calling. You are truly pathetic.


While you may have no names to describe AFDave, he is certainly not beyond name-calling.  Observe:

Dave, you are a chancre on the bellend of honesty.

See, it's not so difficult.

Date: 2006/08/17 10:54:08, Link 128.95.21.138
Author: argystokes
Meanwhile, Joel is making posts utilizing my favorite of Waldorf Story's pictures:


Morans.

Date: 2006/08/17 13:40:49, Link 128.95.21.138
Author: argystokes
At first, I read this and thought it was actually pretty funny, in an intentional way
Quote
Unfortunately, there is no cure for cancer-induced ID.

Comment by Benjii — August 17, 2006 @ 5:27 pm


Then I read it again.  And I don't understand. :angry:

Date: 2006/08/21 04:44:20, Link 128.208.60.20
Author: argystokes
Quote (Mark Frank @ Aug. 21 2006,04:32)
Can anyone work out the current censorship policy at UD? When Dave retired it seemed like things got a lot more rational, so I started making the odd comment. I really like to discuss things where there is a large community who disagree. But most of my recent comments for Denyse have  failed to make the grade.

What is the experience of others? Anyone found any rules for getting published? How does Sophophile get away with it?

I'm on the permanent shitlist at UD, but I've tried posting at O'Leary's blog a couple times.  Both were comments were pointing out that she had written something factually incorrect.  They never appeared.  She fits right in with Dimski et al.

Date: 2006/08/21 05:55:42, Link 128.208.60.20
Author: argystokes
It's good to have the Tard back.  I guess he found out that JanieBelle and Corporal Kate were Dembski and O'Leary, respectively.  Anyway, here's Dave saying that dogs evolved from parasites:
Quote
What I told Nick was two basic facts related to the dog cancer cells which derive from a belief in common descent (a belief I hold).  First of all, tumor cells are (generally) cells which have had the more recently ***evolved mechanism of apoptosis turned off.  They have in fact reverted to their ancient ability to be immortal by not having any restriction on how many times they can divide into two daughter cells.  So in the case of tumor cells multiplying out of control it’s nothing new but rather it’s something very old.   As biologists I’m sure Nick and Andrea have a good understanding of that.  What amazed me was that they didn’t immediately apply this same thinking to the cancer cell turning into a free living cell.  The ability of the cell to live independently (at least long enough to move from one dog to another) is an ancient capability from the days when the cell line in question wasn’t a dog cell but was a free living single celled common ancestor to the dog.  It then isn’t an old dog learning a new trick but rather an old dog recalling an old trick.
(mybold)

It's nice to have Dave around, because it gives me a nice square meal of stupid.  Stupid programming from Sal, stupid english from O'Leary, stupid random articles from Dembski, and stupid science from Otto.

Date: 2006/08/21 10:54:30, Link 128.95.21.138
Author: argystokes
Quote
As a young earth creationist that has been investigating ID quite avidly for the last few weeks, I can say creationists would do well to familiarise themselves with ID. Many of the ID arguments are much the same as ones put forward by creationists, but more formalised. So thank you for doing the hard work for us.  



Whoops!

Date: 2006/08/21 11:49:51, Link 128.95.21.138
Author: argystokes
Dave,

If I pray really hard to the god of your choosing, will you make the next topic Noah's Ark?  Please?

Date: 2006/08/21 12:30:13, Link 128.95.21.138
Author: argystokes
Quote
(See if you can figure out why I ask ...)


You think he's been patting you on the head?

Date: 2006/08/24 05:28:45, Link 128.208.60.20
Author: argystokes
Quote (don_quixote @ Aug. 24 2006,08:13)
Quote (deadman_932 @ Aug. 23 2006,17:39)
On a lighter note, I've been looking over the posts and Stupid's responses and dammn, there's some funny crap there.


Hey, Deadman, any examples that could be forwarded to 'Fundies Say the Darndest Things'?

Dave, you might win an AWARD!!

He already did!  First award for this month, as a matter of fact (All time cutest fundie award).

Date: 2006/08/24 07:26:47, Link 128.95.21.138
Author: argystokes
That's a lot of nuts!

Name that film for a pilsner!

Date: 2006/08/24 08:11:26, Link 128.95.21.138
Author: argystokes
AFDave: Ha! Face to foot style, how do you like it?
Deadman: I'm sure on some planet your style is impressive, but your weak link is: this is Earth.
AFDave: Oh yeah? Then try my nuts to your fist style!

Date: 2006/08/25 09:32:05, Link 128.95.11.197
Author: argystokes
Bob, I think that comment was in the Darwin Youth thread.

Date: 2006/08/26 04:02:16, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
But with their roots all fanned out like they're growing?  That's pretty silly, even for you, Dave.

Date: 2006/08/26 04:27:02, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 26 2006,07:20)
Quote
But with their roots all fanned out like they're growing?  That's pretty silly, even for you, Dave.
Oh come on, guys.  I think you're thinking of those bare root plants you get from Spring Hill and you're thinking about how nice and tidy the roots are.  Well, I'll tell you what ... take one of those and dip it in water and watch what happens.  Now imagine it's in raging, swirling water with a bunch of sediments--sand, silt, what-have-you.  Not very difficult to imagine many of these plants getting "planted" in an upright position.

Come now!

I can imagine them upside down, too.  How many upside down trees are there?

Date: 2006/08/26 13:57:03, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 26 2006,16:45)
After a brief visit to UD while drinking mango-flavored vodka, I came over here to suggest a drinking game where you do a shot everytime they say "Richard Dawkins". It occurs to me as I write this, however, that such a game would almost certainly lead to fatalities.

Date: 2006/08/27 07:46:21, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote
The only way I can see teaching about ID in a classroom is to analyze its use in the 'culture wars.' That could be appropriate in a suitable university level humanities class.


I agree with this.  Maybe Kitzmiller could be mentioned in a civics class, but my vote goes for C.

Date: 2006/08/27 15:34:55, Link 128.95.11.197
Author: argystokes
Jerry explains why ID isn't just an "it's too complex, so goddidit" hypothesis:
Quote
Because of this discrepancy between these philosophical points of view and reality people are searching for an alternative. One of alternative explanations that has appeared is Intelligent Design. It is that simple. Some of the discrepancies or events which these ideas cannot explain are unbelievably complex. For example, the origin of life. Thus, many people have said it must be an intelligent force that caused the event.



Surely, there must be more...
Quote
It is that simple.

Comment by jerry — August 27, 2006 @ 8:08 pm


oh.

Date: 2006/08/29 06:21:16, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
comment redacted.  I'll read the instructions next time.

Date: 2006/08/30 04:33:44, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote
To those who have expressed an interest in coming to my church, I truly would welcome you.  You think fundies are green-eyed monsters with horns?  Well, maybe some are.  But I'm not.  And the ones at my church are not.  Come and see for yourself.


And please, make a donation for Christ, for blessed are the people who bail my church out of massive debt.

Date: 2006/08/30 04:44:28, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 30 2006,07:37)
Quote
who bail my church out of massive debt.
Who would that be?  I'm not aware that anyone has done this or has plans to.  Could you be specific?

Um, I think his name is Kaiser Soze.

Date: 2006/08/31 14:59:17, Link 128.95.11.197
Author: argystokes
Quote (Ichthyic @ Aug. 31 2006,16:39)
so, it seems that the general agreement is that alcohol is required to deaden the nerves before one can successfully navigate a complete thread on UD?

would that be the consesus opinion?

No.  I have no faith in the reasonableness of humanity, so stupidity usually serves to amuse.  But don't let me dissuade you from imbibing.

Date: 2006/08/31 15:05:24, Link 128.95.11.197
Author: argystokes
Quote (Faid @ Aug. 31 2006,17:14)
Yeah dave. And if my senior consultant ever tells me "Congrats, Faid- you seem to have barely managed to find your arse with both hands today", I guess I should consider it a compliment, right?

Oh no wait- Is that what you thought all your life? Whoops!

Thanks, Faid.  I read that as "Congrats, Faid- you seem to have barely managed to fit your arse with both hands today" and got a horrible mental picture.  I suppose, something like when Dave covers his ears...

Date: 2006/09/01 05:07:54, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote
It talks about de-conversions also how they are asymmetric. That is there are many cases of professional apologists/ministers/theologians deconverting and very few "professional" atheists converting. In fact he could only find two.


This isn't really fair.  There are a lot more Christians than atheists in the US, professionally and otherwise.  Even if the two views were equal, we would expect many more conversions to atheism than from it.  Regression to the mean, ya know.

Date: 2006/09/01 06:52:53, Link 128.95.11.197
Author: argystokes
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 01 2006,09:36)
Quote (improvius @ Sep. 01 2006,11:07)
I was thinking of that thing about the ACLU suing the military to stop prayers.

Wasn't it DaveTard who fell for that one? The whole 'ACLU persecutes virtuous praying Marines' angle was WAY too much for him to resist.

The funny thing about that one was how after he admitted it was an urban legend, he essentially said "it doesn't matter, it might as well be true".

Good times.  :)

Ah, but don't forget:

"Right on!"

Date: 2006/09/04 14:58:11, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote
Since most of these 178 pages has been spent with Dave attempting to pick holes in accepted scientific evidence in many, many disciplines, has he ever actually presented any scientific evidence (ie not from the bible) for a ~ 6,000 yr old earth? Especially as this is supposed to be his Creator God Hypothesis.


Because writing appeared about 5000 years ago!  Prehistory is inconceivable.  We know that this is when writing appeared because radiometric dating tells us so.  And Dave agrees, radiometric dating is reliable.  Or something.  Brain off, Tim.  Brain off.

Date: 2006/09/06 17:30:03, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote
I'm also told that trees are musicians.


And dern good ones, too.  Mostly Lanegan.

Date: 2006/09/07 12:40:56, Link 128.95.11.197
Author: argystokes
Quote (Alan Fox @ Sep. 07 2006,15:13)
Quote (jujuquisp @ Sep. 07 2006,11:41)
I apologize for my post regarding DaveScot's service in the Marines.  I will try to be more tactful in the future in my disparaging remarks about intellectual cretins.  A new baby and lack of sleep have caused a lapse in judgment.

Congratulations on the new arrival.

I see you've been putting that PSoTaS to work!

Date: 2006/09/08 06:48:26, Link 128.95.11.197
Author: argystokes
Quote (ScaryFacts @ Sep. 08 2006,09:35)
OK guys, I'm out of my depth (which is not too surprising.)

Read the latest at
UD

Then popped over to see the entire article UD refers to at PsyOrg

The ID folks seem to be jumping in their jeans (witty pun) over how this destroys another "long held belief" of you evil evos.

But here's the questions I have--being a layman I really don't have a good background so I am counting on you:

1.  Just because the gene "jumped" to another chromosome, why can that not still be random?  To prove it is not random wouldn’t you have to document that other genes jumped and that all the genes jumping resulted in positive, not negative, results?

2.  If the jumping genes produced a variety of fly that can, when mating, produce sterile offspring, I wouldn't think the ID folks would consider that an evidence of "Intelligence"--would I intelligently create a flaw in my design?

3.  Could not these changes have resulted from selection pressure and random mutation?

4.  Does the mechanism of speciation have any bearing on the ID v. RMNS debate?  How does this "back door" to speciation change anything for ID?

Remember, I am a layman so type slowly using small words.  Thanks.

Here goes...
1.  That's exactly right (though I'd replace "all" with "statistically significant.")  They're still random in that we cannot predict the change in fitness of the organism that has a transposon event.

2.  HOW DARE YOU BRING THE MOTIVATIONS OF THE DESIGNER INTO THIS?  We cannot know His will, outside of a certain object involving thin slices of dead trees and ink.

3.  Do transposon events happen because of selection pressure and random mutation?  I don't know; it's certainly possible that certain environmental conditions would instigate a "jump," but I wouldn't bet on it.  Transposons probably did originally arise by random mutation.

4.  That depends on who you ask.  "ID is whatever we say it is, and we don't agree."  In terms of the most minimalist definitions of ID, it's almost indistinguishable from theistic evolution.  But most IDist are creationists who believe in separate creation of the genera, and common descent from there as a result of the fall (as far as I can tell).

Hope that helps,
Grey Wolf.


Erm, I mean, argy.

Date: 2006/09/08 07:07:13, Link 128.95.11.197
Author: argystokes
Quote (Flint @ Sep. 07 2006,14:44)
A brief dose of reality here: There *really is* a current major league baseball player named Angel Pagan.

It's too bad he wasn't on the Indians when they had both Milton Bradley and Coco Crisp.

Date: 2006/09/08 11:56:11, Link 128.95.21.138
Author: argystokes
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 08 2006,14:52)
Stephen Wells...
Quote
Do you seriously think that you are winning this argument?
Yes.

No, no, no, that's Stephen Elliot, our resident ex-AFDave.  He's probably the only one here who thinks you aren't beyond hope.

Date: 2006/09/09 14:27:31, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 09 2006,12:03)
For months I've thought the dumbest guy over there was Joseph.

Joseph is among several extremely dumb commenters over there, notably mung and jerry.  But no one combines the arrogance of DaveTard with the cluelessness of AFDave quite like Joseph over there.  He must have gotten his engineering degree from Oregon University.

Date: 2006/09/09 17:39:19, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote
The scary thing would be to have some system OTHER than the Judeo-Christian as some countries still have.


Why do you hate America, Dave?

Date: 2006/09/10 14:08:17, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote
And that's about it, folks. Dave claims the biblical prophesy that Tyre would be destroyed, and left uninhabited forever, has been fulfilled, despite the fact that Tyre is now, and always has been, inhabited. Show of hands for those who think Dave "won" this argument?


Date: 2006/09/11 06:34:08, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote
Has anyone noticed that I have never yet characterized evolution supporters as "evilutionists" or "conspirators" in any way,


Yeah, just people who constantly falsify data and produce fraudulent papers, and never call each other on it, even though the Truth is plain to see.  But not conspirators, no!

Date: 2006/09/11 06:59:10, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote
Nope.  Never said anything like that.


You have repeatedly accused scientists of throwing out discordant dates in order to make the various dating methods correlate.  That's fraud, and every scientist knows it.

Date: 2006/09/11 13:39:00, Link 128.95.21.138
Author: argystokes
BarryA threatens to bury his head in the sand
Quote
Carlos writes: “I wanted a term that would capture what makes human culture different from chimp culture.”

If we use any meaningful definition of the word “culture,” chimps don’t have a culture. Don’t bother providing counter arguments. I don’t argue for the obvious. I just point it out from time to time.

Comment by BarryA — September 11, 2006 @ 4:10 pm

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1590#comments

I must admit, that's a tactic I've never seen before.  I wonder if he uses it in court.

BarryA:  There is no separation between church and state, your honor.  We won't bother with the plaintiffs' counter arguments.  I don't argue for the obvious.

Judge:  Um, I'll be the judge of that.  That's why they call me Judge.

BarryA:  You just wait till I get back to Uncommon Descent where I get to be Judge!

Date: 2006/09/12 04:09:42, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
I've always thought that Heddle should be a good ally.  It's good to see him getting pissed when the IDs come after cosmology:
Quote
I am amazed at how common the theme on this blog is centered around what amounts to a conspiracy among scientists.

Quote
As for how many commenters will still believe the standard model after reading the paper you linked too, I surely do. The evidence for the big bang is overwhelming. It is not limited to the cosmic background, but if it were, I would still place in on ground that is as solid as many other cherished theories in physics. Does it still face challenges? It does—cosmology is a complicated field that, unlike ID, actually does experiments, which is the only reason there is a paper with a surprising result. Since we see no real experiments that, for example, set out to prove something is designed, or set out mathematically demonstrate that it is designed, it may be that a experiment with a contrary result should, to people in the ID mindset, cause an immediate paradigm shift. But that is because the ID community is only versed in playing science, not doing science. In real science, sometimes experiments present surprising and conflicting results. The same thing happens in General Relativity, particle physics, nuclear physics, etc. We don’t abandon successful theories because of a single result, at least not until the conflict is firmly established and alternatives are ruled out—and then we would first look to modifying the standard model to accommodate the new data. The Big Bang has survived many challenges—in some cases it was modified (inflation) and in some cases the experimental problems, such as a lack of super nova remnants, is demonstrated, over time, not to be a problem. What will happen with the missing microwave shadows? It is way too early to say.

Of course, maybe cosmologists are meeting at this moment to plot how to save the big bang theory by any means possible so that the Christians can’t gloat.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1592#comments

Date: 2006/09/12 07:11:50, Link 128.95.11.197
Author: argystokes
Quote (Steverino @ Sep. 12 2006,10:03)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 12 2006,10:39)
Quote (Steverino @ Sep. 12 2006,10:01)
Hey, side question...

A while back, one of you had posted a funny quip at the end of the post...something along the line of:

"I feel like I'm staring at the sun except, its made of stupid"

Is that the exact quip???

The quip in question (hey, two Q's! ) was "It's like staring at the sun if the sun was made of stupid".

Except I didn't make that up -- I ripped it off from some place. I think maybe Pharyngula.

Thanks!....I'm going to have that made into a tee-shirt.

Front "Intelligent Design"

Back "It's like staring at the sun if the sun was made of stupid".

Hmm, if it's on a T-shirt, you may want to be sure to use right proper grammar.  I believe the correct use of the subjunctive is "if the sun were made of stupid."  But then again, I always get this one wrong.

Date: 2006/09/12 07:56:23, Link 128.95.11.197
Author: argystokes
A'ight, forget what I said.  Go with the linguist!

Date: 2006/09/12 16:31:32, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote
This renders him basically useless as a scientist


I don't think this is fair at all.
Quote
Baryonic Weak Interaction Study in the Microlaboratory of &#923;-hypernuclei - group of 3 »
H Bhang - Journal of the Korean Physical Society, 2003 - physics.snu.ac.kr
Page 1. Journal of the Korean Physical Society, Vol. 43, September 2003, pp.
S71&#8764;S77 Baryonic Weak Interaction Study in the Microlaboratory of &#923;-hypernuclei ...
Cited by 1 - Related Articles - View as HTML - Web Search - BL Direct

Nuclear Theory, abstract - group of 2 »
M Oka, Y Tani, T Inoue, K Sasaki - Arxiv preprint nucl-th/9811033, 1998 - arxiv.org
Page 1. arXiv:nucl-th/9811033 v1 10 Nov 1998 Roles of Quarks in Strong
and Weak YN Interactions M. Oka, Y. Tani, T. Inoue (a) and ...
Related Articles - View as HTML - Web Search

Nuclear Theory, abstract
T Inoue, M Oka, T Motoba, K Itonaga - Arxiv preprint nucl-th/9708041, 1997 - arxiv.org
Page 1. arXiv:nucl-th/9708041 v1 22 Aug 1997 Non-mesonic Weak Decays of Light
Hypernuclei in the Direct Quark and the One-Pion Exchange Mechanisms ...
Related Articles - View as HTML - Web Search

Nuclear Theory, abstract - group of 2 »
K Sasaki, M Izaki, M Oka - Arxiv preprint nucl-th/0411104, 2004 - arxiv.org
Page 1. arXiv:nucl-th/0411104 v1 26 Nov 2004 Sigma Exchange in the Nonmesonic
Decays of Light Hypernuclei and Violation of the &#8710;I = 1/2 Rule ...
Related Articles - View as HTML - Web Search

Nonmesonic weak decay of &#923; hypernuclei within a nuclear matter formalism - group of 4 »
E Bauer, F Krmpoti - Nuclear Physics, Section A, 2003 - Elsevier
Page 1. Nuclear Physics A 717 (2003) 217–234 www.elsevier.com/locate/npe Nonmesonic
weak decay of &#923; hypernuclei within a nuclear matter formalism ...
Cited by 4 - Related Articles - Web Search

INVESTIGATION OF &#923;&#923; DYNAMICS AND EFFECTIVE &#923;N INTERACTION IN LOW AND MEDIUM MASS HYPERNUCLEI - group of 2 »
MDA KHAN, TK DAS - FIZIKA B (Zagreb), 2001 - fizika.hfd.hr
Page 1. ISSN1330–0016 CODEN FIZBE7 INVESTIGATION OF &#923;&#923; DYNAMICS AND EFFECTIVE
&#923;N INTERACTION IN LOW AND MEDIUM MASS HYPERNUCLEI MD. ...
Related Articles - View as HTML - Web Search - BL Direct

&#960; Emission from hypernuclei and the weak I= 3/2 transitions
M Oka - Nuclear Physics A, 1999 - th.phys.titech.ac.jp
Page 1. Nuclear Physics A 647 (1999) 971104 &#960; + Emission from hypernuclei
and the weak I = 3/2 transitions Makoto Oka 1 Department ...
Related Articles - View as HTML - Web Search

Nonmesonic Weak Decay of the double-&#923; Hypernucleus 6
JH Jun - Journal of the Korean Physical Society, 2002 - icpr.snu.ac.kr
Page 1. Journal of the Korean Physical Society, Vol. 41, No. 3, September 2002,
pp. 298&#8764;308 Nonmesonic Weak Decay of the double-&#923; Hypernucleus 6 &#923;&#923; He ...
Related Articles - View as HTML - Web Search

Models of the nonmesonic weak decay - group of 3 »
M Oka - Nuclear Physics, Section A, 2005 - Elsevier
... Lett. B 90 (1980) 41; M. Oka, K. Shimizu, K. Yazaki, Prog. Theor. Phys. S 137 (2000)
1. [13] CY Cheung, DP Heddle, LS Kisslinger, Phys. Rev. C 27 (1983) 335. ...
Related Articles - Web Search


He does a #### of a lot more science than PZ, and I sure don't have any reason to believe it's shoddy.  I also respect that he concedes that cosmological ID is a religious and not scientific position.  I don't see any real difference between someone like Heddle and Ken Miller, other than Heddle's super-sensitivity about his religion.

Date: 2006/09/12 16:42:40, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote
11) Worst defender of evolution.

or

12) Best defender of ID.


Ah, why not?  For the worst defender of evolution, I suppose it has to be Gary Hurd, for his bizarre outbursts at other PT contributors.  Although the new PvM is tempting.

The best ID defender?  Definitely Jesus.

Date: 2006/09/12 18:08:55, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Here are the results from a pubmed search for "myers pz"

Quote
Dudkin EA, Myers PZ, Ramirez-Latorre JA, Gruberg ER. Related Articles, Links
Abstract Calcium signals monitored from leopard frog optic tectum after the optic nerve has been selectively loaded with calcium sensitive dye.
Neurosci Lett. 1998 Dec 18;258(2):124-6.
PMID: 9875543 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
2: Stachel SE, Grunwald DJ, Myers PZ. Related Articles, Links
Free Full Text Lithium perturbation and goosecoid expression identify a dorsal specification pathway in the pregastrula zebrafish.
Development. 1993 Apr;117(4):1261-74.
PMID: 8104775 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
3: Myers PZ, Bastiani MJ. Related Articles, Links
Abstract Growth cone dynamics during the migration of an identified commissural growth cone.
J Neurosci. 1993 Jan;13(1):127-43.
PMID: 8423468 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
4: Myers PZ, Bastiani MJ. Related Articles, Links
Abstract Cell-cell interactions during the migration of an identified commissural growth cone in the embryonic grasshopper.
J Neurosci. 1993 Jan;13(1):115-26.
PMID: 8423467 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
5: Myers PZ, Bastiani MJ. Related Articles, Links
Abstract NeuroVideo: a program for capturing and processing time-lapse video.
Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 1991 Jan;34(1):27-33.
PMID: 2036787 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
6: Metcalfe WK, Myers PZ, Trevarrow B, Bass MB, Kimmel CB. Related Articles, Links
Abstract Primary neurons that express the L2/HNK-1 carbohydrate during early development in the zebrafish.
Development. 1990 Oct;110(2):491-504.
PMID: 1723944 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
7: Myers PZ, Eisen JS, Westerfield M. Related Articles, Links
Abstract Development and axonal outgrowth of identified motoneurons in the zebrafish.
J Neurosci. 1986 Aug;6(8):2278-89.
PMID: 3746410 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
8: Eisen JS, Myers PZ, Westerfield M. Related Articles, Links
Abstract Pathway selection by growth cones of identified motoneurones in live zebra fish embryos.
Nature. 1986 Mar 20-26;320(6059):269-71.
PMID: 3960108 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
9: Myers PZ. Related Articles, Links
Abstract Spinal motoneurons of the larval zebrafish.
J Comp Neurol. 1985 Jun 22;236(4):555-61.
PMID: 4056102 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
10: Green DM, Myers PZ, Reyna DL. Related Articles, Links
Abstract CHROMPAC III: an improved package for microcomputer-assisted analysis of karyotypes.
J Hered. 1984 Mar-Apr;75(2):143.
PMID: 6546940 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]


I suppose that makes him a productive graduate student and postdoc, but perhaps only one paper since becoming a full professor.  I don't think this is uncommon for a someone who is primary a teacher at a small liberal arts school, and he is responsible for 4 courses.  Developing an undergraduate curriculum is surely time consuming, and few researchers (at least in my department) do so.  That said, it seems to me he puts more effort into Pharyngula than his research program (completely unverified).

Date: 2006/09/13 19:47:26, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 13 2006,20:13)
Quote
There's another billion plus people you can throw in the ring in favor of creationism.


Hey, Dave, the number of Muslims in the world is expected to surpass the number of Christians in a couple decades. When that happens, will Islam then become true and not Christianity?

Silly Arden.  The rapture will happen long before then.  Of COURSE Muslims will be the majority in 20 years, all the good Christians will be gone!

Date: 2006/09/14 05:27:27, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote
Do you have any idea how many manuscripts have it as 666?  A lot. This is typical of skeptic thinking ... close your eyes to the massive evidence for one position, but open your eyes to the tiny shred of contrary evidence, then loudly proclaim that your position is correct, then  heap ridicule on your opponent ...  hmmm.


Um, it's more than one.  I assume you know the difference between "exactly" and "at least?"  Anyway, correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the oldest known manuscript say 616?

Date: 2006/09/15 05:11:42, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote
Ah ... I see that you think my idea of "founding fathers" is limited to post 1776 personalities?  No, my idea of founding fathers goes all the way back to the Mayflower.


Pff.  Well my idea of founding fathers goes all the way back to Rome!  Seriously, Dave, this argument is your worst since "3 quotes is more detailed than 6, which contain all 3 quotes" back in the Portuguese discussion.

Quote
Oh so who do YOU think he was referring to here?  Walt Disney? ...

Read the passage again, and perhaps you'll understand.

I'm curious, from where is your engineering degree?  The Air Force Academy?

Date: 2006/09/15 05:31:35, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote
Argy ... American history goes back to the Mayflower, not Rome.  This is very basic stuff.


Geographically, American history goes back much longer than that.  The history of the United States begins in the late 18th century.  Where's that degree from, Dave?

Date: 2006/09/15 05:43:26, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 15 2006,08:35)
Argy ... I've already said where my degree is from ... maybe if you try a polite approach and tell me what degrees you have and where they are from (telling me what your occupation is would also be a nice touch) I will tell you again ...

I have a Bachelor of Science in Cell & Molecular Biology from the University of Washington, class of 2005.  I am currently a second year (as of today) graduate student studying outer membrane proteins of Treponema pallidum as vaccine candidates for syphilis.  And I can answer deadman's syphilis question (although the answer is ludicrous, it's biologically feasible).  And with all that information, you might even be able to figure out my real name!  Would you care to reciprocate?

Date: 2006/09/18 19:26:07, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote
He's been talking about that site since December.


Ghost of Paley = William Dembski?  It would be fitting to call himself "the Wizard."  Or is that Berlinski?  Whatever.

Date: 2006/09/19 08:28:15, Link 128.95.11.197
Author: argystokes
Quote
If everyone stopped buying meat I would expect farmers would slaughter nearly all their animals and use the land to grow crops.

It could be an ecological disaster. Might not though, uncertain.


But what do you suppose the animals are eating now?  In the US, at least, it's not like the cows are out grazing in pristine ecologically sound fields.

Date: 2006/09/20 09:27:26, Link 128.95.11.197
Author: argystokes
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 20 2006,08:21)

I'm a bit puzzled.  The black dots represent individual meteorites, and are placed based on their ages calculated using Rb-Sr and Sr-Sr dating, right?  What are the red dots, and why do neither the red dots nor the black dots add up to 23?

Date: 2006/09/20 10:44:56, Link 128.95.11.197
Author: argystokes
OK, so let's see if I have this right.
1) Dave is presented with data
2) Dave agrees, the data suggests that two particular dating methods have a high degree of correlation if one trusts the data presented
3) Then Dave says "What if the data looked like THIS:" and adds a bunch of red dots to the chart
4) Dave goes on to prove that the imaginary data points have very little correlation, thus proving a young earth

Perhaps the term straw man should be replaced with "Red Dot."

Date: 2006/09/22 17:06:49, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
You could dress up as a tiger, then kidnap a 6 year old boy and go as Calvin and Hobbes.

Date: 2006/09/23 14:52:34, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 23 2006,16:24)
Quote (PennyBright @ Sep. 23 2006,16:40)
The other possibility includes me on door duty dressing up as Carmen Sandiego while the Bee and her Da dress as detectives and scour the community for me while collecting candy clues.

That's pretty cute.

Plus, that's TWO StrongBad outfits in one group.  Fantastic!

Date: 2006/09/24 19:13:53, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Not only did the designer design the HIV virus, but he cures it on demand, as well!

Quote
The account that I heard over the weekend about a person being clinically diagnosed with fullblown AIDS and then being medically declared free from AIDS following intercessory prayer must be one of those “delusions” us Christians are so prone to. I wonder if the attending Dr was delusional as well?

Date: 2006/09/26 14:56:06, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
From OE:
Quote
My name is Samuel Chen and I am a student at the Honors College at Baylor University in Waco, Texas (though I am from Pennsylvania). I direct the Intelligent Design Undergraduate Research Center (www.idurc.org) and am a representative of the Access Research Network (www.arn.org) and a member of the Intelligent Design Evolution Awareness Center (www.ideacenter.org).


They have a research center?  Full of undergraduates?  I wonder who the head PI is?

Date: 2006/09/27 11:58:02, Link 128.95.21.138
Author: argystokes
Good god, look who's one step away from becoming a full blown CBEB:
Quote
23. William Dembski // Sep 27th 2006 at 4:51 pm

David Heddle: I don’t like your attitude. I recently booted you off a listserve that I moderate. I’m now booting you from this blog. Goodbye.

Comment by William Dembski — September 27, 2006 @ 4:51 pm


EDIT:  Shemps too fast for me.  My eyes!

Date: 2006/09/27 12:09:46, Link 128.95.21.138
Author: argystokes
Unfortunately, Dave felt compelled to turn off comments (and erase those already there) after BWE said the poop word or something.

But Dave, why did you erase all the existing comments, such as mine?

Date: 2006/09/27 13:17:50, Link 128.95.11.93
Author: argystokes
Dern, that thread just keeps getting better.  From the constantly silly Mike1962:
Quote
I’ve never seen him invoke the Rev Moon in any of his arguments. Have you? I don’t give a rat’s rear what his motivations are. All that matters is the products of the research. Either it stands up to rational scrutiny or it doesn’t.


So we've gone from "we don't need no stinkin research" to "the research is all that matters.  Soon to be followed by complaining that no one understands what ID is.

Date: 2006/09/30 09:00:30, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote
Same thing here ...

COMFORTABLE OBLIVION

This will be my new catch phrase to describe evolutionary biologists and long age geologists.


So what's your take on Glenn Morton?

Date: 2006/10/02 07:20:08, Link 128.95.11.93
Author: argystokes
Quote
You really want me to believe that a 500 myo bacterium (let's say we could get some DNA from a bacterium fossil) is much different than a modern bacterium?


Well, Dave, how similar or different do you think modern bacteria are?  And how what percentage of living bacterial species do you think we have discovered (putting aside the difficulties in defining bacterial species)?

Date: 2006/10/02 07:36:22, Link 128.95.11.93
Author: argystokes
Quote
Yes, in a truly neutral region of DNA (i.e., a molecular clock), a 500 myo bacterium is MUCH different than a modern bacterium. Exactly as much as a human is. If you want to talk about non-neutral, CODING regions (does that remind you of the human-chimp table?) that are under the purview of natural selection, we can expect that modern bacteria are more similar to ancient bacteria than humans are (but we can't know how similar, unless we can study fossil morphologies to make educated guesses about certain genes).


Considering the dearth of noncoding DNA in bacteria, I suspect molecular clock techniques would not be particularly useful even if we had 500 myo DNA.

Date: 2006/10/02 15:30:48, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote
Would I be doing you a favor if I did not warn you of the danger of not submitting yourself to the Great Creator and Judge of Mankind?


Who?  Hitler?

Date: 2006/10/02 15:52:35, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote
Great.  And a far cry from 64% ... and that's overall.  Now how about their Cytochrome C, which is what Denton was comparing.

Hoo, boy, are you in for a surprise!

Date: 2006/10/02 20:05:21, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Ha ha.  The "Jesus Didn't Exist?" banner is back up on UD.  It links to TheGodMovie.  I can't imagine Dembski's happy about that.

Date: 2006/10/02 20:08:41, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 02 2006,15:01)
OverwhelmingEvidence's most prolific blogger wishes it to be known that he has just been sacked.

Nice try, Steve Story.  But too bad your ass got saaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaacked.

Date: 2006/10/03 17:00:08, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 03 2006,19:41)
Uh ... Deadman ... you might want to actually read what my (and Denton's) claim is, OK?

I have no argument with the observation that similar organisms have similar sequences.  I think it's strange how you think this proves evolution, but I certainly agree that humans and apes have similar sequences, corn and sunflowers do also, etc, etc.

However, this has exactly NOTHING to do with what we are talking about.

Edmund...  
Quote
I think what Dave has latched onto here is a claim by Denton, who says that evolutionary biologists expected (in the 1950's and 1960's) that similar-looking organisms should have similar DNA sequences.
No.  Cory is right.  This is NOT what I think.  And Denton did not claim that.

I'll tell you what, guys ... I'll explain my claim again in the morning very simply so everyone can understand it (I think Cory does already ... we have that going for us at least.)

Instead, why don't you answer Mike question about what your objections are to his executive summary?  He's been politely asking for days now.

Date: 2006/10/04 06:25:16, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
When I read that little essay, a beautiful scene emerged in my mind:
Quote
Dembski stood beneath the oak, smirking and delighting in the admiration of his young apprentices.  Just as he was about to recommend his latest book for purchase, he saw a short man wearing sunglasses and a dark blue T-shirt approaching.

"Away with you, Heddle," said Dembski.  "You do not belong amongst these ID luminaries."  Dembski, upon seeing that he was in fact only surrounded by the likes of Salvador Cordova and Gil Dodgen, quickly pulled out his personal mirror to stare at his reflection.

Heddle cast aside his sunglasses, revealing a light of determination in his aging eyes.  But he did not reply.

Dembski became wary, and he thought he could hear music coming from the skies.  As the silent Heddle stalked closer, the music became louder.  Dembski recognized it as The Battle Hymn of the Republic.  It grew louder.

"Don't you dare approach me," Dembski admonished.  "Please take your message to my research assistant."

"That's me!" an eager Joel chimed in.  Dembski glared.

As Heddle grew near Dembski, he reached behind himself.  Sparkling in the sunlight, a golden cross the length of a golf club and as thick as Dembski's wrist appeared in the now upraised hand of Heddle.  The music became thunderous, and a chorus of angels could be heard singing, "MINE EYES HAVE SEEN THE GLORY OF THE COMING OF THE LORD!"

Dembski went pale.

HE IS TRAMPLING OUT THE VINTAGE WHERE THE GRAPES OF WRATH ARE STORED

Heddle raised the cross above his head with both hands.

HE HATH LOOSED THE FATEFUL LIGHTNING OF HIS TERRIBLE SWIFT SWORD

Heddle swung the cross.  Gil, Joel, Sal, and the others looked on in horror, but could not move.

HIS TRUTH IS MARCHING ON!

The blow connected with Dembski's face, lifting him from the ground.  As he flew through the air, the voices thundered:
GLORY, GLORY HALLELUJAH!


OK, it's a little violent, but keep in mind that all these people are two-dimensional images to be, so it should be imagined as cartoon-like.

Date: 2006/10/04 08:47:04, Link 128.95.11.93
Author: argystokes
k.e,

it came from my brain, but I put it in a quote box to separate it from my, um, commentary on my own commentary.

Date: 2006/10/05 06:03:48, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote
But: one issue I've never quite seen addressed by Heddle, the main remaining issue I think, is why a non-Christian should care about cosmological ID.


Heddle has called cosmo ID an apologetic.
Heddle has said apologetics are only useful in defense of Christianity, but will be unconvincing to skeptics.
Therefore, he'd probably agree that non-Christians shouldn't care.  But he sure does seem to be compelled to spread the Good Word.

Date: 2006/10/05 08:20:25, Link 128.95.11.93
Author: argystokes
Over on OE

SecondClass describes Dembski's work, referencing one of Dembski's papers
Quote
Dembski's CSI metric is nothing more than an indication that a given class of events is improbable under a given hypothesis. As such, the most that CSI can do is rule out competing hypotheses. It offers no positive evidence for ID.

In fact, Dembski has repeatedly stated that design inferences are eliminative. See his article "Design by Elimination vs. Design by Comparison" at www.designinference.com.


Patrick, OE moderator tells him to read the literature:
Quote
More like no positive evidence for ID that you find personally acceptable... Read the literature. Positive and negative arguments are discussed in there.


And then deletes a post by HodorH where he asks for a reference for where Dembski has calculated the CSI for a biological molecule.  (can't quote it, its gone).

Good grief, is the best way to become an ID blog moderator to not even know what the "prominent" ID folks arguments are?

Date: 2006/10/05 10:06:01, Link 128.95.11.93
Author: argystokes
Quote (2ndclass @ Oct. 05 2006,11:33)
I just received my stealth banning from OE, along with the disappearance of a few of my posts (which were polite and, as far as I can tell, objectively factual).  Can someone explain to me the ethics of targeting a site at kids and then surreptitiously removing counterarguments, making it look like opponents are empty-handed?


First sentence of comment by Patrick:
Quote
Basicially it comes down to a debate over indirect Darwinian pathways and Co-Option. This subject is discussed here:

[URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1276

(A gil dodgin post)

Last sentence of same post:
Quote
Oh, and I'd appreciate it if people would write their OWN blog posts and not simply link to an anti-ID site and say "what about this?".


*Shakes head*

Date: 2006/10/06 06:09:21, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Holy shit.  I just popped on over to Dave's Lies4Kids site, and clicked on the word "HEART" in the top right corner.  What did I get?
"Children need to know God's word now, before it's TOO LATE"

Very classy, Dave.  Threaten the kids with eternal damnation.  That's pretty sick.

Date: 2006/10/06 17:10:24, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Carlson (presumably our very own carlsonjok) had a beautiful takedown of uberidiot TRoutMac on OE, which will almost certainly earn him a banning and deleted comment, so I will reproduce it here:
Quote

A Metaphor Still Isn't Science
carlson | Sat, 2006-10-07 02:27

Quote
ID bashers only wish to avoid analogies and metaphors because they are embarassed to admit they have no rebuttal of them. This business about "let's move beyond metaphors and talk about science" is nothing more than a deflection.


Metaphors don't increase the body of scientific knowledge. Scientific knowledge is created through the process of scientific inquiry; namely forming and testing hypotheses. The answer you propose is that something is designed if it has CSI. You follow that with the statement it is superfluous to calculate CSI because the thing in question appears to be designed. But, without actually applying a calculation of CSI in a rigorous manner, it is an empty concept and the whole deal boils down to the assertion that something is designed because it looks designed. It is an interesting apologetic, but it doesn't rise to the level of scientific discourse.

You have stated the hypotheses that it is DNA is designed because it is highly improbable that it formed through natural processes. And you have a tool called CSI that allows you to quantify those probabilities. So, why the reluctance to apply the tool to the hypotheses? You may consider it superfluous, but the people you are trying to convince apparently don't. They want to dig into the details because that is how science works.

Quote
Are you saying that if I go to the park and see some geese, I'm not allowed to claim that there are geese at the park unless I count them first?


You are saying that DNA has CSI, but it is completely unnecessary to do the calculation. You are basically saying that "DNA is designed because it looks designed to me." That is an argument by assertion. So, more accurately, what I am saying is that you can't claim that the geese are really squirrels and expect people to believe you unless you are willing and able to positively compare the animal in front of you to the known morphology of a squirrel.

Quote
Why is it so unreasonable to suggest that, if the presence of language on a stone tablet indicates intelligent authorship, the presence of language embedded in a complex molecule like DNA indicates intelligent authorship as well? Is it just because you know that author must not be human? Really… just what IS the problem here?


There are undoubtedly many scientists who are familiar with the structure and functioning of DNA who may not necessarily agree to your assertion that DNA is designed. By virtue of their knowledge of DNA, they are going to want to have discussions about (guess what?).....DNA. CSI is a measure of the improbability of something having formed naturally. If you are going to assert that it is improbable that DNA formed naturally, then you have expect to be asked very specific questions about DNA, the calculated probabilities, the confidence intervals, and the methodology you used to calculate it. Appeals to archaeology and rune stones won't get you very far with biologists.

So the problem I am struggling with is why go to all the bother of even defining a complex probability function like CSI if there isn't any effort to apply it in a rigorous manner. It is reduced to the biological equivalent of a Potemkin village. Which, unfortunately, raises the question of who exactly it is you are trying to convince.
login or register to post comments | 0 points


http://www.overwhelmingevidence.com/oe....ent-198

Date: 2006/10/06 17:36:49, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote
You can't tell me that Z was the only one who believed this in 1965.  I guess I am going to have to figure out a way to get access to these journals online.


Go to your local University Library.  They'll have online access to most journal articles since around 1995, stacks with major journals going back to the 50s, less prominent journals going back to the 80s, and articles available in reserves upon request.

Date: 2006/10/09 13:26:21, Link 128.95.11.93
Author: argystokes
Quote (Glen Davidson @ Oct. 09 2006,16:22)
Yeah yeah, so you don't understand the point of extended explanations, and must fault what you don't understand.  Nothing new in the promotion of know-nothingness and a preference for reductive simplicity.

I noted when responding to Martin that scientists often don't respect philosophers, thanks to people like Martin.  On the other hand, the contempt of the unknowing scientists who have to put down philosophy for not boiling down to single sentences puts a strain in the other direction.  

Then again, if I quoted Einstein's philosophical writings without crediting him, you'd probably make the same benighted and unsupported assertions, simply because you don't know or care about covering the bases.  

Besides which, you don't even get my name right, showing just how little you paid attention to what I wrote, and how prejudicial you are being.  Sorry I can't be as glib and unlearned as yourself in philosophical affairs, but then I never wanted to be.

It's just attack, with about as little concern for the truth as Pim evinces.  You don't, and presumably can't, back up your claims any more than he can, however you will fault what you don't understand.  It's the usual anti-intellectualism, fed by egoism and a lack of concern about what others know.  Had I faulted you for trite and glib answers, you might understand what I mean.  But I haven't, since I do recognize the need for various voices in response to pseudoscience.  Too bad that you do not.

Glen D

Shorter Glen D:  Don't be an a-hole, stupid!

Date: 2006/10/09 14:12:51, Link 128.95.11.93
Author: argystokes
Quote
Get fu__ed, moron.

Quote
argystokes shows nothing better than bullying


Interesting.  I believe you have misunderstood the content of my brief comment.  Based on your usage of the term "bullying," and your replication of the sentence structure of "Don't be an a-hole, stupid" with your own lovely characterization of my self, I believe you have confused
Quote
Shorter Glen D:  Don't be an a-hole, stupid!

with
Quote
Shorter, Glen D.  Don't be an a-hole, stupid!


If, however, you read me right, and want to turn what I considered to be a light-hearted jab into an all-out flame war, send me a note on the bathroom wall and we'll have an all-out naked mudwrestling, erm, mudslinging contest.  I bet I can insult you at a higher density than you can me (self-disparaging double entendre intended).

Date: 2006/10/10 07:28:47, Link 128.95.11.93
Author: argystokes
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 10 2006,10:22)
On the one hand, I think the P2P approach of things like OverwhelmingEvidence is smart, it gets around the court system. On the other hand, it's a case of middle-aged adults trying to act 'hip' and 'radical' to teenagers, so I'm not too worried it'll succeed.

With two whole comments in the last 23 hours, it's good to see OE off to a roaring start.  Of course, when you ban folks willy-nilly, and all you have left is a homely graphic designer and the artist formerly known as Gumpngreen, it's hardly surprising.

Date: 2006/10/10 15:10:14, Link 128.95.11.93
Author: argystokes
Quote
Rumor has it the film will have an official debut at a massive Christian apologetics and ID conference at Mclean Bilble Church this November: Loving God With All Your Mind. It is hard to express how personally delighted I am ID is being welcomed into Christian and creationist circles. As someone who has fought alongside my comrades to get ID a hearing in Christendom, I can assure you all there have been challenges to getting ID accepted and appreciated in these circles. This is cause for celebration.


Oh, Sal, where would we be without you?

Date: 2006/10/11 07:28:23, Link 128.95.11.93
Author: argystokes
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 11 2006,10:21)
I was wondering why I find OverwhelmingEvidence so boring. Part of it is, OE is not very popular and there's only a few comments per day. But I think another part of the reason is, OE is a post-Dover event. It's kind of like finding Japanese soldiers in the pacific, still unaware the war is over. They're not a threat, they're just pitiful.

It's inevitable how that place is going to turn out, if it ever gets popular.  Just another Christian Forum, with kids making the most dunderheaded "I didn't come from no munky" comments and the occassional atheist swinging by to make fun, before quickly being banned.

Date: 2006/10/11 17:01:46, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 11 2006,19:50)
OA ... thanks, but I'm not interested in artist renderings.  Seen plenty of those ... this has proven that there are artists with good imaginations ... have you got any real transitional forms?  Any explanations for HOW they are transitional and the mechanisms for HOW they changed into what you say they did?  Any explanation for why those prominent scientists I quoted are frustrated that there are no truly transitional forms?

BTW ... your cat pictures and feces pictures help your credibility tremendously.

Psst, follow the links...

Date: 2006/10/12 05:59:01, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 12 2006,08:33)
A much more observant reader that myself emails to tell me:

 
Quote
JAD was not banned from PT. He was confined to his very own thread, which he stopped posting to after it dropped off the front page.


So he could come back anytime he wants.


Are you sure?  I suspect that his last comment was enough to have Wes pull the plug:
Quote
Posted by John A. Davison on May 27, 2005 09:12 AM (e)

Neither allelic mutation nor selection ever had anything to do with organic evolution which was predetermined executed and now finished.
This post is destined for oblivion in the Welsberry gas chamber as just another example of his Nazi tactics.

John A. Davison

Date: 2006/10/12 17:39:05, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote (improvius @ Oct. 12 2006,20:11)
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 12 2006,22:20)
Aftershave-- You gave me ONE fossil picture and a bunch of artist renderings.  And here's the truth about supposed whale evolution for those who missed it several months ago ...  
Quote
The lack of transitional forms in the fossil record was realized by evolutionary whale experts like the late E.J. Slijper: ‘We do not possess a single fossil of the transitional forms between the aforementioned land animals [i.e., carnivores and ungulates] and the whales.’3

You should read the whole article here ...
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3834

WTF, did Dave accidentally hit the "Quote Mine Lock" key on his keyboard?

Actually, that one might not be mined.  It's from 1962!

Date: 2006/10/15 13:43:21, Link 128.95.11.93
Author: argystokes
All over the web we're told that the designer could be anyone, including by the nauseatingly boring TRoutMac.  But lo and behold, he's changed his mind and cleared things up:
Quote
If Christians DID believe in "other gods", then they wouldn't really believe in God of the Bible. It turns out that to believe in the other "gods" requires a great deal of faith. Blind faith. But to believe in the Christian God, THE God, requires only that you look around. The evidence is everywhere.


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.

Date: 2006/10/16 08:56:03, Link 128.95.11.93
Author: argystokes
Quote (Zachriel @ Oct. 16 2006,09:56)
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!

Uh, let's not forget that using language as a metaphor to prove something is designed is rather silly, seeing as (unless I'm horribly mistaken) language itself is the product of evolution rather than design.

Date: 2006/10/16 13:47:21, Link 128.95.11.93
Author: argystokes
From the OE:
Quote

Zachriel Blocked
Patrick | Mon, 2006-10-16 22:29

I was made aware by other moderators that Zachriel had previously been banned at UD for bad behavior and as such he is now blocked here.


Told ya so!

Date: 2006/10/17 10:15:44, Link 128.95.11.93
Author: argystokes
Hey, Stephen I hope you're feeling well.  One of the headlines from this week's The Stranger:
Quote
Stephen Elliott gets beat up by girlfriend


On another note, one of the machines in my lab has a timer that plays "My Bonnie lies over the ocean."  And yet today, when I heard it go off, what pops into my head?  "The lurkers support me in email, the lurkers support me you'll see."  Which one of you goons do I have to blame for that silliness?

Date: 2006/10/17 16:55:32, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Archie,

Your posts are all showing up on UD eventually.  If you say something worth commenting on (which you have, check back a couple pages), it'll show up here.  But I don't see any reason to copy/paste all your posts from a single thread onto a comment thread whose sole purpose is to, well, make fun of you.

Date: 2006/10/17 18:22:20, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote (hereoisreal @ Oct. 17 2006,21:01)
No Drew, it is a real sence.  As real as sight.
Zero



Date: 2006/10/18 05:48:24, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote
Don't change the subject. Answer the question: are you saying that you "...simply remember hearing of these problems..." and remember them verbatim


I dunno Jim.  It's possible that he remembers the exact quotes.  After all, Dave spent his entire childhood memorizing Bible quotes.  Too bad he was never taught to read for content.

Date: 2006/10/18 12:57:46, Link 128.95.11.93
Author: argystokes
Quote
19. mike1962  // Oct 18th 2006 at 4:53 pm

By the way, I had a random thought come to me today that “junk” DNA may harbor instructions that affect *other* species rather than the carrier, that might be transmitted via a bite or a sting, and might alter the victim. Anyone hear of any research along these lines?


Hey, yeah!  DNA that gets injected, and then invades cells and coopts the victim's cellular machinery!  A perfect mix of eukaryotes, viruses, and tard!

Date: 2006/10/19 06:14:18, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Dave's new definition of genetic richness:
Quote
1) A large degree of heterozygosity as I explained thoroughly this morning, and
2) Relative absence of harmful (or neutral) mutations


Dave, how would it even be possible for the FIRST INDIVIDUALS EVER to have a mutation?  I don't think #2 makes any sense at all.

And if all the multiple alleles for given genes can arise by mutation (they do), why is it necessary to postulate #1?

Date: 2006/10/19 08:34:52, Link 128.95.11.93
Author: argystokes
Quote
Still waiting on Argy to confirm or deny the other minor issue here about "did Adam accumulate any mutations in his life?"


It wouldn't matter unless it happened in his nuts before having kids.  And even then, he'd need to have the mutations happen between fertilization events for allelic diversity to increase.  So, if Adam regularly washed his kiwis with ethidium bromide, perhaps he could contribute one new allele per child he had.

Date: 2006/10/19 08:53:25, Link 128.95.11.93
Author: argystokes
OK, Dave, I have a question for you since I answered yours.  How would the allelic diversity of a population of Adam and Eve's family be affected given these two scenarios:

(1) Adam and Eve are both heterozygous for every gene locus in the genome. Please assume only 2 alleles in the original population exist (ie, Adam and Eve), as shown on the AiG punnet square.
(2) Adam and Eve are both homozygous for every gene in the genome, but they have different alleles than each other.

Date: 2006/10/19 17:22:32, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
And now, time for some Deep Thoughts.

Quote
Maybe in order to understand mankind, we have to look at the word itself: "Mankind". Basically, it's made up of two separate words - "mank" and "ind". What do these words mean ? It's a mystery, and that's why so is mankind.

Quote
If you saw two guys named Hambone and Flippy, which one would you think liked dolphins the most? I'd say Flippy, wouldn't you? You'd be wrong, though. It's Hambone.

Quote
Life, to me, is like a quiet forest pool, one that needs a direct hit from a big rock half-buried in the ground. You pull and you pull, but you can't get the rock out of the ground. So you give it a good kick, but you lose your balance and go skidding down the hill toward the pool. Then out comes a big Hawaiian man who was screwing his wife beside the pool because they thought it was real pretty. He tells you to get out of there, but you start faking it, like you're talking Hawaiian, and then he gets mad and chases you...

Quote
If you're a Thanksgiving dinner, but you don't like the stuffing or the cranberry sauce or anything else, just pretend like you're eating it, but instead, put it all in your lap and form it into a big mushy ball. Then, later, when you're out back having cigars with the boys, let out a big fake cough and throw the ball to the ground. Then say, "Boy, these are good cigars!"
Quote
I wouldn't be surprised if someday some fishermen caught a big shark and cut it open, and there inside was a whole person. Then they cut the person open, and in him is a little baby shark. And in the baby shark there isn't a person, because it would be too small. But there's a little doll or something, like a Johnny Combat little toy guy---something like that.

Date: 2006/10/20 04:54:39, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
One more time, in case you missed it:
Quote
OK, Dave, I have a question for you since I answered yours.  How would the allelic diversity of a population of Adam and Eve's family be affected given these two scenarios:

(1) Adam and Eve are both heterozygous for every gene locus in the genome. Please assume only 2 alleles in the original population exist (ie, Adam and Eve), as shown on the AiG punnet square.
(2) Adam and Eve are both homozygous for every gene in the genome, but they have different alleles than each other.

Date: 2006/10/20 06:21:39, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 20 2006,08:24)
Argy...
Quote
OK, Dave, I have a question for you since I answered yours.  How would the allelic diversity of a population of Adam and Eve's family be affected given these two scenarios:

(1) Adam and Eve are both heterozygous for every gene locus in the genome. Please assume only 2 alleles in the original population exist (ie, Adam and Eve), as shown on the AiG punnet square.
(2) Adam and Eve are both homozygous for every gene in the genome, but they have different alleles than each other.
If I understand correctly, in case 1, you would have an "MmMm" situation (to stick with the AIG Punnet square example) and in Case 2 you would have an "MMmm" situation, which as far as I can tell, would statistically have the same effect in their descendants.  Do you agree?

Well, aside from a minor quibble (giving two different genes the same abbreviation "M"), that's about right.  So why does it matter whether Adam was "maximally heterozygous?"  Your concept of genetic richness is completely meaningless.

Date: 2006/10/20 07:00:30, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote
Why I think it matters is because Genesis records a supernatural creation of Adam first, then a supernatural creation of Eve from Adam's side ("side" is a better translation ... "rib" in KJV).  This would imply that Adam and Eve had the same genetic makeup.


Um, what?  God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve, as your scenario implies.

Date: 2006/10/20 13:38:03, Link 128.95.11.93
Author: argystokes
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 20 2006,16:00)
My feeling is that OverwhelmingEvidence.com is going to be sacked soon. There hasn't been a new post or comment in 31 hours.

Well, when all you have left is two middle aged morons babbling nonsense back and forth at each other, it's not hard to see that the kids weren't drawn in.  And also using the words "wacky" and "zany" on the front page probably wasn't a good idea for a site trying to attract kids older than 8.

Date: 2006/10/21 19:51:43, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote
In support of my hypothesis, I offer the observation that I can't find anything that "afdave" - or Dave Hawkins, the actual person whose identity "afdave" may be hijacking - has actually written outside of this site that contains the sort of cartoonishly anti-science, YEC biblical literalist stuff on display here. If this guy really believed this silliness, wouldn't there be something on his "kids4truth" site that actually challenged the "atheistic propaganda passing for science" that forms the basis of high-school science classes?


Have you seen dave's blog?  If he's an imposter, he's managed to find a pretty old picture of the real Dave Hawkins.  Unfortunately, the email for Hawkins on k4t doesn't seem to work, so I can't verify.

Date: 2006/10/22 16:24:13, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote
OE isn't completely dead yet. We get treated to part 5 of the worst ID theory in history:


I think we might be getting taken for a ride.  Mark Nutter doesn't exactly seem ID friendly, based on his blog.  Maybe a woo woo spiritualist or something.

Date: 2006/10/23 15:11:55, Link 128.95.11.93
Author: argystokes
Quote (Diogenes @ Oct. 23 2006,17:37)
It appears I missed the Information Theory debate, much to my chagrin.  So are we out of creationist canards now?  I think Dave has pretty much hit every page of the creationist play book, including pulling some that aren't even well respected inside creationist circles.  So, have we missed any?  If so, can we just list them now and begin the refution?

Amazingly enough, he hasn't (to my knowledge) brought up the SLoT argument.  Maybe that one's too stupid even for him.

Date: 2006/10/24 03:43:04, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote (creeky belly @ Oct. 23 2006,23:17)
Quote
Sure, I'll just hop on up I-5 till I hit 405 in Renton, stay on that till bellvue where I hop I-90 and I'll be right there. Where should I meet you guys?

Who's all coming?

Forget going east BWE, Earl's on University Way.  Two long islands. Done.

Yes, sir!  But then, the new Earl's has a little less flavor than the old.  I prefer the College Inn myself.

Date: 2006/10/24 06:02:07, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Dave, is it your position that no mutation can ever increase information?

Date: 2006/10/24 06:10:53, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote
Been a while since I was in Seattle. (Other than an energy trade show in June and I didn't get out that time.) Maybe University way, hold on, Is University Way the same as University Avenue? has changed a bit since I was there last. It used to be the place for the hippies and trippers. Is it still?

Not that there's anything wrong with that. Some of my best friends are hippies and trippers.


Yes, yes, and yes.  And 405 is now way worse than I-5, but obviously more direct if you're going to Chicago.

Date: 2006/10/24 08:16:06, Link 128.95.11.93
Author: argystokes
Quote (don_quixote @ Oct. 24 2006,10:36)
Quote
Thunderbird and Bubble-Up.


I've not heard of the latter, but I do remember overindulging in Thunderbird in my teens. I don't know if they still sell it in the UK, though.

+++++++

I just saw this:

Amazon river 'switched direction'

Explanation please, Dave.

I remember Bubble-Up from listening to When Radio Was, that show that replayed old timey radio from the 30's and 40's.  Just how old are you, Deadman?

Date: 2006/10/24 12:26:04, Link 128.95.11.93
Author: argystokes
Quote (argystokes @ Oct. 24 2006,09:02)
Dave, is it your position that no mutation can ever increase information?

One more time, in case you missed it

Date: 2006/10/24 14:42:27, Link 128.95.11.93
Author: argystokes
Quote (argystokes @ Oct. 24 2006,15:26)
Quote (argystokes @ Oct. 24 2006,09:02)
Dave, is it your position that no mutation can ever increase information?

One more time, in case you missed it

Well, I'll ask one more time before I go to bold caps...  it's a pretty simple question, requiring just 2 or 3 letters to answer.  Granted, of course there will be a followup.

Date: 2006/10/25 17:02:08, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 25 2006,19:56)
You know Cedric ... it's interesting what has transpired here over the last several months.  I have been increasingly amazed at some of the enormous knowledge gaps that people here have had in areas I was led to believe they were experts in ... the latest two examples being a guy that's in a PhD program in neuroscience having a completely backwards idea of what information is and a guy that really seems intelligent otherwise who has absolutely no understanding whatsoever of population genetics.  What I'm saying to you is that way back then when I was told that Dr. Wieland was wrong about the chromosomes, I believed those who told me that.  I think it was Jeannot and others.  Now, to be honest, I wouldn't be surprised at all if I find out that in fact it was Jeannot and all of you that were wrong and Dr. Wieland was right.  It is beginning to appear to me that many of you have a very backwards view of reality.  But we'll see.  I assure you I am anxious to hear Dr. Wieland's reply in any case.

Dave, you little cutie, you don't need to take our word for it that Wieland is atrociously wrong.  You can look it up yourself.  Try googling "DNA antiparallel" and see what you get.

Date: 2006/10/25 18:50:16, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote (Artist in trainig @ Oct. 25 2006,20:29)
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 25 2006,22:24)
And please tell me how in the world are we to have a meaningful discussion of biological information.  Am I to take my entire lexicon and scratch everything out and write in new definitions?

That's what we call "learning".

Ouch, Dave.  You've just been given the proverbial smackdown by both Scary and Artist, both of whom (if I'm not mistaken) came here as creationists.  So why are they laying into you, Dave?  Are they blind and cannot see the evidence for creationism, because they have the need for Darwin to be right?

Date: 2006/10/26 18:35:10, Link 128.95.11.93
Author: argystokes
Quote (ScaryFacts @ Oct. 26 2006,21:30)
Wimp Lo: Take a close look. 'Cause I rule, baby.
Chosen One: And who do you rule, the large-dark-nipple people?

Source: ibid

Oh, man, you're about 4 months behind.  Did you catch the first set of Kung Pow! references in this thread?  So appropriate, so classic.

Date: 2006/10/27 06:15:02, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote
Why? Because Ken Ham has not just one cell in his body, but trillions (?) of cells, all of them highly specific for all manner of different functions.  There are far more functions specified in a human body than in a single celled organism.


Dave, remember back in the spring when I was berating you about whether Adam and Eve had immune systems in the garden?  Well, eventually you pointed me (or else I found on my own, but I think it was you) at an AIG article which said the immune system "maintained body integrity."  Hmm, saying nothing of fighting disease.  After all, there was none in the garden.  So don't humans perform specified functions now that weren't performed in the past?  You know, increased specificity?

Does it hurt to be disemboweled constantly for 6 months?

Date: 2006/10/27 06:33:00, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote
They simply were genetically rich, meaning nothing more than they had a significant degree of heterozygosity.  How much?  I cannot say.


Dave, I thought you'd given up on this being a meaningful statement.  So, what's the maximum number of alleles that could have been contained by a given "kind" on the ark at a single locus?

(a) 2
(b) 4
© depends on how many genes affect the trait
(d) Screw Punnett!  As many as I can imagine!

Date: 2006/10/27 06:36:27, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
OK, one more question, and then I'm done for now.  If sickle cell is necessarily deleterious, why is it increasing in areas endemic for malaria?

Date: 2006/10/28 10:24:09, Link 128.95.11.93
Author: argystokes
Bwahaha!  Tardmac gets told to shut up, unless he has that disease that Robin Williams had in "Jack"
Quote
TRoutMac - How old are you anyway? According to the introduction to a Podcast with Sam Chen on Intelligent Design The Future, this site is described as follows:

"Overwhelming Evidence is a site where high school students can network and communicate their views on intelligent design and evolution. ... This site is meant to encourage students to explore the facts, report the facts, and debate the facts."

I'm too old to post here but enjoy reading what I assume to be the opinions of a young contributorship. I can go elsewhere to find what high school graduates are thinking.

My apologies if you just look older than you are or if the intent of this site has changed.


Of course, I can see how one could be confused, as Tardmac certainly does express his ideas at a middle school level.

Date: 2006/10/29 11:41:43, Link 128.95.11.93
Author: argystokes
Quote (ScaryFacts @ Oct. 29 2006,15:29)
Quote (Drew Headley @ Oct. 29 2006,15:52)
To clarify things, I emailed Dr. Schneider to get his opinion on the issue. The question I asked was whether a signal constructed from white noise could convey information to a receiver.

Drew,

The email was a great idea, I wish I had thought to do it myself. But it still won't work.  You see, Dave can't comprehend the concept.  No matter how many words you try to use, the concept gets lost in Dave's internal noise.

Ironic, no?

Dave tries throwing Drew a knuckleball, and...


Yet another 3 run home run.  (Un?)fortunately, soft tossers like Dave never have their arms get tired.

Date: 2006/10/29 14:27:36, Link 128.95.11.93
Author: argystokes
Plus, next door at the Paradox you can catch some sweet shows (I most recommend Jason Webley).  And one can just head down the road to Hale's Brewery and get the best beer in the area.  Ah, Ballard, how I love thee.

Date: 2006/10/30 03:55:31, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
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?

Date: 2006/10/30 06:30:29, Link 128.95.11.93
Author: argystokes
Quote (ericmurphy @ Oct. 30 2006,10:17)
Quote (Louis @ Oct. 30 2006,05:08)
Dear Concerned Homeowner,

Daschunds, Wiener Dogs, in fact any dog under 75 cm tall are frankly rats with good PR (or for those with proper pets: lunch).

Wait a minute, Louis. Gonna have to disagree with you here. Speaking as a renter living in a city with a population density of ~10,000/hectare, I can say with some assurance that wienerdogs rock (all other small dogs suck.)

The reason wienerdogs don't suck is because they are completely and utterly unaware of the fact that they are, in fact, small dogs. Wienerdogs have in abundance the one dog characteristic I value above all others: a complete lack of self-consciousness.

And if you need further evidence of the sterling qualities of wienerdogs, look no further.

Ugh.  No, there is no dog worse than a dachshund.  By "unaware of the fact that they are... small dogs" I assume you mean that just like most small dogs, they're always ready to bite another dog, no matter what its size.  Nearly evert small dog owner I've met has said the same thing about their dog. This coupled with the fact that their owners always find it cute when their little crap dog gets nasty, so the behavior is encouraged.  The only small dogs I've ever found likeable are Papillons and Havaneses.  Plus, JAD has a dachshund, and so does James Dobson, which he beats.

*sorry for the rant... neighbor had a dachsund which she allowed to wander around offleash, crapping in our yard and screaming furiously whenever I took my pups out.

Date: 2006/10/30 06:35:58, Link 128.95.11.93
Author: argystokes
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 30 2006,10:29)
Weren't they bred to hunt badgers or something?

Yes.  Dachshund = Badgerhound.  Brains of a hound (dumb), disposition of a terrier (nasty).  And extraordinarily popular.

Date: 2006/10/30 07:11:06, Link 128.95.11.93
Author: argystokes
Quote
I've never heard one bark in all the time I've lived out here.


*shocked silence*

Date: 2006/10/30 10:55:22, Link 128.95.11.93
Author: argystokes
Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 30 2006,14:32)
Are all living bacteria genetically equidistant from eukaryotes?

(The chart on the tree-of-life website indicates that, but it also describes a couple of alternate versions of the tree that apparently hadn't been ruled out at that time.)

Henry,

It depends on whether you count archaea as bacteria.  If you do, the prevailing view is that, no, archaea are more closely related to eukaryotes than the eubacteria (true bacteria), with bacteria first diverging from archaea, then eukaryotes splitting from archaea.  Of course, things get really sticky when you consider that mitochondria are probably the descendents of eubacteria, making us chimera of sorts.

Date: 2006/10/30 11:57:18, Link 128.95.11.93
Author: argystokes
Quote
Mike PSS ... great picture!  You're not gonna like me very much after tomorrow when I talk about HLA  :-)


OK, but don't forget that having different HLA alleles than the rest of the population is advantageous to the individual with the less common variant.  Just a fair warning.

And does the gain of the ability to fight disease count as an increase in specificity/information (2nd time)?

Date: 2006/10/31 06:23:30, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 31 2006,10:17)
There is none that contradicts it that I am aware of ... no one has brought any to me here that stands up under scrutiny ... and there are mountains of confirmation of historical details in the Bible from archaeology ... are you telling me you are unaware of these?

But Dave, you already said that you can't even imagine hwat evidence contradictory to the Bible even would look like.  Now, granted, that was many moons ago.  Have you thought of anything?  And you promised us HLA today!  I'm afraid all the runners just got to advance one base.

Date: 2006/10/31 06:44:47, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Ha, ha, it's a fundie purgefest this week!

Quote
40. jaredl  // Oct 31st 2006 at 12:23 pm

Sal -

If what you mean is that this blog is a place where a certain orthodoxy of thought shall be enforced - be it theological, philosophical, or scientific - then perhaps you aren’t being harsh.

It is, after all, a private place, and you’re free to place any restriction on the expression of ideas you wish.

I simply did not understand that this blog was not for discussion, but rather simple cheerleading and villification of heterodox opinions. Sometimes, I have problems discerning the unspoken rules.

Let the cheerleading continue.

Comment by jaredl — October 31, 2006 @ 12:23 pm

Date: 2006/10/31 11:59:59, Link 128.95.11.93
Author: argystokes
Um, dudes, who was it that was pushing for a discussion of ice cores?  Who was it that challenged Dave that he could beat him in an argument no matter which side he took?  And the new "creationist" is named bwee?

Bee dubs, come out from under that mask!

Date: 2006/10/31 15:07:34, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Sal left this laffer over at Pharyngula:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyng....omments
Quote
I estimate, if criticisms of Darwinian evolution are ever admitted in public schools from peer-reviewed literature (like Stephen Meyer's paper), a 75-80% rejection rate would occur. Some polling esitmates show 90% rejection rate could be achievable if sufficient exposure to ID materials is allowed (such as simplified editions of Michael Denton's book or Unlocking the Mystery of Life).


Ah, some polling estimates.  Presumeably the poll went something like this:

DI Poller: What percent of kids would reject Darwinism if they saw our cool videos?

Meyer: 25%
Behe: 55%
Minnich: 60%
Gonzalez: 45%
Dembski: 20%, but 90% if they buy my book.

Date: 2006/11/02 16:00:49, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote
Intelligent Design. The study of patterns in nature that
are best explained as the product of intelligence.
Intelligence. Any cause, agent, or process that achieves an
end or goal by employing suitable means or instruments.
Design. An event, object, or structure that an intelligence
brought about by matching means to ends.


Hmm, I guess good old fashioned darwinian mechanisms count as intelligence (they achieve and end I'd say, though not a goal).  Intelligence: anything that happens.

Date: 2006/11/02 17:59:23, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Good grief, when I perused that first chapter, I assumed it was aimed at early highschoolers.  Apparently I was wrong:
Quote
College level ID textbook to be released March 1, 2007 (chapter 1 available online)
by scordova on November 2nd, 2006 · No Comments

The Design of Life

   …this book is poised to become the authoritive textbook on the theory of intelligent design.

Keep reading &#8594;

Filed Under: Intelligent Design


Then again, I suppose that any college that would use this tripe in their curricula would be on about the level of Pensacola Christian College.

Date: 2006/11/03 04:56:41, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Someone (steve?) may want to archive this thread before it's disappeared.
Quote
More antics from PZ Myers?
by scordova on November 3rd, 2006 · 9 Comments

You be the judge. Here is what professor Tim McGrew had to say:

   
Quote
Let me put that more bluntly: Myers is lying through his teeth. Literally. He is actually that dishonest.

   And not a single commentator on Panda’s Thumb for the past two months could be bothered to check Myers’s quotation against Wells’s actual words to see whether Myers was telling the truth.


This can be found in the comment section of My Denver Post Review of Two New Books on Darwinism and Intelligent Design by Douglas Groothuis.


Of course, we find the truth is... somewhat less fantastic.  The quote Myers attributed to Wells was completely accurate.

EDIT: The comment (by Franky172) pointing out Myers's response has been deleted.  BWAHAHAHAHA!

Date: 2006/11/03 05:17:15, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
And the awesome just keeps coming.  MacNeill stops by to bring the pain:
Quote


Apparently the comment linking to Myers’s response was deleted because it was “inconvenient” - in other words, it showed that McGraw’s allegations are entirely without merit, and that Myers’s original statements were, in fact, exactly as he represented them.
Why is it so difficult to admit this?

Comment by Allen_MacNeill — November 3, 2006 @ 11:13 am


EDIT:  Uh, oh, trouble at the farm.  Asstastic moderator Patrick has posted PZ's scanning of the infamous pp. 35, and criticized Sal for not fact-checking!  I give this thread about 20 minutes before it disappears (that's be about 8:35 PST)

Date: 2006/11/03 07:44:38, Link 128.95.11.93
Author: argystokes
Someone wondered whether TardMac was a YEC.  Not only does it seem so, he's using Hovind arguments:
Quote

Right On The Numbers
TRoutMac | Wed, 2006-10-11 15:07

Okay, I did a little research. The elevation of the Colorado River just below Glen Canyon Dam (before the river enters the canyon) is actually about 3150 feet or thereabouts. The canyon rim where the river cuts through the Kaibab Plateau is close to 7000 feet.

Scutus, I don't know what relevance your answer has to the problem. You might notice that every river's lowest point is sea level, except for rivers which are tributaries of larger rivers.

I also don't know what the Colorado River has to do with the Great Lakes. The Colorado River originates in Colorado north of Granby, and flows southwest through Colorado, Utah, Arizona, then flows past Nevada and California before making the final stretch through Mexico to meet the Sea of Cortez.

Everyone knows water doesn't flow uphill. (except in a siphon) I want to know how the Colorado River managed to flow from an elevation of 3150 feet to an elevation of 7000 feet, gaining 3850 feet in elevation before it began to "carve" the canyon. Or, I want to know, if the Kaibab Plateau rose up underneath the river, why didn't the uplift force the river into a new route?

TRoutMac
Intelligent (Graphic) Designer

Date: 2006/11/06 04:27:47, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote
What you have is the most common HLA-B alleles in N. Am. on top descending to the least frequently occurring at bottom.  Let's analyze each line individually ...

B4002: Significant (~16%) for N. Am. and Australia.  Next closest is less than half as frequent.
No support for Mike's statement above.

B3501: Significant ONLY for N. Am. (~13%)  Next closest is less than half as frequent.
No support for Mike's statement above.

B4801: Significant ONLY for N. Am. (~9%)  Next closest is Oceana with only ~4%.
No support for Mike's statement above.

B2705: Significant ONLY for N. Am. (~9%)  Next closest is Europe with only ~3%.
No support for Mike's statement above.

Are you getting the picture?  Do I need to keep going?

So Mike, kindly demonstrate HOW your statement is supported in detail or retract your claim.

Thanks!


Dave, this is your stupidest post since the red dots incident.  Yes, the alleles that are most common in N. America have their highest incidence in... N. America.  But they're still widespread throughout the globe.  Mike has nothing to retract.  You also still haven't answered how we got all those darned advantageous alleles to begin with.

Date: 2006/11/06 04:49:42, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote
Argy...
Quote

But they're still widespread throughout the globe.  Mike has nothing to retract.

No, they are not.  We find LESS THAN HALF the incidence in the next closest frequency of any allele you might pick.  There is no way any rational person can look at this data and conclude this ...


He said they were present, but he didn't say they had the same frequency. It's the presence that matters.
Quote
Also, you are showing your lack of understanding of "experimenter selectivity" by bashing my "red dot" chart.  You totally missed the point of all the information I gave regarding Isochron Diagrams.  It apparently is good enough for you--a non-expert in RM dating methods--to blindly accept all RM Dating in spite of the fact that you were shown how RM Dating is "calibrated" by the use of fossils.  Why would you blindly accept this?  All I can conclude is that you WANT ToE to be true and that you NEED RM "Dating" to support your ideas.

Uh, Dave, I thought the point of your red dots "experiment" was to say that if the scientists took a bunch more measurements, they'd come up with random points.  And since you had no evidence, you just imagined some data out of thin air and then critiqued your own made up chart.  I don't seem to remember anything about fossils on that chart, Dave.

Date: 2006/11/07 10:52:16, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Um, OK, so all the HLA-B alleles arose between Noah's Ark and the Tower of Babel?  I'm still not seeing where all these alleles come from.

Date: 2006/11/07 16:00:22, Link 128.95.11.93
Author: argystokes
More antics from DaveScot?

I report, you decide!  Does Springer admit to manually delisting UD himself?
Quote
DaveScot  // Nov 7th 2006 at 4:32 pm

Quote
I can’t really think of a particularly good reason why someone would do this unless they had some kind of personal grudge against Dembski or one of you.


Agreed.

Quote
Or if UD accidentally broke one of Google’s rules.


Agreed.

We didn’t break any of the rules. Now connect the remaining dots.

Date: 2006/11/09 20:23:41, Link 128.95.11.93
Author: argystokes
Well, they fixed Weiland's/LeJeune's error on the creationontheweb site... sort of...
 
Quote
EDITOR'S NOTE: This magazine article, written in 1979, is retained for historical reasons, but the principal argument it contains, even though it was presented by one of the most distinguished authorities in the field at the time, should not be used. It has been known for a considerable time that the information on a strand of DNA can be read in either direction. That does not of course mean that humans descended from chimps, merely that it is not appropriate to use this argument to indicate otherwise. As we have stated elsewhere, we should always be 'hanging loose' about any particular argument, prepared to abandon it in the face of information to the contrary.

(my emphasis)

The reason for the correction, however, is still totally wrong.  A strand of DNA is only read in one direction (5' to 3').  The issue at hand is that DNA is double stranded, and that the strands are antiparallel (which has been known since the days of Watson and Crick).  Therefore there is no objective "head" or "tail" to a chromosome.  Sheesh, even when they get it right, they get it wrong.

Date: 2006/11/09 22:49:07, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote (afdave @ Nov. 09 2006,19:57)
Argy ...  
Quote
Sheesh, even when they get it right, they get it wrong.
This from a guy who thinks his ancestor is a chimp ... and further back than that ... pond scum!!  And he's serious!!

Actually, I don't.  On either count.  Please retract.  You wouldn't want to lie about someone, would you?

I mean, this incident has to be embarrassing for them; not even knowing how DNA is read, which is AP highschool level biology.

EDIT:  You still haven't said where those alleles are coming from?  Good grief, I'm going to start putting up pictures of obese felines if you keep this up.

Date: 2006/11/09 23:15:14, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Holy shabit, something serious is coming down the pipes in the ID world!

Quote
2. Joey Campana  // Nov 9th 2006 at 2:41 pm

[Off-topic]

Denyse,

Please contact me ASAP about a matter of great importance. jccampana at gmail dot com

Comment by Joey Campana — November 9, 2006 @ 2:41 pm
http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1773#comments

Nah.  It's probably just a memo to DO'L reminding her to learn how to write coherently before taking up yet another blog.

Date: 2006/11/09 23:39:52, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Well, well, Dave scores his first point against the forces of ignorance:
Quote
Dr. Wieland is now in a separate creationist organization from AIG and he has put the author's note in his instance of the article at http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1061
The editor at AIG has also been informed now directly by Dr. Wieland and I expect that the AIG instance of the article will be changed shortly also.


An AiG search for "Wieland LeJeune" yields
Quote
Cytogenetics - another blow to evolution
... by Dr Carl Wieland. Professor Jerome LeJeune, a very distinguished French cytogeneticist
and holder of the chair of Fundamental Genetics, University of Paris ...
www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v2/i1/cytogenetics.asp - 34k

Clicking the link...
Quote
Page Not Found

Your browser requested information that was not available on the Answers in Genesis web server. If you followed a link from another page to get here, please notify us so we can try to take care of the problem on the page that links here. If you typed in a URL that was advertised on TV/radio or a magazine or newspaper, check to make sure that you typed it in properly—it should not include punctuation (eg. '.';) at the end.

Date: 2006/11/10 11:05:46, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote
And if you are somehow successful in deploying a convincing argument for that, then why do you still find 61 alleles in 250 years difficult to conceive, given by citations of studies regarding rapid polymorphism in the MHC Complex, of which the HLA-B is one gene.??

61 alleles in 250 years, from a founding population of 10 and a maximum number of about 20 generations??  If mutation occurred at that rate, wouldn't we expect to see hundreds of thousands of alleles in the population today, since they should increase exponentially as the population grows?

Also, Mike, it's a good thing you only have 70-500 alleles to work with, here.  If there were several thousand, there's a chance their frequency would all be under 1%, and wouldn't count!

On a nicer note, happy Veterans' Day to AFDave and any of you other folks who signed up for the cause.  Your service is appreciated.

Also, Dave, one son with a Cubs hat and one with a Cardinals hat?  That's a broken family just waiting to happen.

Date: 2006/11/14 11:10:18, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Dave, all these guys are asking you hard questions, so I'll ask an easy one (only 2 or 3 letters required to answer, and you already know the answer to it!;).

Do you, or do you not, have data for this 100x carbon spike?

Date: 2006/11/14 12:49:04, Link 128.95.11.93
Author: argystokes
Quote (afdave @ Nov. 14 2006,10:18)
Argy...
Quote
Dave, all these guys are asking you hard questions, so I'll ask an easy one (only 2 or 3 letters required to answer, and you already know the answer to it!.

Do you, or do you not, have data for this 100x carbon spike?
I'm having a really hard time understanding why you would ask such a question.  Are you just being obtuse like Eric when he says my evidence is NOT evidence?  Or have you simply not read my statements and my linked articles?

And I'm having a hard time understanding why you didn't answer the question.  Do you have the data, or not?

Date: 2006/11/15 11:33:14, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 15 2006,09:27)
Dorothy Parker once said about somebody, "every word she writes is a lie, including 'and' and 'the'." I'm beginning to think that applies to goddam salvador cordova.

Quote
The Empire Strikes Back, New Book by Woodward with foreword by Dembski
by scordova on November 14th, 2006 · 12 Comments


what do we see, a little while later?
Quote
Another pro-ID book rolled out: Tom Woodward’s...


http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1782

'fraid I don't get what's going on here.

Date: 2006/11/17 18:21:32, Link 128.95.11.93
Author: argystokes
Quote (IAMB @ Nov. 17 2006,15:31)
Quoth slpage:
 
Quote
"Random" names - no, he used MY name, a name he KNEW was real.  He used it in an attempt to make me look bad.  The irrational person he is, he glommed onto me for reasons unknown to me and began, among other things, of accusing me of being 'GWW'.

Unless you are, during normal operation, far more vitriolic than I suspect, it's pretty hard to imagine someone thinking you were GWW. Then again, DT's design filter doesn't seem to be working according to spec... erm, predicted spec, that is.

Ah, GWW: proof that evolutionist forums will occasionally ban one of their own.

Do you have a link for where GWW got banned?  I could go for a good laff.

Date: 2006/11/17 19:50:45, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote (IAMB @ Nov. 17 2006,16:34)
Quote
Do you have a link for where GWW got banned?  I could go for a good laff.

Give me a little time and I'll find you something if I can. If I remember off the top of my head the "last straw" comment had something to do with either fellatio or child molesting, but don't quote me on that.

It was around the same time a His Tardiness got the boot, so if you dig around the PT archives for April and May 2005 you might find it. Otherwise, you'll have to wait until I can dig it up.

Found the end of GWW.  Not nearly as exciting as I expected.
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/02/response_to_bob.html

Date: 2006/11/21 00:32:10, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote (skeptic @ Nov. 20 2006,21:13)
Piltdown was not old science.  It was a hoax perpetrated with the sole intent of proping up a theory under attack.  Piltdown was believed because it was exactly what was predicted at the time and therefore accepted in full.  It is only in retrospect that we can see the inaccuracies in this prediction but at the time it was fully embraced.

It's not only in retrospect; the fraud was uncovered because Piltdown didn't fit with all the other data, and thus required further examination.  The purpose of the fraud wasn't to prove evolution, it was to prove that humans evolved in England.  National pride sort of thing.

Date: 2006/11/21 10:44:58, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Uh, oh, Grandma O'Leary wags her finger...
http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1798#comments
Quote
2. HodorH  // Nov 20th 2006 at 9:37 pm

Additionally, Denyse, unless you are in fact “Great White Wonder,” Larry Fafarman, DaveScot, or John A. Davison, I’m pretty sure that you have access to the Panda’s Thumb. Just post a link in any of the comment threads.

Comment by HodorH — November 20, 2006 @ 9:37 pm

Quote
6. O'Leary  // Nov 21st 2006 at 10:49 am

From moderator Denyse:

HodorH, watch it. I complied with an academic’s request to publish information on my blog that he had originally wished to appear on the Thumb. I would not run errands in such a venue, and that much ought to have been obvious to you. - d.

Comment by O'Leary — November 21, 2006 @ 10:49 am

How dare someone talk to their elders and betters like that?  Why, back in my day, we could execute any of the peasants who talked to the queen that way!

Date: 2006/11/22 00:40:15, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
This is awesome.  Dave's biological gaffes are always my favorite.  This whole confusion on chromosomes vs chromatids ranks up there with when he said that eukaryotic DNA is a double helix, but bacterial DNA is circular.  Just when AFDave starts getting boring again, UD gets funnier.

Date: 2006/11/22 11:17:51, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Oh, Joel, let's take a look at the distribution of posts on your wonderful weblog, Stop Lying to Us:
Quote
# Administrative (2)
# Book Review (2)
# Christian Culture (11)
# Christian Worldview (20)
# College Education (2)
# Emerging Church (3)
# Inspirational (2)
# Intelligent Design (2)
# Just for Fun (3)
# Media (14)
# Movie Review (1)
# Music Review (2)
# Random (1)
# Secondary Education (4)
# Secular Culture (10)
# Teen Culture (21)
# World Events (6)
# World News (4)

Good grief, Joel.  I know you're at a seminary, but I'm sure there are still plenty of hot girls your own age hanging around.  This teen culture obsession is getting creepy.

Date: 2006/11/22 19:10:07, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
OK, Steve, admit it.  You've been playing DonaldM all along:
Quote
5. DonaldM  // Nov 22nd 2006 at 6:30 pm

   
Quote
Esssentially, the Darwinists cannot find enough fundie whackos to discredit the idea of design in nature, so they are compelled to impersonate them.


You know, Denyse, I’ve never considered this possibility before. You might be on to something big here. Maybe all the so-called “whacko fundies” that the Darwinists having be been bashing on lo these many years, don’t really exist!! Maybe all of them are Darwinians impersonating the fundie stereotype in order to provide entertainment to the Darwinian faithful on the anti-ID blogs and newsgroups! That way they can make themselves feel intellectuallly superior, while carefully avoiding engaging in real discussion and debate on real issues raised by really smart IDPs!! Then, when the IDPs are a bit too visible to ignore, the Darwinist just lable them “whacko fundies”, and then keep beating the straw men they create.

Whaddya think? Possible?

Comment by DonaldM — November 22, 2006 @ 6:30 pm


You know, I understand that I am one of those "fundamentalist atheists" that they're always harping about.  I suppose at least someone over there must realize that they are the whacko fundies, but it sure isn't Donald or Denyse.
link

Date: 2006/11/22 19:46:58, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Jibs, I just can't think of anything snarky to add to this one:
Quote
26. Ekstasis  // Nov 22nd 2006 at 7:25 pm

Back to the Near Death Experiences (the other NDEs), the evidence is overwhelming:

http://www.near-death.com/evidence.html

Oh sure, the Materialist waves his or her hand and dismisses NDEs as delusions or hallucinations. But this is a bit of a stretch, considering that:

1. NDE experiences occur even in situations where no brain activity can be measured,
2. Conversations are heard and sights seen that are simply not possible from the location of the body, e.g., seeing scars on the surgeon’s scalp, describing medical equipment and procedures, etc.,
3. Person blind from birth able to see for the first time, including colors never seen,
4. Young children telling of seeing Angels, etc even though they are raised in secular families and no reason exists for them to anticipate such things.

We can all argue about theology, but the evidence is overwhelming for the soul existing outside the physical body. But of course, as we all know, no amount of evidence will ever be sufficient for some people. Deep in their psyches they reject any spiritual realities because along with it comes the concept of accountability and responsibility, awards and penalties. Terrifying, isn’t it????

Comment by Ekstasis — November 22, 2006 @ 7:25 pm

Date: 2006/11/23 01:02:06, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote (UnMark @ Nov. 22 2006,22:19)
[quote=deadman_932,Nov. 22 2006,22:29] here's something I found about ...ah, a year ago? Something like that...anyway, keeping in mind all such online "tests" are suspect: http://www.rdos.net/eng/Aspie-quiz.php

Interesting link.  I'm not sure what to make of my results, though. . . .

Well, that was boring.  Anyway, my scores:
Quote
Your Aspie score: 37 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 148 of 200
You are very likely neurotypical

And that picture in the beginning is totally a girl.

Date: 2006/11/23 13:12:32, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote (afdave @ Nov. 23 2006,10:31)
Chris Hyland ...
Quote
Russell ... McNeill doesn't have a mechanism There isn't a mechanism, there's lots, I believe several are mentioned on those UD threads.
Great.  Could you list some please?

But Dave, I thought you'd read all about evolutionary biology.  Why would you have to ask, when you can simply recall from memory all that stuff you've learned from the major names?

Date: 2006/11/23 14:20:01, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote (afdave @ Nov. 23 2006,11:39)
RM + NS doesn't work.

What else IS there?

I say there's nothing ...  feel free to prove me wrong.

Hopeful monster?  Punc Eq?  Alladin's lamp?

I'm all ears ...

You're saying that not one of the evolutionary biologists you've read so much of haven't proposed another mechanism of population change than RMnNS?  I'm thinking you haven't been doing much reading at all.

Date: 2006/11/24 00:35:24, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote
Didn't think you could ... Thanks for proving my point ...

Don't think I have another proposed mechanism other than random mutation of the genetic code coupled with natural selection for generation of variation within a population?

Would you like to make a wager?

Date: 2006/11/24 12:24:39, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote (afdave @ Nov. 24 2006,07:42)
DM...
Quote
Here's the deal, Daveychild....I'm not even going to give you HINTS, stupid, given that you claim to KNOW this material:
Didn't think you would.  Because you cannot.

Quote
You have at least one person asking if you want to bet them on this topic, stupid...care to take that up?
Sure ... the bet is that you have no other PLAUSIBLE mechanism.  Alladin's Lamp and Bippety Boppity Boo don't count.

Since I'm the "at least one person," I'll take that as you accepting my bet.  Now, how shall we judge if my mechanism is "plausible," and what are the terms of the bet?  I've always liked BWE's idea of allowing a post on each other's blog.

My suggestion for determining plausibility is if more than 1 modern college-level textbook mentions it as plausible.  You're welcome to come up with a counter offer, but it really should be objective, rather than whether or not you find it plausible.

Date: 2006/11/24 14:39:54, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Some Christian love from Borne...
Quote
#### is the penitentiary, the insane asylum, of the moral universe.

If there is no ####, there ought to be one.

Otherwise no real justice will ever be done for the infinite dammages laid upon the universe by the rebellious who have disobeyed the law of love to do what is right in their own eyes.

Wow.  I'm doing infinite damage.  Never knew I was so powerful, but I guess I should have known better.

Date: 2006/11/24 19:51:12, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote (argystokes @ Nov. 24 2006,10:24)
Quote (afdave @ Nov. 24 2006,07:42)
DM...  
Quote
Here's the deal, Daveychild....I'm not even going to give you HINTS, stupid, given that you claim to KNOW this material:
Didn't think you would.  Because you cannot.

 
Quote
You have at least one person asking if you want to bet them on this topic, stupid...care to take that up?
Sure ... the bet is that you have no other PLAUSIBLE mechanism.  Alladin's Lamp and Bippety Boppity Boo don't count.

Since I'm the "at least one person," I'll take that as you accepting my bet.  Now, how shall we judge if my mechanism is "plausible," and what are the terms of the bet?  I've always liked BWE's idea of allowing a post on each other's blog.

My suggestion for determining plausibility is if more than 1 modern college-level textbook mentions it as plausible.  You're welcome to come up with a counter offer, but it really should be objective, rather than whether or not you find it plausible.

Hey now, you're not going to welch are you?

Date: 2006/11/24 20:31:33, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Dave, are we going to finalize the terms of our bet, or are you going to welch?

And if it's the latter, at least answer this question: How would you measure whether or not a mutation is beneficial?

Date: 2006/11/24 20:56:09, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
And... he's gone, after sticking around for easily long enough to see my post.

Hey, Dave, I thought of a commercial that both you AND your kids could star in:

Date: 2006/11/25 09:09:13, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote
Argy...there is no need for your bet anymore.  Chris Hyland already gave 8 supposed mechanisms to serve as an alternate to the dead Primary Axiom.  But feel free to give some more if you like.


But aren't you looking forward to winning an easy bet against one of those children corrupting, atheist scientist types?  Especially when the alternative is flaunting your welchishness all over the internets.

Date: 2006/11/28 10:07:44, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Hmm, bad time to change the subject, Dave.  I just invited a guy from Answers in Genesis to come give you some help with your hypothesis (he said he'd consider it).  Pharyngula was a little too much for him, so I thought he might enjoy it here.

Though I suspect he won't show.

Date: 2006/11/28 10:17:59, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 28 2006,08:09)
When business is slow, D*mbski either

* Takes 'the brites' down, or
* Puts 'the brites' back up.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1812

Hehehe...
Quote
1. zapatero  // Nov 28th 2006 at 1:23 am

Will it be funny this time?

Comment by zapatero — November 28, 2006 @ 1:23 am

Date: 2006/11/28 12:23:19, Link 128.95.11.93
Author: argystokes
Quote (afdave @ Nov. 28 2006,08:48)
Argy ... Who did you invite from AIG?

Daniel J. Lewis

Date: 2006/11/29 10:43:55, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote
Now ... can we please get back to discussing Biological Information?  (which you claim I don't understand?)


Dave, I asked you two weeks ago about how you would measure biological information.  Why don't you write a useful definition, that we can all use to determine relative amounts of information, so that the discussion can move forward?  It's simply a waste to spend your whole morning writing reviews.

EDIT: Note that I am asking for how you measure biological information, not a definitition of biological information.  That way we don't have to spend 3 days arguing about how to measure information before you get bored and change the subject again.

Date: 2006/11/29 12:18:59, Link 128.95.11.93
Author: argystokes
Quote
To this I would answer, "Do you have a rigorous, mathematical means for determining that my friend's old rusty 1972 pickup truck has deteriorated?"


I have a nonsubjective way of measuring.  I don't need to rely on my intuition.  Why can't you do the same with bioinfo?

Date: 2006/11/29 15:33:55, Link 128.95.11.93
Author: argystokes
Quote
Wonderful theory, Shirley.  Can you name some real world examples of mutations in which this has occurred?

You do work in the real world, don't you?


Google or wiki "Ames Test"

Date: 2006/11/29 17:30:46, Link 128.95.11.93
Author: argystokes
Quote
Ok.  So what is my "creation-diseased" mind supposed to glean from this that will finally set me straight?


You wanted a real-world example of a reversion mutation, which must represent a gain of biological information if the original mutation represents a subtraction.  I gave one to you.

And I'm one post late on my measure of degradation of your friend's truck.

Here's one (I'll bet you can think of many more): Square inches of rust.

Date: 2006/11/30 01:14:01, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
A leading light of ID pipes in with some deep thoughts:
Quote
13. francisbeckwith  // Nov 29th 2006 at 9:46 pm

Finally, a secular Wedge document. It is, however, far more militant than its counterpart. For this secularist version is calling for a full-orbed atheocracy including public marginalization of all heretics. Here’s a tip: whenever someone thinks he is advancing Reason’s march through history, the enemies of Reason are disposable (if they are not willing to shut up and stop shaping their communities). This is a secular jihad.

Comment by francisbeckwith — November 29, 2006 @ 9:46 pm

http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1818#comment-78540

Run for the hills! The Atheists are advocating REASON!

Date: 2006/11/30 10:15:21, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote
Argy ...    
Quote

You wanted a real-world example of a reversion mutation, which must represent a gain of biological information if the original mutation represents a subtraction.  I gave one to you.

Sorry, but I did not see an example of a reverse mutation in that link.  Could you post the exact snippet that you think contains this?

Quote
In the test several strains of Salmonella typhimurium that carry mutations in genes involved in histidine synthesis are used. The bacteria require histidine for growth. The variable being tested is the mutagen's ability to cause a reversion to growth on a histidine-free medium. The tester strains are specially constructed to have both frameshift and point mutations in the genes required to synthesize histidine, which allows for the detection of mutagens acting via different mechanisms. Some compounds are quite specific, causing reversions in just one or two strains. [1] The tester strains also carry mutations in the genes responsible for lipopolysaccharide synthesis, making the cell wall of the bacteria more permeable, [2] and in the excision repair system to make the test more sensitive. [3] Rat liver extract is added to simulate the effect of the metabolism, as some compounds, like benzopyrene, are not mutagenic themselves but their metabolic products are.[4]


And if you want specific examples of successful Ames tests, you could always click the links to the PDFs at the bottom of the wiki page.  Or google.

So, Dave.  Do these mutations represent a decrease in information?  What about the mutations that made it so the bacteria couldn't synthesize histidine?

Date: 2006/11/30 10:49:16, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote (Faid @ Nov. 30 2006,08:29)
Argy, we had the same discussion ("discussion" as in, I asked and dave ignored me) many months ago, when we were talking about antibiotic resistance in the "prove evolution to AFDave" thread. I had asked him to explain this: If a point mutation that makes a bacteria lose it's ability to synthesize an enzyme (making it imperemeable to an antibiotic), is in fact a decrease in information, then what does another point mutation, in the same point, that substitutes the original base, do?
Needless to say, I'm still waiting for an answer, so don't get your hopes up.

The funny thing about all of this is that I could swear that a couple of months ago I berated Dave for awhile asking him if he believed a mutation could never increase information.  Eventually, he answered "no!"  So if memory serves, he's been contradicting himself the last few days.

I'd been waiting for months to use the Ames test example, since it represents a beneficial mutation that we can observe happening in real time, if we were patient enough to stare at an incubator all day.

Date: 2006/11/30 11:10:03, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote
This does not say that a bacteria mutated and lost function, then mutated back again and regained that function.  Or if it does say this, I sure am not seeing it.


Good grief.  Read the sentence following the bolded ones.  And then answer my questions.

Oh, and yes, the loss of function mutations were engineered in. If that fact is important to you (it shouldn't be - it's still a mutation), then answer this additional question: Is this loss of function mutation a decrease in information when it occurs in the lab?  What about in the wild?

Date: 2006/11/30 11:45:02, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
I'm not sure I can explain the Ames test more clearly than that wiki article.  Why don't you tell me how you think the Ames test works, and then I can figure out where your misconception is.

Date: 2006/11/30 13:34:01, Link 128.95.11.93
Author: argystokes
Quote
I know what "reversion" means but I am challenging Argy to SHOW me an example of this occurring.  I see nothing that says this has occurred in the article he has posted.


Uh, YOU posted that article, Dave.  The actual example showing where it works is in the PDF linked at the bottom.  Do you understand how the Ames test works, or not?

Date: 2006/11/30 13:53:51, Link 128.95.11.93
Author: argystokes
From the 1st PDF:
Quote
We constructed the tester strain, TA1534, by introducing a
uvrB mutation (14) into the strain with the frameshift
mutation hisD3052 that was described by Oeschger and
Hartman (19). They induced hisD3052 with the frameshift
mutagen ICR-364-OH (12) and showed that it was reverted
by ICR-364-OH and ICR-191 (another frameshift mutagen,
ref. 12) as well as by hycanthone and 4-nitroquinoline-1-oxide
(21); it was not revertible by 2-aminopurine, an agent that
causes only base-pair transitions (20).

Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA
Vol. 69, No. 11, pp. 3128-3132, November 1972

Blech.  Don't you like lay-friendly summaries of methods better? The thing is, Dave, that this is all old news (11 years older than me!;).  Why would anyone find this surprising?

Date: 2006/11/30 17:13:55, Link 128.95.11.93
Author: argystokes
Dave gets creamed, and then instead of admitting he was wrong, he lies about it.
Yesterday:
Quote
2) We can say that it DOES NOT increase as a result of mutations.  Of course ToE advocates try to say that the miniscule number of "beneficial" mutations such as nylon eating bacteria somehow represents an increase of information, but they cannot defend this.  The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information ... and a few of them happen to be beneficial within a very narrowly defined context. (Broken car heater in Antartica analogy.)


Today:
Quote
Of course, the whole reason for this little exercise is your claim that mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible.


You're the best.

Date: 2006/11/30 20:48:55, Link 128.95.11.93
Author: argystokes
Quote
I see Argy is running from my spotlight on his reversion thing ... and claiming I'm a liar.

Um, what am I running away from?  Did you have a question I didn't answer? EDIT: And, as I recall, it was YOU who welched on our little bet.
Quote
But are you so foolish as to think this is an effective engine for "upward evolution"?

What the fuck is upward evolution?  You keep using this term, but I don't think anyone else here has except when quoting you.

Oh, and as for calling me a fool, you can be assured that my foolishness begins and ends with Seahawks football.  Yours, however, apparently subsumes every subject of your interest.  But hey, life's not about how smart you are, it's about how happy you are.  Ignorance.. nirvana.. or something.

And my wife's way hotter than yours.

Date: 2006/11/30 21:03:28, Link 128.95.11.93
Author: argystokes
Quote
I'm too tired now, but tomorrow I'm going to take you through the math of the Ames test. So be forewarned: I'm going to use terms even more exact than "bazillion".


I'm looking forward to it!  Do you think our resident mendacitor will even read it?  I don't, but don't let that stop you.  Also, any opinion on its usage for determining the carcigenicity of a compound?  I think Ames himself has railed a bit against its misuse, as it has suggest that things such as coffee are ubernasty.

Date: 2006/11/30 23:33:46, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
So last night I was looking around for some Tom Waits stuff on the internets, and found an interview with him.  And, much to my glee, he proclaimed "I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy."

Mike,
Is this interview (some 70s show, Waits performed "The Piano's Been Drinking") the origin of your signature, or does it have a predecessor?

Date: 2006/11/30 23:48:01, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Ah, right you are, King Elvishfantastic!

Date: 2006/12/01 09:32:50, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
I already answered your question, Dave. Before you asked it, actually.  See here and feel free to read the whole PDF if you have any other questions.

By the way, I'd like to see you answer Faid's question on information.  It's another one of those easy yes/no type questions:
Quote
Because simply, a message whose context is white noise, contains more information, in the Shannon definition, than a message whose context is a Churchill speech.
Do you disagree with that? Do you think Schneider says otherwise? Be careful how you answer; I will hold you to that.

Date: 2006/12/01 10:15:15, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
See OA, you've parsed this one incorrectly, so Dave's not lying.  See,
Quote

AFDave:  And of course, skeptics enjoy taking things OUT of context, which is nothing more than lying.

"Which is nothing more than lying" refers to the active verb in the preceding clause, which is "enjoy."  Stallwort Dave the Christian Soldier isn't enjoying himself, he's grimly meting out the justice of God's terrible swift sword.  Therefore, he's not lying, at least by his own definitions.

Also thanks to Faid, who by teaching me the word glossolalia, has given me the second cool new word for my vocabulary of late (Panjandrum, used by PZ and directed at Brayton, was the first).

Date: 2006/12/01 10:43:12, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote
They induced hisD3052 with the frameshift
mutagen ICR-364-OH (12) and showed that it was reverted
by ICR-364-OH and ICR-191 (another frameshift mutagen
,
ref. 12)


Or, if you prefer, from later in the paper which you say you read...
Quote
Our data l)resented here and the recent data of Ames, Sims,
and Grover (16) onl polycyclic hydrocarbon epoxides show
that various chemical carcinogens are frameshift mutagens.


The only way to revert a frameshift mutation is with another frameshift (OK, or introduction of a complementing gene... but you have to do that yourself or pray the perfect phage has contaminated your culture).  You, uh, do know what a frameshift mutation is, right?

And if you don't believe I can explain the Ames test in my own words, well, you're welcome to make a bet with me.  But it's generally not a good idea to do so.  I don't lose often.

Date: 2006/12/01 11:07:14, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote
If a codon mutates to another codon that codes for the exact same amino acid, in what way is that mutation not exactly neutral?

Eric, some organisms have a codon bias due to unequal amounts of tRNAs containing the same amino acid but different anticodons.  Thus, if the organism is producing a large amount of protein, having a synonymous change could actually have an effect on the efficiency of translation because the tRNA supply begins to get exhausted.

In lab, when we're using E. coli to produce large amounts of a particular protein, sometimes we optimize the sequence of the gene we're expressing in order to use E. coli's "favorite" codons.  I don't imagine this sort of thing is ever much of an issue with proteins produced in normal conditions, though.  Just a bit of something to look out for in the lab.

Hmm, that was kind of technical.  I'm happy to reexplain it with more, but less sciency words if you like.

Here's another thing I agree with Dave on: Dave Hawkins is one of the most degenerate humans in the history of the planet.

Date: 2006/12/01 12:01:38, Link 128.95.11.93
Author: argystokes
Quote
So what caused the frameshift?  One MORE or one LESS nucleotide?

The exact opposite of what caused the original frameshift.  The paper doesn't say if the original frameshifted strains were shifted by deletion or by insertion.  If you dig around the literature for TA1531, TA1532, and TA1534 you might be able to find out.

Quote
And did the second frameshift mutagen EXACTLY reverse this?

At least one fourth of them will have.  See Russell's post above.*

Now, don't you have a backlog of questions you need to answer?

*EDIT: Whoops, just realized that this is wrong. 5 points if you can tell me why.

Date: 2006/12/01 12:32:54, Link 128.95.11.93
Author: argystokes
Quote
Wonderful.  But how is this simulating natural processes if it is the lab technicians picking the mutagen to cause the reversion?

The reversion is selected for, but not targeted.  No intelligent input necessary.  And any agent could be used as the mutagen (even water).  As Russell's math shows above, an increased rate of mutation is not necessary to cause the reversion.

But why does any of this even matter, since you no longer believe that mutations CANNOT add information?

Date: 2006/12/01 16:00:56, Link 128.95.11.93
Author: argystokes
Dave,

Why don't you explain what you think MacNeill means when he says the modern synthesis is dead?  I've answered every single one of your questions, so I think this one is fair game.

Date: 2006/12/01 18:45:52, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote
And while you're pondering that (assuming you ever actually ponder anything), maybe you'd like, as a bonus, to come up with a mechanism that prevents humans from radiating out into, say, a thousand species of hominids over the past five thousand years, along with all the other "kinds." I don't think "genetic richness" will do it, Dave.

Eric, don't be ridiculous.  The Rapture is coming within the next 10 years, quite possibly the next 10 weeks!  We don't have to worry about that kind of stuff.

Date: 2006/12/01 19:35:38, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Hmm, I hope that Dembski's ascendency to the top of the phylogenist mailing list is a symbol of increased power in the ID community.  Please tell me he's the new director of the Center for Renewal of Science and Culture.

Date: 2006/12/01 22:00:38, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote (Russell @ Dec. 01 2006,19:37)
You know, the more I think about it, the more astonishing it seems.

afdave was an "electrical engineer", but he's clueless on how to interpret a pretty simple graph.

Either his skills must have faded since his electrical engineering days, or I must have an inflated idea of what it means to be an electrical engineer.

Bah, he graduated with Honors (I can't say that for myself).  It's the arrogance leading to the miscomprehension if you ask me.  The funditude is a symptom, not the cause.

Date: 2006/12/02 14:09:43, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
And Dave, that's DR. Russell Durbin to you, buddy. *rolls eyes*

Date: 2006/12/03 01:22:42, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Steve, I think the time to close the thread will be when everyone loses interest in talking with Dave.  I mean, there is a whole lot of science learning going on here, just not by our resident Air Force vet.
__
Earlier I suggested that Dave's behavior is due to his arrogance rather than his funditude.  Now I think I might be wrong.  Perhaps he believes that our words are directly from Satan, and thus must be lies, even when they're technically true.  That would explain his inability to admit he's wrong on subjects not related to his CGH.  It would also explain why he insists he "answered his own question"* of why Adam couldn't have hundreds of alleles at a locus, and he "figured out the Ames test on his own"* after beautiful explanations by Stephen Wells and Russell.  It's not that he can't be wrong, it's that we can't be right.  Maybe I should start up a fight with Russell on internal ribosomal entry sites, and force Dave to take a side.

Date: 2006/12/03 10:29:02, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote
Oh come on, I've admitted many of you have been right on many points.  No, I don't think your words are directly from Satan.  Gimme a break.

Righto.  I'll stick with the arrogance hypothesis.

Date: 2006/12/09 16:12:33, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote
The second half of this is untrue.  Where have I admitted that mutations can "produce completely brand new, never been seen before, novel functions." ??  Please produce the evidence or issue a retraction.  Then you would also need to retract the statement that I am being intellectually dishonest.

So you don't think the ability to digest nylon is a novel function?

Date: 2006/12/09 19:30:25, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
You think it was a preexisting ability?  What species/kind/whatever do you think had the ability to digest nylon? And why would this be a good thing for the organism?

Date: 2006/12/09 21:06:01, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote
As for you folks that want to know about nylon-eating bacteria ... please do some Google searches.  You'll find lots of material.

So should I take that as admitting you can't answer my questions?  Why thank you, I think I shall.

Date: 2006/12/10 01:21:35, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 09 2006,19:27)
I admit nothing ... but please, enlighten me when you find out something.

Um, you're the one making the claim (that nylon digestion existed before the invention of nylon).  I'm not doing your research for you.

Or are you afraid I'll deliver another swift knockout as I did on biological information?

Date: 2006/12/10 10:17:21, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote
AFDave:  And of course, skeptics enjoy taking things OUT of context, which is nothing more than lying.


...

Quote
Quote
As for you folks that want to know about nylon-eating bacteria ... please do some Google searches.  You'll find lots of material.
So should I take that as admitting you can't answer my questions?  Why thank you, I think I shall.

I suppose I can presume your misrepresentation of my quote was accidental...
Quote
Why thank you, I think I shall [research nylon-eating bacteria.]

When I write, Dave, I try to establish a normal continuity of thoughts.  I try to achieve this by using normal sentence and paragraph structure.  Now, perhaps I don't always succeed, but I don't think the quote above represents a failure to present my thoughts clearly.  To me (and I suspect to most folks), a regular reading of my quote would inform the reader that "I shall [take that as admitting you can't answer my questions]," rather than "I shall [research nylon-eathing bacteria]."

Quote
Knockout?  What or who did you knockout?

Well, I was saying I figuratively knocked you out, but really, I just worked you into a corner and you knocked yourself out.  Remeber?:
Dave: Biological information can't increase!
Shirley: What about if there's a reversion?
Dave: Bah, can you give me any real-world examples of such a thing?
Argy: Ames test!
Dave: I don't get it.
Russell and Stephen Wells: (patiently explain what it is and why it's relevant.  Russell goes on to explain how the Ames test also invalidates two of your other ideas)
Dave: Ah, I figured out the Ames test on my own.  Also, I never said information couldn't ever increase

Surely you haven't forgotten that whole exchange? It was funny. (note - I am referring to the exchange as funny, not the Ames test.  There's absolutely nothing funny about testing for carcinogens)

So are you going to back up your claim that nylon digestion existed before the invention of nylon, and why you think that would be a good thing for the organism?

Date: 2006/12/10 18:12:26, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote
I suspect this nylon-eater is a similar case ... but feel free to prove me wrong if you like.

Um, OK.  Here's all the evidence that a nylon-digesting organism existed before the invention of nylon:  
Quote













I win.

Date: 2006/12/11 00:02:57, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 10 2006,20:33)
Argy's explanation for why the Ames Test proves ToE ...  
Quote















Um, what OA said.

Perhaps there's no use in flogging a dead dolphin, but are you going to even attempt to back up your claim about nylon-digesting bacteria?

Date: 2006/12/12 00:19:02, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
VMartin,

I haven't been following this thread, but what are you going on about in that last post?  Honestly, I don't understand what you're trying to say.

Date: 2006/12/12 14:55:02, Link 128.95.11.93
Author: argystokes
Quote
What really happens is that the nearly neutrals continue to get passed on with the beneficials (are there any really?)

Yes, and you've admitted such.  So stop with the ubersilly.

Date: 2006/12/13 13:33:29, Link 128.95.11.93
Author: argystokes
Quote (incorygible @ Dec. 13 2006,10:35)
While I of course echo improvius's emphatic yet understated, "No", that's too easy for us and too hard for Dave.

So instead, Davey, could we continue your 'logic', but make a slight departure from sunshine, daisies and butterflies?

By any measure, protozoans of the Plasmodium genus are also much more complex than a watch, and perhaps even moreso than butterflies. Could you please educate us on the intent and purpose behind their design? Thanks!

Hint #1: we're talking about the parasite that causes malaria, Dave.

Hint #2: since you have the requisite information to inform us on at least some of the wonderful "designed purposes" of Lepidopterans, there's no real reason to plead ignorance on the purpose of these malaria-causing little fiends, now is there?

Oh, balls yeah.  I'm going to second the suggestion that Dave takes on the purpose of Plasmodium parasites, since this is an area where I can actually claim a modicum of expertise, having a coauthorship on a paper about... Plasmodium evolution.

So I'll repeat...
By any measure, protozoans of the Plasmodium genus are also much more complex than a watch, and perhaps even moreso than butterflies. Could you please educate us on the intent and purpose behind their design? Thanks!

Date: 2006/12/13 15:18:10, Link 128.95.11.93
Author: argystokes
Quote
What I do know is that Scripture teaches that all things were created "good" in the beginning, but that many things changed at the Fall and Curse.

Um, like acquiring the new function of being infectious?  I thought you said that kind of thing couldn't happen.

Quote
Davey, you really should look into the complexity of Plasmodium some time. (Maybe argystokes is willing to enlighten you a bit?)

Um, maybe if there's a more general interest, but writing takes me a lot more time than it seems to take folks like Eric.  And I think enough people have unanswered questions for me to hijack the thread.

Date: 2006/12/13 19:38:11, Link 128.95.11.93
Author: argystokes
Eric, what's the primary difference between a microprocessor and a sycamore?

Give up?

SIZE.  A sycamore is WAY bigger than a microprocessor.  And since we know the microprocessor is designed, then so must be the sycamore!

OK, OK, a substantive post on Plasmodium is forthcoming... in a couple of hours I hope.

Date: 2006/12/13 21:57:02, Link 128.95.11.93
Author: argystokes
BIG FAT POST ON PLASMODIUM
Or, "Everything I Could Think of Without Doing Research."
As requested by Eric and Cory.

Plasmodium is a genus of protozoan parasites (what your middle school teacher would have called a ‘protist’) that causes malaria in several species across the animal kingdom, most notably humans.  It is transmitted from one individual to another by the Anopheles mosquitoes, a genus of mosquito which is currently confined to tropical regions of the earth.  Malaria is endemic in most regions of sub-Saharan Africa, as well as South America and Asia.  It’s not a particular vicious disease, at least not compared to something like AIDS, but since it’s so widespread that it’s among the big 3 infectious diseases receiving the most attention in terms of vaccine development and new drug treatments (along with TB and AIDS).  About 2 million people die every year of malaria, most of them very young children.  Almost all of these deaths are attributable to infection by species Plasmodium falciparum (as opposed to the other 3 species of Plasmodium).  There are some subtle differences between the life cycles of the different species of Plasmodium, but I think everything I will be describing here is applicable to all species, except where noted otherwise.

Plasmodium’s life cycle can essentially be broken up into 3 stages:
1. Mosquito stage
2. Liver stage
3. Blood stage

1. Mosquito Stage
The parasites within the mosquito are horny little buggers, constantly having sex and recombining their genomes and creating all kinds of diversity.  They replicate and then travel to the salivary glands of the mosquito, apparently causing the insect little or no discomfort and being generally noninfectious.  When a mosquito takes a blood meal from some poor African kid, these motile parasites are injected into the bloodstream and quickly swim their way to the liver.  If I recall correctly, the parasites first traverse a layer of immune cells called Kuppfer cells, by quite literally charging right through the cells themselves.  This allows the parasites to reach the liver cells themselves, which they invade.  

2. Liver Stage
During invasion, the parasite acquires part of the liver cell’s membrane, which it uses to separate itself from the rest of the cell. (Imagine blowing a bubble with some bubble gum, then pushing a rock into the bubble until the invagination closes on itself.  Then the bubblegum surrounding the rock pinches off from the rest of the bubble, leaving a rock inside a bubble inside a bubble).  The parasite then start to reproduce asexually, growing and dividing and stretching the limits of its envelope and the host cell itself.  Eventually, through unknown mechanisms, the parasite escapes both its envelope and the liver cell itself, and shuffles its way back into the bloodstream.

3. Blood Stage
The blood stage of Plasmodium is much it’s liver stage, in that cells are being invaded, the parasite resides in a host-derived envelope, divides lots and lots, and escapes the host cell.  As wikipedia describes the blood stage :
Quote
From the hepatocytes, the parasite replicates into thousands of merozoites, which then invade red blood cells. Here the parasite grows from a ring-shaped form to a larger trophozoite form. In the schizont stage, the parasite divides several times to produce new merozoites, which leave the red blood cells and travel within the bloodstream to invade new red blood cells. Most merozoites continue this replicative cycle

As one might expect, this causes the destruction of a lot of blood cells, and leads to anemia, which in some cases can be quite severe.  Some of the parasites differentiate back into the sexual form, which can be taken up when a mosquito takes a blood meal, and the cycle continues.  Wikipedia also has an interesting hypothetical evolutionary scenario for the origin of this life cycle:
Quote
This life cycle is best understood in terms of its evolution. It is thought that Plasmodium evolved from a parasite spread by the orofaecal route which infected the intestinal wall. At some point this parasite evolved the ability to infect the liver. This pattern is seen in the genus Cryptosporidium to which Plasmodium is distantly related. At some later point this ancestor developed the ability to infect blood cells and to survive and infect mosquitoes. Once mosquito transmission was firmly established the previous orofecal route of transmission was lost.


There is a pretty nice animation showing the whole process here:
http://www.sumanasinc.com/scienceinfocus/sif_malaria.html

var genes, pathogenicity, and immune evasion
During any infection, the pathogen must avoid detection by the immune system until it has multiplied enough to make transmission to a new individual easy.  Plasmodium accomplishes this in a pretty interesting way.  Most cells have a mechanism of presenting all the little bits of its innerds to circulating immune cells.  The immune cells check to see if the presented bit is host-derived or foreign.  If the immune cell recognizes foreign material, it will bombard the poor infected cell with nasty chemicals, leading to the destruction of both the infected host cell and it’s freeloader (for more detailed information, wiki or google MHC Class I and Cytotoxic T Lymphocyte).  By infecting red blood cells, however, the parasite avoids this arm of the immune system.  Red blood cells are enucleated, and thus don’t produce any DNA, RNA, or protein.  They therefore lack any kind of machinery for blowing the whistle on the parasite which is living inside them.

However, living in red blood cells (RBCs) presents a different problem for the parasite.  The cells are constantly circulating and must travel through the spleen, the organ responsible for destroying old and crappy RBCs.  Through mechanisms which I do not understand, cells in the spleen are able to recognize infected RBCs, and destroy them.  This is apparently not a total death blow to most species of Plasmodium, but it does appear to keep most infections from becoming lethal.

Except when it comes to Plasmodium falciparum.  P. falciparum has evolved a mechanism to evade having to go through the spleen.  When the falciparum parasite is within an RBC, it produces PfEMP1 proteins.  These are encoded by var genes…
****
To avoid confusion, or perhaps cause it:
DNA -> RNA -> Protein
Var -> var RNA -> PfEMP1
****
The PfEMP1 protein is exported from inside the parasite all the way to the RBC surface.  This process is extremely fascinating, as it requires the parasite to set up machinery outside of itself in order to properly transport the protein through the envelope in which the parasite resides and all the way to the RBC membrane.  The parasite can’t co-opt host cell machinery, since RBCs don’t have any.  This process is still being figured out.  Anyway, the PfEMP1 protein is able to bind to certain receptors that are on the surface of the blood vessels.  This tethers the infected RBC to the blood vessel, preventing the infected cell from reaching the spleen where it would be destroyed.  PfEMP1 can also attach to uninfected RBCs, which essentially cloaks the infected RBC with uninfected RBCs, making it harder to “see.”  Infected RBCs also can stick together, forming big ole clumps of cells.  All this sticking is pretty bad, and becomes lethal when cells start clogging up passageways in the brain.  Cerebral malaria causes hemorrhaging, and is one of the main causes of malaria-associated deaths (along with pregnancy malaria and severe anemia).

So the stickiness is all well and good for the parasite, but by putting a piece of itself on the surface of an RBC, it has exposed itself once again to the immune system.  Before getting into the beauty of antigenic variation, I’ll need to do a quick aside on how adaptive immunity works.
****
Adaptive immunity is absolutely ridiculous.  Basically, when a T cell or B cell (henceforth lymphocyte) is made, the part of its DNA that encodes the T cell Receptor or B cell Receptor undergoes recombination that is pretty much random.  There are enough possible permutations of the DNA to produce proteins that just happen to be capable of binding to just about any other protein.  The lymphocytes that have receptors that can bind host cells are weeded out and destroyed, while ones that can’t are allowed to get into the blood stream and look for trouble.  The body cranks out enough of these cells that just about any foreign protein can be recognized by a small handful of cells in the body (and there are ways that the body uses to increase the odds of this interaction occurring, which I won’t go into).  Once a lymphocyte recognizes something (hopefully a pathogen), it will start dividing and cranking out antibodies (which are soluble B cell receptors, so are very specific), and the infection can be pretty quickly cleared.  Some of the lymphocytes will differentiate into memory cells, which can start the process of cranking up the adaptive immune response to the same foreign material much more quickly than if the body had to start all over again.
****
Back to malaria.  The falciparum parasite has about 60 different var genes in its genome, but only expresses one at a time.  The immune system recognizes the PfEMP1 protein on the RBC surface, cranks up a response to it and then… the parasite switches what var gene it is expressing, and hence changes the PfEMP1 protein on the surface.  And the immune system has to start all over again.  The switching of var genes isn’t fully understood, but it appears to be a general low rate of switching, followed by selection for newly exposed PfEMP1s, rather than a preprogrammed sequence of gene expression (but we DO see that in Trypanosoma brucei, the African Sleeping sickness parasite… but that’s another sto-ey).  This process is known as “antigenic variation,” and is found in both protozoans and bacteria.

I mentioned that there are 60 different var genes in a given parasite.  But it goes beyond that.  Each strain of Plasmodium falciparum has a different set of var genes.  If one strain is endemic in a region, eventually people’s immune systems will have figured out a good deal of the different var genes.  But when a new strain enters the region, once again the immune system needs to learn a whole new set of proteins to recognize.  Thus, it is beneficial to the parasite to have a different set of vars than its relatives, because it will evade the immune system more easily just by being different.  Clearly, this shows a scenario where a very high proportion of mutations would in fact be good for the parasite, simply because they make the parasite look different.

The Theory of Evolution easily explains why there is so much var gene diversity amongst different strains of Plasmodium.  Mutation creates the diversity, and diversity is selected for.

How does Dave’s UPDATED Creator God Hypothesis explain it?  Were all the strains created as different kinds (and remember, these bugs had to have been on the ark, maybe in some poor hapless dinosaurs?), or did they gain all these special new abilities?  Have the species of Plasmodium that lack var genes lost their ability to produce them, with God creating more lethal parasites to start with?

Please, Dave, what does your hypothesis predict for the origins of this nasty parasite and, in particular, the very valuable antigenic diversity contained between different strains?

Date: 2006/12/13 22:19:27, Link 128.95.11.93
Author: argystokes
And here I thought Dave was busy typing up a response to my little post.  But no, 20 minutes after it goes up, he runs away.  I guess it is sleepytime in MO, and I'm sure I can count on a substantive response in the morning.

Date: 2006/12/14 10:08:12, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Dave, you didn't actually read my whole post, did you?  If you had, you wouldn't have said something as silly as this:
Quote
I don't see anywhere that you show that "mutation creates the diversity" if by "mutation" you mean "random mutation" which I think you do.  Diversity is built in as Ayala clearly states.


After all, I said:
Quote
I mentioned that there are 60 different var genes in a given parasite.  But it goes beyond that.  Each strain of Plasmodium falciparum has a different set of var genes.

It's like the HLA thing again, Dave.  Mutation-free recombination doesn't create new alleles.  You do remember what an allele is, right?  And you do remember admitting they arise by mutation, right?

Interesting hypotheses from Dr. Bergman on the acquisition of HIV and syphilis.  Here I'd been told that the most likely scenario for the SIV/HIV jump from non-human primates to humans was because of unsanitary butchering processes.  Now I learned it was from hot wild monkey sex!  Furthermore, it is certainly surprising that he thinks that we got syphilis from Enumclaw style sheep sex, since sheep don't get syphilis.

As I expected, you couldn't answer my specific questions because you couldn't find anything to cut and paste:
Quote
I do not have an answer for this particular bug, but the information I have posted clearly explains how various other "nasties" fit quite easily into the Biblical world view.  Why wouldn't this "nasty" also fit quite well when more is known?  (I would guess that some creationist scientist somewhere has addressed this specific bug ... if I run across one, I will let you know.)

I didn't ask you about Plasmodium in general, I asked you about a specific pathogenic mechanism, and what your hypothesis PREDICTS about its origin.  It's OK for a prediction to be wrong - that just means that a modification of the hypothesis is necessary.  But if your hypothesis makes no predictions at all, other than "I bet I can find the answer to that at AiG," then it's completely vacuous.

You also haven't answered how a nonpathogenic organism can become pathogenic without gaining any function (you ought to address the PfEMP1 proteins specifically, since everyone here knows all about how they work now).

Now also might be a good time to address a question I asked of you in May, since you've had 7 months to think about it:
What did the immune system do in the Garden of Eden?

Date: 2006/12/14 13:46:15, Link 128.95.21.138
Author: argystokes
Quote (Russell @ Dec. 14 2006,08:12)
Quote
Jerry Bergman ...currently teaches biology, microbiology, biochemistry, and human anatomy at the college level and is a research associate involved in research in the area of cancer genetics.  He has published widely in both popular and scientific journals.  
I'm curious. Where does Bergman currently teach "at the college level"? Where can I read about his research on cancer genetics?

Oh, and on the "complexity vs. reproduction" thing?
Too stupid for words.
This just has to be a joke.

Jerry Bergman has a PhD in human biology from Columbia Pacific University.  A quick google reveals:
Quote
Court Orders Columbia Pacific University
to Cease Operating Illegally in California
Stephen Barrett, M.D
In December 1999, the Marin County Superior Court ordered Columbia Pacific University (CPU), of Novato, California, to cease operations within the State [1,2]. On February 21, 2001, the judge denied further appeals and entered a final judgment ordering CPU to:

Pay a civil penalty of $10,000 to the Bureau for Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education for violating Sections 17200 et seq. and Sections 17500 et seq. of the California Business and Professions Code
Permanently stop operating or offering any educational programs in California.
Notify all students enrolled from June 25, 1997 to December 1, 2000 of the injunction and of their right to a refund.
Provide refunds to all students within 30 days of their request.
Provide a status report to the Court by June 30, 2001.
Failure to comply with the above order in California would constitute contempt of court, which is punishable by a fine and/or imprisonment [3]. CPU moved to Montana but closed about a year later.


Read the whole thing here.

Date: 2006/12/15 10:26:02, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote
1) Don't read Eric's posts ... Eric confuses you with the sheer volume of his posts ... never mind the putting words in my mouth, self-contradictions and misrepresentations ... what do you expect I guess ... he's a lawyer (sort of) ... stick with reading the objections of the science guys ... Russell, Argystokes, Incorygible, and others.
Choking, choking, ...*gasp*... too... much... irony... PfEMP.. uuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...

Date: 2006/12/15 22:07:56, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 15 2006,19:50)
Quote
Second, much of what Jones copied was simply wrong. For example, during the trial biochemist Michael Behe was presented with articles discussing the evolution of the immune system. Jones writes that Behe said these articles were "not good enough." That was a direct quote copied form the ACLU. Actually, Behe said "It's not that they aren't good enough. It's simply that they are addressed to different subject." Judge Jones not only copied the ACLU--he didn't pay attention during the trial.


That's from SChen24 at UnderwhelmingEvidence.com.

I'm eventually going to have to resign my commission, because there's no proper response to this which doesn't involve lots of cursing and spitting.

Um, I worked in one of the labs that produced one of the infamous papers in ye olde big f'n stack (but the paper was before my time).  Uh, yes, they do evolution of the immune system there.

Date: 2006/12/16 08:53:47, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Dave, don't you think it would be considerate to answer some of the outstanding questions before you started demanding answers to your own?

EDIT: You can also bet I won't be answering your challenge until you've clearly defined what you mean by "factory" and "machine."  I can smell conflation miles ahead.

Date: 2006/12/17 10:49:01, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Hmm, it's hard to reconcile these two thoughts from afdave:
Quote
The alleles come from random mutation ... where ALL alleles come from.
(permalink)
and
Quote
Quote

And why should I drop the "evolving" part? Wasn't evolution responsible for the explosion of biodiversity after the Flood?

Not if you mean "mutations".  It was pre-existing variability.  Remember my friend, Francisco?  (Ayala)


So, a 1000x increase in species without adding alleles.  I would ask Dave to expand on this hypothesis, but I'd rather he discuss my question on parasites or get into some post-flood ecology.  Of course, he won't, since he can't find the answers on AiG or ICR.

Date: 2006/12/18 10:14:04, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote (Russell @ Dec. 18 2006,07:51)
This is just too tiresome to keep up. For now, let me just say that in dave's last post, every single point he addressed to me is wrong. Every one. Completely.

If anyone other than dave is at all confused as to why, or wants to see it laid out in detail - let me know. But if it's just for dave's benefit, I'm too busy today.

No need.  The misrepresentations are obvious.

Date: 2006/12/18 21:36:53, Link 128.95.11.93
Author: argystokes
Quote
I guess we'll have to add computer science to the list of things about which AFDave is as ignorant as a tree stump.
(aside:  that's a METAPHOR Dave, it doesn't mean I think you're a REAL tree stump)

Pff. That's a simile, not a metaphor.  Therefore, God.

Date: 2006/12/19 11:27:56, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote
I do not want to be distracted with "complexity tests" because they have ZERO to do with my argument.  I notice that you have no complexity test for the artifact mentioned above, yet you admit that it was caused by an intelligence.

So that whole butterflies must be designed because they're more complex than watches argument was just a red herring?  Is there any part of your "hypothesis" that isn't completely vacuous?

Date: 2006/12/19 12:13:57, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote
You are not reading carefully.  I have no interest in quantitative complexity tests that Improvius is talking about.  I am only interested in shining a spotlight on the fact that no quantitative test is required to determine that a butterfly is "higher tech" than a watch.  Just as it is intuitively obvious to Improvius that an ancient artifact was designed--no quantitative test required.

Now ... what part of this do you not understand?  Or are you just being intentionally obtuse perhaps?


I don't understand the part where Improvius is making an inference based solely on his intuition.  You wouldn't want to misrepresent Him (her?), would you?

So now according to you, the amount of biological information is determined based on intuition, and the amount of complexity is determined based on intuition.  Bricks.  Hammers.  Toast.

Oh, and it takes quite a bit of intentional obtuseness to follow your arguments, Dave.

Psst... parasites... you said you'd be willing to discuss them.  Don't tell me we're going to spend another week on arguments from analogies.

Date: 2006/12/19 14:05:33, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote
Do you have a "Design Meter" to determine a hammer is designed?  If you do, I'd like to see it!  Fact is ... you don't ... it's not needed. This is my point!

Of course, my method for detecting design says that the organism that caused this was not designed, whereas yours says it was.
Maybe you should use a method which might actually be somewhat objective for determining design, rather than "because I say so."

Date: 2006/12/20 12:12:58, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 20 2006,09:16)
Weeping Davetard, confused agnostic / functional theist.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1883

Quote
Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.
by DaveScot on December 20th, 2006 · No Comments
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. I’m not rationally convinced we have immortal souls to give up but certainly the possibility exists. Imagine on judgement day that was you in the video and it was being replayed. There’s nothing to gain and everything to lose in this. Please join me in a simple prayer for the young victims of this stunt.

“Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.”


Back when I was in Junior High, there was this peculiar fellow who had recently switched over from Christianity to atheism.  He had a binder full of "Soul Contracts" which by signing you could sign your soul over to him.  He'd also hollow out the "B" in EVERLASTING GOBSTOPPERS, and walk around telling people, "I'll give you a Godstopper... for your SOUL!"

I held out for two.

Date: 2006/12/20 18:34:38, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Dec. 20 2006,16:23)
So who does deliver Lenny's pizzas, anyway?

Some guy from Seattle, I think (that's quite the trip to Florida).  Word on the street is he wears a big hat to cover up the rather pointed shape of his cranium.

Date: 2006/12/20 19:13:40, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 20 2006,16:25)
I have emailed Mr. Magnuson of Intelligent Design Advisor to Chapman 08 and asked him if he wants to participate.

(If he does, keep in mind he's a teenager and don't be inappropriate.)

Why? Or, should I ask, participate in what?

Date: 2006/12/21 17:49:41, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
I'm also from Seattle.  And am still here.

Date: 2006/12/21 18:05:47, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote
Simply because we know of a case where a discus REQUIRES an Intelligent Designer ... namely, official competition discuses.

So it is logical to think that it is highly likely that a discus in nature might also require a designer.




Or, perhaps not.  You know, that model Dave put up looks an awful lot like the Type III Secretion System.  Ever get cholera back in your jungle days, Dave?  Wasn't that an elegantly designed infection?

Date: 2006/12/21 21:21:37, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote (creeky belly @ Dec. 21 2006,16:39)
Seattle

Sounds like a couple of us are at the U perhaps....

Yep, finished undergrad there in 2005, now am in grad school, Pathobiology department.

Date: 2006/12/21 22:38:04, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote
More on cholera tomorrow!

Could we do malaria instead, if it's all the same to you?

Date: 2006/12/22 00:44:50, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
From the Spy vs Spy taxonomy thread:
Quote
3. TRoutMac  // Dec 21st 2006 at 6:33 pm

I find this very interesting… As I read the various comments here I notice that most (if not all) of you commenting on these issues understand SO MUCH more about biology than I ever will.

Uh, when UD contributors have more knowledge of biology than you ever will, it's time to stop holding forth as OE's biggest contributor.  Or perhaps that makes him overqualified.

Date: 2006/12/22 10:33:57, Link 128.208.60.40
Author: argystokes
Quote
Also, how about that Virus piece from Bergman I posted.  How many of you realized that viruses are ESSENTIAL for life on the planet?  Russell (the virologist), did you know that? Be hones