AE BB DB Explorer


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


form_srcid: dvunkannon

form_srcid: dvunkannon

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is 23.23.67.57

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

form_author:

form_srcid: dvunkannon

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

DB_err:

DB_result: Resource id #4

Date: 2008/06/13 10:37:02, Link
Author: dvunkannon
First time posting here, please be gentle...

I love reading DrDr on UD. This is one of his great "we are now advancing to the rear" messages. Having lost in actual science, in the courtrooms and in the legislatures, the Kulturkampf will be taken to the most important battleground, Vacation Bible School.

Bill's intellectual efforts have been narrowing down and ageing down for a while. So one prong of a uni-pronged approach is avoiding all possible interactions with scientifically trained/unsaved adults, and shore up the funding base.

The next stop is Bill teaming up with Jack Chick. I really can't wait.

Date: 2008/07/01 13:43:57, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Isn't Beckwith's endorsement just as left handed as possible?

Quote
“Intelligent Design is often rejected, but rarely understood, especially by those who incessantly tell the rest of us to keep an “open mind.” This is an age when sophisticated academics do not flinch at requiring public school students to watch “sex education” demonstrations that involve bananas and condoms. Yet these same intellectuals insist that our children be shielded from any literature that may cast doubts on materialism. This is why ID advocates would face less resistance in our more cerebral venues if someone somewhere would just label it as pornography. But, alas, that has not happened. So, you’ll just have to discover by your lonesome self what gets Richard Dawkins’ panties in a bunch. Start by reading this book and learning something. If you wind up disagreeing with portions of it or even the whole thing, that’s okay, for many of us (me included) have issues with and questions about ID as well. But some of us are far more suspicious of the thought-police that want to ‘protect you’ from this new boogey man.”
–Francis J. Beckwith, Professor of Philosophy and Church-State Studies, Baylor University


I think Dr. Dr. wanted something a little more positive and Frank offered to meet in the Baylor cafeteria to discuss it... Instead he got
Quote
“Intelligent Design is often rejected...If you wind up disagreeing with portions of it or even the whole thing, that’s okay.”
–Francis J. Beckwith, Professor of Philosophy and Church-State Studies, Baylor University


with an erotic subtext of bananas and condoms meeting resistance in the panties of a cerebral professor. Just the thing to sell copies to the Josh McDowell crowd.

Date: 2008/07/01 15:16:27, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Dr. Dr. hasn't fooled the Library of Congress

Quote
1. Intelligent design (Teleology) 2. Creationism. 3. Evolution (Biology)—Religious aspects—Christianity.

Date: 2008/07/02 14:16:18, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,July 02 2008,10:50)
 
Quote
Posted: 07/01/2008
Understanding Intelligent Design
Worldview with Sean McDowell


1. The Design of DNA. If you came across a message in the sand that read, “John Loves Mary,” what would you conclude caused it? Was it the result of wind, erosion, and waves? Or is it best explained as the work of an intelligent agent? The answer is obvious—a mind did it. The laws of nature simply can’t account for a message of this sort.


I actually like Sean's version of Paley's argument. For "John Loves Mary" the answer is obvious. But throw in a few rounds of duplication, shuffling and a mutation or two so that you get "esohybJoL fJoL nseohyvan LoanseohesohyM rJr Myvam LoaM rJr M". Is that gripping romance or what? I think most people would answer - what. It's just a little demonstration of how easily our common sense intuitions (which are being appealed to here) can be confused. Then encode the message in piles of sand instead of strokes with a stick, and...

Date: 2008/07/09 15:42:34, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 09 2008,14:05)
RTH loves Heddle pt 2:

Here I am defending him over at Abbie's.

???

http://scienceblogs.com/erv/2008/07/green_buttocks.php

Can we start a 'help fund(ie)' for me. Or an intervention.
Or something?

ETA: this isn't fair on Dave:

 
Quote
Dear heddie:

Your "anti-Dembski street-creds" are nonexistent to say the least. If they did exist, then I'd see them cited at Panda's Thumb and elsewhere. As for myself, I will only note that at least one prominent ID critic approves of my online conduct against Dembski.

And yes, I do hope that Dembski is "scared of me". I want him to be afraid, very afraid, of me. Why? It's time he receives an ample dose of the "medicine" that he's been dispensing towards his critics for years. Indeed, for his own despicable behavior towards me, he owes me a used black Leica M7 rangefinder camera in near mint to mint condition and several brand new Zeiss Leica M-mount lenses.

Live Long and Prosper (as a DI IDiot Borg drone),

John Kwok

I just read  John Kwok's pseudo-review of DDrr.. Dembski's latest. I'm sorry, the man is easily as irritating in his style as many a tardmeister and is in the running for the David Mabus You Owe Me award for his insistence on a Leica M7. My 2c...

Date: 2008/07/09 16:00:05, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (simmi @ July 09 2008,08:49)
Quote (WmAD @ UD)
... Question: If ideas are like stocks, would this be a good time to invest in ID?


Classic case of survivor bias.  Yes, they laughed at Copernicus, Galileo, Einstein, Lemaitre, etc. They also laughed at Bozo the Clown.

To all would-be UD investors: the skill comes in picking *valuable* stocks when their prices are low.  Some stocks are cheap for a reason.

Actually, as Michael Milken proved in junk bonds and as stock index funds show, just buy them all. No one can consistently value and time trades in individual stocks better than the market. (And if Templeton had $10,000 in 1934, it's just an example of the rich getting richer.)

Unfortunately, it's not a strategy you can apply to Pascal's Wager, too many jealous gods out there...

But in the marketplace of ideas, the investing man would put some money on Paley in 1802, and then done the same with Darwin in 1859 and then just let the investments grow! No need to reinvest in Paley now when the initial investment has yet to pay dividends.

Date: 2008/07/11 10:38:40, Link
Author: dvunkannon
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 10 2008,21:38)
I haven't read a word of that exchange. Heddle got it exactly right.

You forgot the [kwok] [/kwok] tags around "I haven't read a word of that exchange."

Date: 2008/07/11 15:26:56, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Benny H @ July 11 2008,16:14)
I'm curious about DaveScot's religious beliefs. It was my understanding that he was an agnostic, but his recent posts seem to me the words of a theist. Has he converted? Or perhaps he mistakenly believes non-denom theist and agnostic are the same thing.

Before I was banned over at UD, he responded to one of my questions by saying he believed in the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas.

Date: 2008/07/12 23:00:03, Link
Author: dvunkannon
With respect to Dr. GH's interest in a test case, I think that Mr. Woods' actions are already that case. He's admitted that he went to Mass, took the wafer after it was consecrated, and left with it. If the Catholic diocese wanted to engage in legal action, that was the opportunity. No need to wait for PZ's squidy ninjas to drop from the rafters.

In asking to "score" a wafer, all PZ was asking for was that someone repeat Mr Woods' actions.

Date: 2008/07/13 14:56:00, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Can we invite DDrr.. Dembski, Dave and Denise to somekind of festschrift for the 1000th page of this thread?

If it wasn't for them and their quick trigger finger on the banninator, their tolerance of cognitive dissonance, and atrociously bad writing, this thread would not exist, and the world would be a much less amusing place.

Just putting the idea out there...

Date: 2008/07/14 12:12:45, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Kristine @ July 03 2008,11:16)
I suppose that science is just some guy in a white robe?


What is wrong with this picture?

1- Jesus is 50 feet tall

2- Jesus is hitching for ride when He already has one.

3- Jesus is riding side saddle.

4- To accurately portray theistic evolution, the dinosaurs should be riding Jesus.

Date: 2008/07/14 16:55:49, Link
Author: dvunkannon
How nice that Denyse should take this moment to look back on seven (7!!1!) years of ID progress with these fond memories:

- Covering the acceptance of the Nobel Prize by DDrr.. William Dembski.

- Coverage of the death of Darwinism at the time predicted by the good DDrr..


oh, sorry, never mind. But equally impressive:

- ID now means exactly what we say it means. Most of the time. In Google hits.

- Helping create the NCSE.

- ID has successfuly captured the mindshare of legacy media as a shorthand for crank.


Accomplishments, in sum, that no Nobel Prize can equal.

Date: 2008/07/16 12:51:04, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (J-Dog @ July 16 2008,11:49)
Quote (olegt @ July 16 2008,10:10)
Tard advisory

Tardmeters around the world registered a strong uptick this morning, indicating an influx of fresh, unscreened tard in the environment.  The source was traced to a naked singularity in the tard field that had escaped from the UD bunker and was last seen at Telic Thoughts.  

Click on the link AT YOUR OWN RISK.  You have been warned.

and Heddle steps up as the white knight to do battle with Denyse, leaving her bruised and bleeding.

My question is how in the heck you managed to trail that thread to its current conclusion, after such a long, meandering, strange thread?  Not for noobs or the faint of heart.

What Denyse has in mind when she says Big Bazooms I shudder to imagine.Science as wish fulfillment perhaps?

Date: 2008/07/22 14:03:31, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ July 22 2008,10:41)
Latest wildlife report from the Outer Hebrides (again in no particular order)

snip
Carrion Crow

I saw a hooded crow on Castle Hill in Budapest about two weeks ago. Given that King Matthias was the Raven King, I thought it highly appropriate. Bird was too smart for me to catch a picture of, almost made me drop my camera as I tried to follow it.

Date: 2008/07/23 14:13:44, Link
Author: dvunkannon
I know it is late for a present, but I would like to give the Dr. who has two of everything a date with Janie and Kate. Boy, would DaveScot be jealous!

I think there is room for a threesome inside that sweater...

Date: 2008/07/23 16:12:53, Link
Author: dvunkannon
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 23 2008,16:37)
 
Quote (dheddle @ July 23 2008,09:32)
I'll jump in on lcd's side. These laws are for a nation that no longer exists, ancient Israel. It logically ceased to exist with the onset of Christ's public ministry (the Kingdom was, as it were, at hand) and literally ceased to exist in AD 70 when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and ransacked the temple. These laws do not apply to Christians--as is made most clear by the fact that Jesus broke or ignored his share.

As Christians, we are under Jesus' law (c.f., Matt. 5, the Sermon on the Mount) not under the civil laws for a nation of which we are not citizens.

So doesn't that really kind of imply that Christians can/should disregard the Old Testament, or at least the bits that Jesus didn't specifically refer to?

I actually think that would be a good thing -- I'd like Christianity more if they threw out the OT, Paul, and Revelations.

(Even the Catholics had serious misgivings about Revelations -- given how many hillbillies it's made crazy, I think their concerns were well founded.)


Sorry for continuing to hijack this thread, but the ability of Christians to misunderstand Judaism to justify their reading of their own texts always bugs the crap out of me - speaking as an ex-fundamentalist Christian and convert to Orthodox Judaism.

DHeddle - where in the Gospels do you see Jesus break any law? As you say, his positions (rhetorical, not legal) were much stricter than almost any other Jewish group, including Essenes. What happened to "not one jot or tittle (yod or seraph) of this Law will pass away"? Christian anti-nomianism starts with Paul, not Jesus.

If you want to talk about executing children for disobeying their parents, please do it in the context of the religious and legal tradition that knows WTF is being talked about.

Date: 2008/07/23 16:47:23, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Chayanov @ July 23 2008,00:29)
Quote (Rilke's Granddaughter @ July 22 2008,22:58)
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 22 2008,18:33)
Crown of thorns needed, isle nine:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-293024

That is SO funny.  Does FTK always have this persecution complex?  And this tendency to not read ANYTHING of what folks write to her?  Does she really believe the nonsense she wrote there?

Yes.

Yes. Her reading comprehension skills have been shown numerous times to be decidedly sub-par.

Probably yes. She'll latch on to concepts and phrases and then parrot them repeatedly. She should be thankful that you allowed her to trot out the "Dawkins and the Darwin police are going to take children away from their Christian parents" yet again.

paraphrasing (so sue me)

RG - A liar like you has to make a poor mother.
FtK - The Darwin Police want to take my kids away because I won't believe their relgion!

How long does it normally take before someone calls FtK on this blatant misdirection?

Date: 2008/07/23 18:16:18, Link
Author: dvunkannon
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

Quote (dheddle @ July 23 2008,18:19)
Quote (dvunkannon @ July 23 2008,16:12)

Sorry for continuing to hijack this thread, but the ability of Christians to misunderstand Judaism to justify their reading of their own texts always bugs the crap out of me - speaking as an ex-fundamentalist Christian and convert to Orthodox Judaism.

DHeddle - where in the Gospels do you see Jesus break any law? As you say, his positions (rhetorical, not legal) were much stricter than almost any other Jewish group, including Essenes. What happened to "not one jot or tittle (yod or seraph) of this Law will pass away"? Christian anti-nomianism starts with Paul, not Jesus.

If you want to talk about executing children for disobeying their parents, please do it in the context of the religious and legal tradition that knows WTF is being talked about.

He worked on the Sabbath. He encountered heretics and blasphemers and never demanded that they be put do death. This includes encountering perhaps the only people in history who have committed the unpardonable blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. He did not sentence them to death. If you believe the story of the woman caught in adultery (it may not be canonical) he didn't call for her to be stoned. He mishandled lepers repeatedly in violation of the laws on cleanliness. Even his claim to forgive sins could be construed as a violation.

In the same passage as the "jot or tittle" Jesus does his "you have heard it said--but I say" bit. There we find the law that is not lost but made more difficult--not the routine civil laws, but the moral laws. He makes no mention of the civil laws. He does not say: "You have heard it said that if a woman having her period sits on furniture then it must be cleansed, but I say until you…" The intent of which law is not destroyed is obvious--it is the law that convicts us of sin, not the suddenly outdated statutes of a defunct state. Paul makes this clear in Romans.

It is not Christians who abuse the passage about the law not being abolished. In the context of which it was spoken, and in the manner in which Jesus raised the stakes, we understand quite clearly what law Jesus was talking about. No, it is people who want to make a cheap argument who abuse it--even though in context it is clear that Jesus did not refer to the minutia of the Mosaic law, they insist it applies precisely there, for then they can make superficial "how come you don't stone blasphemers--you are cherry picking" arguments. But the biblical text does not support that conclusion, and Jesus' actions and his words and those of Paul clarify what he meant.

Sorry to do this to you, but could you give references? My own NT memory is rusty, so while I remember pasages in which folk complain to Jesus about what other people (his disciples) were doing (eating food they picked) as Sabbath breaking, I don't recall a specific instance where it was Jesus doing the violation.

Likewise, there is no way Jesus on his own can demand someone be put to death on their reputation alone, nor is there quite the same idea of blasphemy in Judaism. On adultery, Jesus seems to be firmly in the camp of Rabbi Akiba, who famously demanded testimony so exacting that no one could ever be convicted of adultery under his rules.

But then we come to the point that the law related to adultery is certainly part of the criminal code of Judaism, a code not defunct in 70 CE. Jewish communities usually controlled their own civil and criminal courts in Europe (until Napoleon) and under Islam.

This distinction that there is a law that convicts us of sin, and then there is this other humdrum law is completely false. The Mosaic/Rabbinic code is seamless in that regard. All civil, criminal, and religous violations could create "sin". Your distinction would have been unfathomable to Jesus or anyone listening to his sermon. Paul can say what he wants, that isn't the point.

"Jot and tittle" refers to the smallest letter and hair-fine decorations of manuscript text of a Torah scroll. An interpretation that those words don't have their clear meaning must be recognized as exactly that, a very strained sense in which to take his language.

Date: 2008/07/23 22:12:22, Link
Author: dvunkannon
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

Quote (keiths @ July 23 2008,19:10)
Quote (dvunkannon @ July 23 2008,14:12)
Sorry for continuing to hijack this thread, but the ability of Christians to misunderstand Judaism to justify their reading of their own texts always bugs the crap out of me...

Actually, you're not hijacking the thread at all.  Morality and theology are frequent topics at Telic Thoughts, most recently in this lengthy thread:
ID and Morality.

I participated in the discussion as 'robin' (until I was banned), and for me the highlight was watching people tying themselves into knots in an attempt to justify these two Old Testament laws:
Quote
If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity.
(Deuteronomy 25:11-12, NIV)

Quote
If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.
(Exodus 21:20-21, NIV)

OK, I skimmed that thread through quickly. wow, just wow.

It's amazing that Joy was the person who came closest to answering you with the Jewish answer (to mangle a Princess Bride quote) "that verse, you keep using it, but I don't it means what you think it means." Of course the question is just as interesting as a hypothetical.

As you perhaps tried to prod people into realizing, we have to fight a nasty God. The high point of the Bible is Abraham arguing God down from destroying Sodom and Gommorah.

Date: 2008/07/24 16:59:49, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Now Dennis is an expert on university politics as well as cruelty to language.

I vaguely recall that Lilley's tenure denials were something of a reaction to higher levels of tenure acceptances in prior years, a reversion to the mean.

Date: 2008/07/24 17:17:59, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 24 2008,17:06)
http://scienceblogs.com/goodmat...._in.php

Reminds me of Hero is real / Bible code.

I thought that was "Her O is real", a claim that his gf never fakes it.

Date: 2008/07/25 12:34:43, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Origin of the nucleus and Ran-dependent transport to safeguard ribosome biogenesis in a chimeric cell

Quote
Background
The origin of the nucleus is a central problem about the origin of eukaryotes. The common ancestry of nuclear pore complexes (NPC) and vesicle coating complexes indicates that the nucleus evolved via the modification of a pre-existing endomembrane system. Such an autogenous scenario is cell biologically feasible, but it is not clear what were the selective or neutral mechanisms that had led to the origin of the nuclear compartment.

Results
A key selective force during the autogenous origin of the nucleus could have been the need to segregate ribosome factories from the cytoplasm where ribosomal proteins (RPs) of the protomitochondrium were synthesized. After its uptake by an anuclear cell the protomitochondrium transferred several of its RP genes to the host genome. Alphaproteobacterial RPs and archaebacterial-type host ribosomes were consequently synthesized in the same cytoplasm. This could have led to the formation of chimeric ribosomes. I propose that the nucleus evolved when the host cell compartmentalised its ribosome factories and the tightly linked genome to reduce ribosome chimerism. This was achieved in successive stages by first evolving karyopherin and RanGTP dependent chaperoning of RPs, followed by the evolution of a membrane network to serve as a diffusion barrier, and finally a hydrogel sieve to ensure selective permeability at nuclear pores. Computer simulations show that a gradual segregation of cytoplasm and nucleoplasm via these steps can progressively reduce ribosome chimerism.

Conclusions
Ribosome chimerism can provide a direct link between the selective forces for and the mechanisms of evolving nuclear transport and compartmentalisation. The detailed molecular scenario presented here provides a solution to the gradual evolution of nuclear compartmentalization from an anuclear stage. Reviewers This article was reviewed by Eugene V Koonin, Martijn Huynen, Anthony M. Poole and Patrick Forterre.



Interesting that according to this, we acquired a nucleus in response to the endosymbiosis with mitochondria. Where does that put plants?

Date: 2008/07/25 13:56:53, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Dennis also recently linked to a Times Higher Ed review of Steve Fuller's new book, a review written by a theologian. Tard on a hill cannot be hidden.

It's not clear in the review who thinks  
Quote
It is a good integrating hypothesis - as good as astrology (now disproved) and Darwinian evolution (another grand theory that may soon be disproved).


Somewhat telling, though, that Fuller brought this review to the attention of Dennis. "Buy my book!"

Date: 2008/07/25 17:20:37, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Bob O'H @ July 25 2008,15:29)
Also telling that Ward pans Fuller's book, albeit gently.  And Fuller, apparently, still wants people to read the review.

As Mozart says in Amadeus, when you read words like this, what can you say but... Fuller!

(Though Fodor and Berlinski do come to mind...)

Date: 2008/07/27 22:11:57, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ July 27 2008,22:24)
Quote
A Simpleton Gene Origination Calculation
PaV

In this month’s Nature Genetics, there is an article by Zhou, et. al., dealing with the generation of new genes in Drosophila melanogaster—the fruit fly. While only having access to the abstract, I nonetheless was struck by one of their findings: the rate of new functional gene generation. As finding number 6 in the abstract, the authors write: “the rate of the origin of new functional genes is estimated to be 5 to 11 genes per million years in the D. melanogaster subgroup.”

Noting that Drosophila melanogaster has 14,000 genes (a very low gene number), the simply calculation is this: 14,000 genes/8 new functional genes per million years= 1.75 billiion years for the formation of the fly genome. This, of course, assumes that somehow the fly is ‘alive, and reproducing’ the entire 1.75 billion years—-this, without the aid of a full-blown genome. If we apply this to the monkey/human difference which, IIRC, is about a 1000 genes, then using this same rate, it would take 200 million years for man to have evolved from the monkey. This published rate for new functional gene generation cannot be good news for Darwinists.


That would be lovely, but the 1000 gene difference between man and chimpanzee is not new genes for the most part.

It would be even lovelier if the number was close to 1000. Instead, it seems to be closer to 154.

Additional bonus tard for free: PaV thinks the rate of uptake of new genes is constant at the fly's rate. That might work in baraminology, where a fly has always been a fly. So PaV has shown that according to baraminology, it has been 1.75 billion years since Noah's Ark and the Great Flood. Of course, if flies spent most of their developmental history as single celled creatures with faster changes to their genomes, then the rate isn't constant and PaV's calculation fails.

ID prediction: the first comments to this post will hail the calulation as a breakthrough, there will be a brief period of riducule by DS which will not be preserved by the fossil record, and subsequent comments will ignore it in favor of analogies to Expelled.

Date: 2008/07/27 22:29:09, Link
Author: dvunkannon
I'm banned too!

At the height of my UD street cred, Sal actually put my name in the headline of one of his posts on why YECs don't always like ID. But I fell from grace swiftly after that, and finally got the boot from DS for these comments.

Date: 2008/07/28 10:45:51, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 28 2008,11:03)
Shamone, Bob.

Are there any scientists left at UD? Can't have the readership have their heads filled with silly "facts".

I think they still let Allen Macneill post.

Date: 2008/07/28 10:58:12, Link
Author: dvunkannon
I'm finishing Sean Carroll's Making of the Fittest, and starting The Good Soldier Svejk, by Jaroslav Hasek (tr. by Cecil Parrott), and The Wild Trees, by Richad Preston.

Date: 2008/07/28 13:48:28, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 28 2008,10:36)
Sorry Bob; too much Genetics, not enough Genesis.

Nah, it's just that the Dr.++ is twitchy about getting his cafeteria access back. He doesn't want anyone spoiling his chances of re-establishing the Polanyi Center at the table next to the checkout line.

Date: 2008/07/28 17:06:30, Link
Author: dvunkannon
My wife (who is Japanese) brought home a DVD the other day of a Japanese game show called "The Most Useful School in the World". It's a mildly educational show that is packaged inside a quiz show format that could only be dreamed up, and survive, in Japan.

In this episode, one segment was on iguanas of the Galapagos islands. The show introduced as the guest "expert" a Japanese doctor who had become a nature photographer. Interestingly, they also showed Charles Darwin's picture during the segment intro and talked about evolution. Imagine a game show trying that in the US?

The doctor showed pictures of the land iguanas eating prickly pear cactus, and showed that in areas with abundant iguanas, the prickly pear grew on a short pedestal base putting fleshy parts out of reach of the iguanas, while in areas without a lot of iguanas, it grew directly on the ground. This was given as an example of evolution.

The next film showed some of the adaptations of the sea iguanas, and asked the contestants to guess which feature had been modified the most in going to sea. The correct answer (according to the show) was that the sea iguana's claws were longer and sharper, the better to hold them against strong currents under water. (They showed great footage of the iguanas feeding underwater, gnawing seaweed off of rocks.)

Now the weird part was that they claimed that recent weather changes that had increased the foliage on the islands had given rise to the opportunity for some form of hybridization between land and sea iguanas. The result was a land iguana with claws strong enough to climb the pedestal of a prickly pear, and thereby acquire more resources.

Since this wasn't a peer reviewed game show, I was leery of accepting this story at face value, but I am trying to run down some facts. I thought I'd bring it to your attention as an example of how evolution fares in the pop culture of other countries, and also a cool example of real time evolution (if true). If I can find the show on YouTube or similar Japanese site, I will send a link.

Date: 2008/07/28 17:13:37, Link
Author: dvunkannon
GilDigan is amazed that Fox News would publish OOL "nonsense". Heck, Fox has a whole Evolution and Paleontology site! Three cheers for our fact based network!

ps - how do I link directly to a UD comment, like all the cool kids?

Date: 2008/07/29 12:12:57, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (dheddle @ July 29 2008,12:39)
For point of reference, most Protestants who affirm inerrancy do so along the lines of the Chicago statement.


Rich, you live in Chicago, right?

By never defining the term Holy Scripture, it almost makes you forget what a debate there was over deciding what was scripture and what wasn't.  :p

Date: 2008/07/29 13:03:18, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (dheddle @ July 29 2008,13:26)
Quote (dvunkannon @ July 29 2008,12:12)
   
Quote (dheddle @ July 29 2008,12:39)
For point of reference, most Protestants who affirm inerrancy do so along the lines of the Chicago statement.


Rich, you live in Chicago, right?

By never defining the term Holy Scripture, it almost makes you forget what a debate there was over deciding what was scripture and what wasn't.  :p

Actually, if I understand you correctly, you may be surprised that several if not most of the signatories to the Chicago statement would affirm, in the words of one of them (John Gerstner)

   
Quote
The bible is a fallible collection of infallible books.


That is, I think, your point. They acknowledge that scripture is inspired, but (and this is what may surprise you) that our collection of what we take to be the canon of scripture is not.

The official Roman Catholic position is stronger, they would say the bible is an infallible collection of infallible books.

No, my point was that it's easy to think about "Holy Scripture" as a unified whole when looking at the result of the historical process, without acknowledging that a historical process of selection and human controversy was involved. Rabbi Akiba had to pull out all the stops to get Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs included. The Chicago Statement is ahistorical. It lacks an axiomatic definition of the texts included, and why. Does it mean the Catholic version of Esther or the Jewish one? Does it include the Gospel of Thomas? Why or why not?

Date: 2008/07/29 17:00:29, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (dheddle @ July 29 2008,17:29)
I'm a college professor and I never talk about Bill Buckner. Nobody on campus ever talks about Bill Buckner. It's a dirty little secret, but there you have it.

Why conceal evidence that miracles DO occur?

Date: 2008/07/30 09:46:48, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Lou FCD @ July 30 2008,09:34)
Quote (dhogaza @ July 29 2008,07:34)
Quote
So that's conservapedia's readership! (pre-college students)

Conservapedia was created primarily to provide an "honest" reference resource for those who homeschool their kids, because Wikipedia is filled with falsehoods like, um, science.  And the original set of editors were kids being taught by Schafly.

This fits in with the fundy scheme of wrapping kids in a cocoon from K-12 (homeschooling with "appropriate" online and text resources) through undergrad and graduate school (Liberty U, etc).  If you brainwash them for more or less the first three decades of life (assuming one completes a PhD at Liberty), I guess they figure they're good for jesus for life.

Exactly so.  The strategy is to get them young, insulate them from the real world, and control their every thought process, until it is utterly impossible for them to think any way that hasn't been programmed into them.

"Front loading" of the intellect, sort of.  By the time they are set loose into the wild, they have a strong tendency to adhere to their programming, or so it's supposed to go.

It's interesting that even that doesn't always work.  (Although all too often, it does.)

I see a strong analogy to living in a Communist country. People I know who grew up in FSU and China knew the government was lying to them 100% of the time and were deeply cynical (but at the same time open to a lot of woo from other sources). A friend from CZ said she spent her 16th year in terrible anxiety that the US was about to launch a nuclear attack on her country because the government news said so every night. (This during the Reagan era tiff about placing missiles in Germany.)

Coccooning doesn't work.

Date: 2008/07/31 13:27:51, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Lou FCD @ July 30 2008,09:59)
I'd gotten busy with college stuff and had to set aside Here, Eyeball This by Heddle, but am restarting, and also reading-for-review The Ultimate Guide to Sex and Disability by Mirriam Kaufman, Cory Silverberg, and Fran Odette.  (Review for and review copy provided by Elizabeth Wood of Sex in the Public Square.)

Is being imaginary a disability?

Date: 2008/08/01 10:48:50, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (olegt @ Aug. 01 2008,11:27)
Quote (carlsonjok @ Aug. 01 2008,09:55)
 
Quote (Lou FCD @ Aug. 01 2008,09:32)
   
Quote (Advocatus Diaboli @ Aug. 01 2008,09:22)
Kairosfocus: PS: I must note that I am rather uncomfortable with the level of language used in the OP and its headline.

You're not alone. It was - after all - written by O'leary.

He needs to touch base with batshitinsane77 and get a copy of that nanny filter.

BA77's nanny filter is unreliable.  In this comment, he manages to get the word "model" by the filter without the normal "^" in the middle.

That's funny.  Maybe he is a sock puppet after all.  Occasional lucid posts betray high intelligence under the thick layer of creationist makeup.

BA77, aka "Bond, James Bond" on PT for a while, in love with Genetic Entropy and long quotes - a sock puppet? If so the puppeteer is under really deep cover.

OTOH, who is CEC09 and will he survive one thread without being banned?

Date: 2008/08/04 11:02:02, Link
Author: dvunkannon
In GilDigan's recent OP, the quotes DDrr.. Dembski quoting Paul Davies using the term specified complexity.

Is anyone up for reviewing the upcoming Quantum Aspects of Life? Davies has a lead chapter. Dembski's chapter on Quantum Design Inference seems to have been left out.

Why was Suzan Mazur stalking the Altenberg 16 when she could have been following this group?

Date: 2008/08/06 16:28:23, Link
Author: dvunkannon
UD stretches the envelope with podcast of DDrr.. Dembski's oh-so-lawyerly analysis of Lilley's firing from Baylor. Was ID involved? Was Leery O'Dennis right or wrong?

As Bill states at the beginning of the piece, it's easier to ask for a "sense of the majority" than to actually go to the trouble of pinning someone down to a position. Sounds like ID was definitely not as important as the Baylor logo, a telling comparison for a movement about to bury Darwinism.

Date: 2008/08/07 11:26:08, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Chayanov @ Aug. 07 2008,08:46)
Quote
I found it rather interesting that Prager, with little specific knowledge of biology, medicine, or theories of evolution, could so quickly figure out that belief in the power of random events to turn bacteria into bipeds finds no practical employment in science & technology


I'm getting rather tired of those silly phrases, like "bacteria into bipeds" and "molecule to man", trying to make evolution look foolish. We should have our own cutesy sayings, like "dirt into dude" or "bone to babe". Maybe "magic to man"? Unlike the creotards' phrases, these aren't even strawmen, but accurate descriptions of what they believe.

"bone to babe" is going to set off the mental nanny filter of soooo many UDers it would be dangerous. I'm willing to bet that not enough bone to babe is the problem of a large segment of the posters there.

Date: 2008/08/08 16:32:32, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Gunthernacus @ Aug. 08 2008,16:24)
Quote (Maya @ Aug. 07 2008,09:50)
 
Quote (Lou FCD @ Aug. 07 2008,07:02)
 
Quote (sparc @ Aug. 07 2008,00:35)
Text questions at Second Baptist Houston

According to a quick TagCrowd counting the christian god in its (his, her?) different forms appears 89 times in the questions (god (70) jesus (12) christ (7)) although ID doesn't say anything about the nature of the designer.

   
Quote
QUESTION: Is there anything we as a church could do to change text books being taught in public schools?


Bottom line.

No answers.  Typical of ID.

If the megachurch is so high tech, are there recordings of this available?

Still no answers posted, or curiosity about the answers.  Crandaddy is curious as to how Dr.Dr. could answer all of the questions - but not curious as to the actual answers.

Here is a page with links to the audio and video (with audio) of the Q & A.  Maybe the good Dr.Dr. will add these links to his blog?

Intersting listening on that video. Bill calls himself an OEC, clearer than I've heard before... The eye is too complex to find design! ... Eyes don't develop in isolation, embryology yada yada just so story...(re macro/micro) Extrapolation is not adequately supported...

Host: ...Come let us reason together, not park our brains...

Date: 2008/08/14 09:18:11, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Maya @ Aug. 14 2008,10:05)
Davey, if you're scared the UD crowd won't love you anymore if you admit that you've been wrong (grossly, painfully, outrageously, blatantly wrong), just imagine the ticker tape parade you'll get here and in other venues of the reality-based community if you fess up, tell the UD bottom feeders just what you think of them, and delete the ban list on your way out the door.

Yeah, Dave could beta male to Jeff Schloss! Or Wes Elsberry! If only ASA would give him bannination duties on their blog, he'd switch in a minute.

Date: 2008/08/18 12:41:59, Link
Author: dvunkannon
John Bartlettdeclaimed a badly argued effort, and I left him this comment on his personal blog. (It is interesting to see that Mr. Bartlett has some nice things to say about Avida every once in a while. He hasn't read the memo.)


Hi JB,

I looked at the materials in all three of the linked resources. I think the idea of looking at the sources of variability is interesting.

I don't think you've shown that some piece of biology, such as the genetic code, or biological feedback loops, actually are universal computers (Turing machines). You've also claimed that some landscape is hard to traverse via one step changes but it is not at all clear what that landscape is. A fitness landscape assumes an optimization criteria - a purpose beyond the immediate purpose of survival. Since all evolution is about is immediate survival, the "fitness landscape" changes every generation. You make a claim that this landscape is full of steep canyons and many isolated areas of function, but you haven't proved this, you've assumed it.

You also seem to have divided sources of variation into mutation and "higher order" sources, some of which are materialistic. Do you have a list of these different higher order sources? How would your work discern the difference between a materialistic higher order source and a direct intervention by an intelligent agent that was for a  purpose?

Date: 2008/08/20 12:29:24, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Aug. 19 2008,22:56)
Wow... there was this in the comments over yonder...

   
Quote

Anyone who watches her behavior at Uncommon Descent knows that Denyse O'Leary is a poor journalist who makes IDers look like nitwits.

Posted by Mike Gene on 8/19/2008 4:45:20 PM


Nitpick: O'Leary is a conservative commentator with pretensions to journalism.

 
Quote
My cat's breath smells like cat food.  
Posted by DaveScot on 8/19/2008 11:39:57 PM  

DS drops in to reinforce Mike's point.

Date: 2008/08/20 13:42:12, Link
Author: dvunkannon
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

Quote (Maya @ Aug. 20 2008,12:12)
Quote (carlsonjok @ Aug. 20 2008,09:59)
 
Quote (Maya @ Aug. 20 2008,07:58)
I blame Arden.  He seduced me into a thread that got sent to The Bathroom Wall.  I'm a ruined woman now, my
innocence has been abused.

You know, if you don't want Arden seducing you, you should just stop dressing like a drag queen.  It really is that simple, just ask Louis.

Drag queen is a little harsh.  My legs may not match Wesley's, but I don't have razor stubble.


If Wesley shaved his ass and walked backwards, would he look like Denyse?

Date: 2008/08/20 15:13:55, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Maya @ Aug. 20 2008,14:47)
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]<br/><br/>
Quote (dvunkannon @ Aug. 20 2008,13:42)
If Wesley shaved his ass and walked backwards, would he look like Denyse?

I don't know.  Would you happen to have a picture of Wesley's backside?

I'm just asking....

Woot! Maya, you have led me astray, and for the first time my tender post has been pressed against the hard cold porcelain of the Bathroom Wall. Was it good for you too?

Date: 2008/08/27 14:35:43, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Louis @ Aug. 27 2008,15:07)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 27 2008,19:51)
Quote (Louis @ Aug. 27 2008,13:47)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 27 2008,19:18)
   shitty st^ick.

I un^derstand R^ich.

Th^e pro^blem be^ing i^f o^ne we^re t^o de^camp t^o th^e sub^urbs an^d o^ut^ly^ing are^as, an^d a^ct a^s you^r fri^end^s di^d, o^ne i^s li^kely t^o g^et a thor^ough kick^ing fo^r be^ing a CUNT.

Cle^ar?

;-)

Louis

I'm not saying I endorse it. Besides who goes to Wales for women when the sheep are so outstanding?

Duh!

The word is surely Wa^les.

If you reverse the polarity of your nanny filter does tard run backwards?

Date: 2008/08/29 09:48:28, Link
Author: dvunkannon
GPuccio's Spider Teleology
Quote
But, in the end, I really feel that love for variety, for form and for creativity remains the main motivation of variation at a specific level of complexity, while the need to express new functions is probably the main motivation for the big increases in complexity which we can observe at higher taxonomic levels.


Though perhaps "love of variation" is trying to express an idea that sexual selection in spiders leads to a love of fashionable change. This could fit into a YEC motivated view of hyperactive evolution after the Flood. But why am I doing their work for them?

Date: 2008/08/29 11:01:16, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 29 2008,11:57)
Quote (Maya @ Aug. 29 2008,05:11)
[...] having to use a calculator to find out that 4^8 (2^16) is 65536 -- a number every software geek has memorized?
[...]

I resemble that remark :p

Dang, now everyone knows my password!

Date: 2008/08/29 11:05:55, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Jkrebs @ Aug. 29 2008,10:52)
You're right, dheddle.  My calculation is just for the number of ways of arranging 4 x's, 3 y's and 1 z, irrespective of the set from which the x, y and z were taken.  This doesn't change the fact that my calculation is correct for the situation as stated.

Heddle was considering the case of x = Bill Buckner, which introduces a baseball sized probability distortion field into the calculations.

Date: 2008/08/29 11:25:44, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Aug. 29 2008,08:18)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 29 2008,01:31)
The math may be beyond me but I'm sure folks like Wes could offer you a good critique, if you'd like.

I can at least speak to Dembski's history of claims with respect to information theory and evolutionary computation. I was the guy who set him the task of explaining away EC back at the 1997 NTSE conference. My example there was a GA that produces short tours for the Traveling Salesman Problem. It's an example Dembski has never come to grips with. The class of problem, NP-hard, sets both intelligent agents and evolutionary computation on the same level, seeking approximate solutions rather than exact optimal solutions for any non-trivial number of cities in the tour. The evaluation function is too simple to even try to claim that the solution state is incorporated into it: total cost for each tour. Instead, Dembski has been making a career out of misunderstanding even Dawkins' pedagogical example, the weasel program. So far, he has not even managed to describe the weasel program correctly.

I get the impression that even DDrr.. Dembski's MESA program was more powerful than he bargained for, so he dropped it when it didn't give confirmatory answers.

All science so far!

Date: 2008/08/29 11:57:59, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Aug. 29 2008,12:00)
Quote (qetzal @ Aug. 28 2008,22:24)
 
Quote (Lou FCD @ Aug. 28 2008,21:32)
For the moment though, we have no evidence of disembodied telic entities, ghosts, or leprechauns pushing the termites around. We're sticking with the substance in the ink hypothesis for the moment.

:)

Maybe you should check for quantum coherence in their microtubules. I'm sure TP can help you with experimental design.  :D

Dang it, I was going to suggest the same thing. You gotta be quick here!

Interestingly, the bacterial symbionts in termite guts were the first case where tubulin (and microtubules) were found in prokaryotes. Here's an old  reference from Science. This is one of the bits of evidence for Margulis's endosymbiont hypothesis; cilia and flagella might have arisen from prokaryotic endosymbionts that were like modern spirochetes.

Perhaps TP can tell us if the prokaryotic microtubules and the termite microtubules exhibit quantum properties...

Yeah, I learned way too much about termite guts reading Margulis' Symbiosis in Cell Evolution but the tubulin hypothesis never caught on the way mitochodria and chloroplasts did. Now if flagella had their own DNA...

Date: 2008/09/03 12:03:39, Link
Author: dvunkannon
John Bartlett ( "johnnyb" on UD) and I went back and forth a few times on his own blog after his recent post on UD. As part of that conversation, I found this paper by Langdon on the Halting problem. The basic result is that random programs don't halt, as the program length grows larger.

This upends a favorite creationist canard about computer programming, that programs are finely tuned, one error will stop them, yada yada yada. These are teleolgical arguments. It is hard to imagine a universe in which Windows ME could either evolve or survive, and so much the better!

BTW, Bartlett showed himself to be relatively Avida-friendly, so his posting rights under the big sweatertent of DDrr.. Dembski and Scooter might be threatened in the future.

Date: 2008/09/05 09:25:49, Link
Author: dvunkannon
WESM,
Like a donkey starving to death, equally far from two piles of hay, Scooter is caught between his lust for the sciency sweater of Dembski and the virile merkin of Vox Day. Every post is an anquished bray for help.

David Winston Smith is doubleplusfair. Every unperson knows this.

Date: 2008/09/05 13:00:05, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Sep. 04 2008,21:43)
Quote (charlie wagner @ Sep. 04 2008,19:24)
Pre-programming would not require a knowledge of future events...[major snippage of irrelevant passages borrowed from Charlie's website]

Let's see if I can accurately parse what you are saying.

Earlier you stated: "An algorithm is a finite set of well-defined instructions for accomplishing some task which, given an initial state, will terminate in a defined end-state."

Glad to see Charlie's solved the Halting Problem. Get that Fields Medal ready.

Date: 2008/09/05 14:54:48, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (dogdidit @ Aug. 31 2008,22:22)
As for:      
Quote
I'd be intensely interested in an algorithm that mirrors real biological evolution.

Any simulation must be judged by the level of fidelity one is looking for, but would Blondie24 (Anaconda) fill the bill? Not an algorithm, really, but more of a process (which is what evolution is). Random variation and natural selection -- it's all there. No targets, no external fitness measure, no guidance, no CSI injected; just live (and spawn) or die. Close enough?

Gil Dodgen of UD fame gives an amazingly positive Amazon review to Blondie24, back in 2001. Maybe he wasn't saved back then.

Date: 2008/09/05 17:14:57, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (dogdidit @ Sep. 05 2008,17:14)
Quote (dvunkannon @ Sep. 05 2008,14:54)
     
Quote (dogdidit @ Aug. 31 2008,22:22)
As for:              
Quote
I'd be intensely interested in an algorithm that mirrors real biological evolution.

Any simulation must be judged by the level of fidelity one is looking for, but would Blondie24 (Anaconda) fill the bill? Not an algorithm, really, but more of a process (which is what evolution is). Random variation and natural selection -- it's all there. No targets, no external fitness measure, no guidance, no CSI injected; just live (and spawn) or die. Close enough?

Gil Dodgen of UD fame gives an amazingly positive Amazon review to Blondie24, back in 2001. Maybe he wasn't saved back then.

No doubt by now Jebus has shown him where the CSI was injected.

edited for spelling

Artificial Chemistries - an old review, but might help Daniel if he wants to pursue the relevance of artificial models to the real world.

Date: 2008/09/08 10:21:15, Link
Author: dvunkannon
A consensus on the evolution of the genetic code from 2004. Nice job reminding everyone why Urey-Miller experiments are very relevant and useful

And the ID prediction is ...

Date: 2008/09/11 09:08:16, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Scooter's curiosity about peer-review doesn't extend to this fish wrap.

Sheldon seems to think Von Neumann flitted over to Bletchley Park from Los Alamos to help out Alan Turing. It's downhill from there.

Date: 2008/09/11 09:48:41, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Louis @ Sep. 11 2008,05:14)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Sep. 11 2008,01:47)
[SNIP]

...and I took both French and German in high school.  I thought this time around I'd take something actually useful.  :)

[SNIP]

Don't knock it, UK foreign policy and "special relationship" with the USA is based on the fact that we mostly cannot be arsed to learn French.* ;-)

Louis

*Needless to say, as a Francophile, this is a policy I profoundly disagree with.

I thought half the language was French already. (Obviously not necessary for previous sentence.)

Date: 2008/09/11 22:55:21, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 11 2008,19:38)
I think dvunkannon was confusing 'algorithm' with 'any finite program'. Easy error to make.

Hi Steve,

Charlie's definition of algorithm (which I was criticising via crushing satire) equaled finite program, as does the Wikipedia "an algorithm is a sequence of finite instructions". It's exactly that point which makes the claim in his definition so funny that algorithms are known to halt (or not). If there is another rigorous definition of algorithm that includes inifinite sequences, I'm unaware of it.

In passing I'll mention WB Langdon's paper I cited on the Sciency thread a couple days ago in which he shows that on a statistical basis, the answer to the Halting Problem is No, as algorithms get longer and longer.

Cheers,
David

Date: 2008/09/11 23:50:23, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (charlie wagner @ Sep. 11 2008,17:02)
The genome,
whether each individual genome or some kind of universal genome, made up
of a pool of all of the instructions that can be exchanged among
participants, is nothing short of a universal automaton. It can
manufacture any other biochemical machine, no matter how complex it is,
from the basic functional units, proteins, which can be manufactured in
infinite numbers and varieties.
All that is needed is the correct
information and the basic functional units.

That is just so much handwaving BS.

The genome (a string of DNA) of any creature is not an automaton. You could argue that a ribosome is an automaton. DNA is a sequence of instructions, but the instructions set in not "Turing complete" because there is no looping construct. There is no way to tell the ribosome to go back thirty codons or forward five.

The ribosomal automaton reading the DNA sequence cannot make any other biochemical machine. It can make linear strings of 20 amino acids. Many drugs are not proteins. Sugars and fats are not proteins. All biochemistry does not equal protein chemistry.

Further, these amino acids are not infinite in variety. They are 20 out of many many more. We can create biochemical machines that use amino acids that no genome codes for, no tRNA transcribes.

The analogy of computers to biology is often overstated. You have done so.

Date: 2008/09/12 12:52:58, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (charlie wagner @ Sep. 12 2008,11:49)
     
Quote
That is just so much handwaving BS.

The genome (a string of DNA) of any creature is not an automaton. You could argue that a ribosome is an automaton. DNA is a sequence of instructions, but the instructions set in not "Turing complete" because there is no looping construct. There is no way to tell the ribosome to go back thirty codons or forward five.

The ribosomal automaton reading the DNA sequence cannot make any other biochemical machine. It can make linear strings of 20 amino acids. Many drugs are not proteins. Sugars and fats are not proteins. All biochemistry does not equal protein chemistry.

Further, these amino acids are not infinite in variety. They are 20 out of many many more. We can create biochemical machines that use amino acids that no genome codes for, no tRNA transcribes.

The analogy of computers to biology is often overstated. You have done so.


How do you know that a genome is not an automaton?

Because I've read descriptions of the genetic machinery of the cell. The genome is stored information, not the machine that reads the information.
     
Quote

How do you know that a genome cannot make any other biochemical machine?


Because we know that the product of the ribosome is a linear string of amino acids, and we know that there are other biochemical objects that are not linear strings of amino acids.
   
Quote
How do you know that amino acids are not infinite in variety?

Because we've counted the amino acids used in protein synthesis, there are 20. We know others, but protein chemistry only uses 20. There are only 64 slots in the code table of the gemone, some amino acids are specified more than once.
 
Quote
How do you know that biological processes are not analogous to our concept of computers?

No analogy is perfect. The instructon set of the genome is not Turing complete.

     
Quote
The human brain is an analog computer and much research has been done with DNA computers:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_Genes

Talk about "hand-waving"!

Yup, that article is full of it. Full of speculation. But note that no genome has a "computational gene", this is a human invention (yet to be proved) that leverages existing natural functions, but adds things that have never existed in a natural genome.

Date: 2008/09/12 13:29:10, Link
Author: dvunkannon
The best thing about the Sheldon paper, IMHO, was "contra Berlinski". Finally, a woo merchant not willing to go along to get along with another woo merchant. The camel's nose of reality slips into the Big Tent.

Date: 2008/09/12 13:36:26, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 12 2008,10:12)
(b) just dating yourself

What she does in the privacy of her own home is her business. Dolly in on Hitachi Magic Wand.

Date: 2008/09/15 15:24:52, Link
Author: dvunkannon
UR DOIN IT RONG


 
Quote

Darwinbots Drinking Sterno, Legacy Media Drinking Draino

Toronto - Journo-blogging Christian grandmothers rarely have the time to write books, like The Spitrootcanal Brain which I did with Col. Beauregard. Not that they ca'nt. Its just that Canada wo'nt let them. Thanks to our freedom loving Human Rights Commnazision.

Does it matter that their favorite poster boy, Chas Darwin, has checked him self in rehab? That's like checking into the Roach Motel - he's not gonna check out. Not with his record of falsifying the facts. Face it Darwinzoids, it's "Dolly on the gravestone of fact free science."

I told that Mazur stringer that this beat was tough. It is. Facsism is still fashionable under the academic ivy. Pass the toad around the circle lick, that's what passes for reasearch in these institutions. Not for me. Whatever Jesus is smoking, pass that doobie my way.

-73-

Also on The Mindless Hack, Buy My Book!

Date: 2008/09/26 18:29:43, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Plantinga
Quote
But from a naturalist point of view the thought that our cognitive faculties are reliable (produce a preponderance of true beliefs) would be at best a naïve hope.


No, reliable cognitive faculties have a large survival value. After 3.x billion years of evolution, there are still places where we have discovered that our cognitive faculties can be wrong (optical illusions, aspartame, Saddam's Weapons of Mass Destruction), but in general we are far beyond "naive hope".

Date: 2008/09/28 10:59:53, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Louis @ Sep. 27 2008,14:55)
Quote (J-Dog @ Sep. 27 2008,18:42)
Quote (Louis @ Sep. 27 2008,12:26)
 
Quote (Bob O'H @ Sep. 27 2008,17:50)
Quiet round here, isn't it?

Thankfully.

See previous comments about being mildly worse for wear after enjoying copious quantities of tramp fuel last night.

Is that cockroach crawling too loudly?

Louis

So, tell us where a sciencey chap goes to party @ London these days?

Everywhere!

Followed shortly by the gutter. Occasionally the kebab shop calls first.

I wasn't in London last night, I was out slightly west of it in the commuter belt. It was one of those "one pint after work" type things. Never managed to have just one pint on any of them.

Louis

Hey Louis,

I was actually in London for a few days this past week, but too jet lagged for anything interesting. However, if I can avoid that condition in the future, I'd like to meet a fellow AtBC denizen in person for once and get an introduction to the gutters of your fair city.

Anyone visiting NYC, feel free to contact me!

Date: 2008/09/29 12:23:06, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Paul Nelson
finds the most relevant issue in the Explore Evolution review, a flub of reflexin for relaxin.

Paul, looking at Schwabe's papers on relaxin, how do you deal with that 500 million year figure in this one of Schwabe's publications???

Date: 2008/09/29 12:24:30, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Yes!!! Post 69 appears on page 69!!! I win the Intertubes!!!11!

Date: 2008/09/30 13:06:32, Link
Author: dvunkannon
BTW, for Paul Nelson and all your other YEC friends, here's a special Happy New Year shout out! The world is officially 5769 years old today! W00T!!!!

Date: 2008/10/01 10:18:09, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Venus Mousetrap @ Oct. 01 2008,10:29)
Unsurprisingly, this has already been done. Kind of. I keep suggesting that the ID people should focus some research on cellular automata or similar, because a lot of what they are talking about HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE.

Chris Langton, in like the 1970s, noticed that cellular automata seemed to fall into one of four categories:

You had the empty ones which just fizzled out to nothing.

Then you had the ones which formed lots of regular patterns, but didn't do much else.

Then you had the ones which were so jumbled that they were just a chaotic mess.

And finally, you had the ones which were in between the last two, the 'complex' ones, which seemed like randomness but which coalesced into weird, amazing structures. The Game of Life which Davescot so seems to hate is one of these.

People not asleep at this point will notice that these near exactly correspond to Dembski's ideas of regularity, chance, and complexity, so much so that if they weren't all running a creationist scam over there, it'd probably have been mentioned.

But what's really neat is that Langton quantified the 'microstates' of these systems, if you like, with a simple number, which he called lambda. It's a dimensionless fraction, and I forget how it's defined, but it's something like the number of available states divided by the total number of possible states - a kind of measure of computational potential. And with this number, he could tell whereabouts a system was in terms of chaos, regularity, or complexity.

Personally I believe that the very existence of cellular automata like these blows the whole notion of ID out of the water, but still, if I were trying to pretend to be doing research, I would totally be playing around with CAs.

This thread discusses lambda, and attributes the four way classification of CA to Wolfram, which I think is correct.

Prior to bannination, I made similar suggestions directly to the good DDrr.. on UD. If he wanted to show "What Evolution Can't Do", he should use GA to find the edge of evolution. However, MESA was apparently the local maxima of his research, and he can't weasel his way out of it.

Date: 2008/10/01 15:52:00, Link
Author: dvunkannon
I think Denyse is using a carpet bombing technique in an attempt to push Scooter's politicization of UD off the front page. You go girl! Stand up for having an IQ north of 54' 40"! Who cares if Dave thinks Obama has cooties! The question is - did cooties evolve, or were they front loaded into Obama's genome?

It's a pity that since McCain did not choose DDrr.. Dembski as his running mate, UD has been left to the beta male.

Date: 2008/10/01 16:34:15, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Common design isn't very 'sciency' if it can't make predictions. On the basis of
  1 - swims in the water
  2 - has scales

what is the common design prediction for direction of tail movement, up/down or side/side? From a design perspective, skin covering and tail motion are independent choices a designer could make. That is not true from a descent perspective.

(Yes, this is the same point as previously made about molecules and drug discovery, just using a big easy example.)

So common descent is important because it allows us to make predictions about all forms of life, predictions  which common design would not allow us to make.

Date: 2008/10/01 17:48:20, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 01 2008,18:24)
Quote
From a design perspective, skin covering and tail motion are independent choices a designer could make. That is not true from a descent perspective.



????????????

Come again???

A designer of swimming things could use several different skin coverings (scales, hair, feathers, slime), as well as several different tail motions (up/down, side/side, corkscrew). We know these choices exist because we see them in nature. But as far as we can tell, there is no forcing reason that a choice of scales for a skin covering necessitates a particular choice of tail motion. The designer, could, in theory, make a swimming feathered creature that thrashed its tail around in a corkscrew fashion to move itself through the water.

Common descent, however, does force certain choices to go together. Scales goes with side/side not because of functional necessity, but because of historical necessity. So assuming descent allows us to make predictions that design does not allow us to make. This makes descent a more powerful theory, and therefore a more preferable theory, than design.

Date: 2008/10/01 21:58:08, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 01 2008,21:49)
lol....the reason I "?????" is because it sounds like such a completely ridiculous statement to make.  Though, I've not been indocrinated into the Darwinian thought process, so what seem like such solid reasoning to some of you folks seems idiotic to me.  

More later...I'm just waiting a bit for Tom to return before I respond to some of this.  He must be busy with work and family this week.  

Later...

That's interesting. I thought your reaction might have been that you were uncertain what I meant by "independent".

Of the two sentences, which is completely ridiculous? The designer (space alien or FSM or ...) is usually accorded freedom to build creatures any way that is desired, and the fact that two species look similar (at the macroscopic or molecular level) is taken as a sign of using common design elements. For example, "apes and ostriches are both upright bipeds, their similarity is based on design." Perhaps you feel the designer is less than all-powerful?

The second sentence is just a restatement of the definition of common descent. Historical contingency has forced certain characters together, their fates are now intertwined. I think you share the same definition of common descent as everyone else on this discussion thread.

Perhaps it's the juxtapositon of the two sentences? The work of an all powerful designer is simply less predictable than the work of a limited, natural process.

The Rev Paley and I take a walk on the beach. I reach down and pick up a fish scale from the sand. The Reverend points out to me how the scale is so fit for its purpose, helping to ease the fish through the water while simultaneously protecting it, obviously designed. I ask the Rev Paley, on the basis of this evidence, which direction did the fish's tail move?

What is his answer?

Date: 2008/10/01 22:11:43, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (dogdidit @ Oct. 01 2008,20:22)
Minor note to dvunkannon: the Great White North starts at the 49th parallel. 54°40' was the northern limit of the esrtwhile Oregon Territory, which Polk or Reagan or somebody wanted to claim back in 1492 (for either the Inuits or the Winter Olympics'). Thus Uncomely Denyse's IQ has further south to be north of.

You're right, I was stuck on that 19th Century jingoist phrase, 54' 40" or Fight! I think Bush was ready to revive that chant, but tidying up Iraq took a bit longer than anticipated. Thanks for the catch!

Date: 2008/10/03 11:20:57, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Bob O'H @ Sep. 28 2008,11:55)
Cell Cycle?  Rings a bell.

The Sherman paper just reappeared in a quote mine comment on this PT thread.
#Already sent to the Bathroom Wall, apparently!

What was interesting to me was that the version of the paper linked to was hosted on a Jewish revival web site. Not sure what the connection is... its all about science, right?

Date: 2008/10/05 10:27:31, Link
Author: dvunkannon
A 'Great' Debate?
I wonder why DDrr.. Dembski was unavailable to fill the pro-ID, theist friendly position? Berlinski is a theist? Monton's relevant work is all "in preparation", very conveniently unavailable for criticism. Design arguments are 'based on a false physics' but should be taught in the public schools?? In the same class as astrology, perhaps?

Anybody going?

Date: 2008/10/06 12:07:38, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 06 2008,12:33)
Quote (Amadan @ Oct. 06 2008,07:23)
Some person, obviously a hard-core Darwinian agitator, lets go a great big wad of concern trollery at the IDiots:

   
Quote
If Darwin and the Darwinian crew had never gone the way of molecule to man (common descent vs. common design), would science be where it is today. Is the concept of common descent vital to scientific advancement? If anyone has run across any relevant articles contemplating this scenario, please reference them.


Linkibus vulgaris

If Darwin had been eaten by a jaguar in Argentina, who knows what would have happened?  I suppose it's remotely possible that someone else would have done some field research, integrated it with what was by then common knowledge about the age of the Earth and the changes in its fauna and flora over time, and come up with similar ideas.  Just for the sake of argument, let's call this guy Alfred Russel Wallace.  

Obviously this is all pretty far-fetched.  It could never really have happened.

Ha, this is just FtK trying to use one of her lifelines to answer questions hanging for her on the thread dedicated to her bloviation. She set "molecule to man" and "common descent vs. common design" as her two show stoppers. Descent vs. design got stomped pretty fast.

Of course, if Darwin had fallen off the Beagle as it rounded Ushant, Alfred Russell Wallace would be the subject of the same criticisms that Darwin suffers today. The ideas were obvious as the evidence was collected and collated, distributed and discussed. An "I am Spartacus!" moment in science.

Date: 2008/10/07 10:31:09, Link
Author: dvunkannon
So how come FtK doesn't post her "molecule to man" questions over here? She could get answers and Louis-porn at the same time...

Date: 2008/10/08 14:20:12, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Just a guess, but in the process of establishing the evidence for variability in decay rates, I'm pretty sure that you'd have to make some assumptions about the rest of physics that would easily undercut the YEC position. You can't accept the result without accepting those assumptions as well.

Date: 2008/10/10 11:13:50, Link
Author: dvunkannon
OK, here's a silly question.

How expensive is it to do a Miller-Urey experiment? Is it now in the range of high school science fair project? (Not Bronx High School of Science or Intel/Westinghouse Science Talent Search variety)

Date: 2008/10/12 07:47:58, Link
Author: dvunkannon
ok, I thought the analysis would be the expensive part!

As you say, this is for the original experiment. Are there versions of the experiment that would be cheaper to do, yet be as interesting in the results?

I was very interested in the synthesis of organics in a frozen ice, referenced in an article a few posts upthread. Can the same concentration effects be obtained through the crystallization of (for instance) salt instead of ice?

Date: 2008/10/13 14:46:53, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Just picked up The Illustrated Origin of Species, by C. Darwin. It's wonderful!

Also, the new Annotated Dracula!

Date: 2008/10/13 15:25:53, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Scooter, leading the race to the bottom, unloads this tard wad
 
Quote
The legislature can’t make exceptions to the constitution on a whim and the judiciary is duty bound by sworn oath to uphold the constitution. If Obama refuses to come clean long enough it ultimately goes to SCOTUS where 9 justices decide on the constitutionality. Consulting with a constitutional attorney I’m informed that SCOTUS will probably be 4 conservatives upholding the constitution, 4 liberals giving Obama a get out of jail free card, and Justice Kennedy (who swings both ways) being the tie breaker.

In one sentence the Supreme Court has a sworn oath to uphold, in the next they vote their political preference.

How reminiscent is this of Dave's prediction of Judge Jones, Bush appointed good ol boy?

When I am on my death bed, please ask DaveScot to predict my demise. Nothing will speed my recovery faster than a word from the anti-prophet.

Date: 2008/10/13 22:32:31, Link
Author: dvunkannon
I dropped a few comments in, including one for you!

The New York Times had a headline on an article many years ago, "In the Land of Jesus, His Language Is Dying Out". The article was about Aramaic and how it's use was persecuted by the Syrian government. The rabbi I was studying with at the time thought the headline was quite amusing. He said that if the Times reporter was afraid Aramaic was dying as a spoken language,he could put him in contact with 10,000 guys in Brooklyn who spoke it every day. Since Aramaic is the language of the Talmud, he was being conservative in his estimate!

Date: 2008/10/14 10:19:47, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Dr.GH @ Oct. 14 2008,10:20)
The languages I was refering to were Akkadian, Ugaritic and Phoenician. But for that matter, bronze age biblical Hebrew is far different from modern Hebrew.  There are many examples of wordplay in the Bible which does make it possible to imagine the pronunciations. If your rabbi thinks he speaks the same language as David or Moses, he is dreaming.

Where do those languages appear in Genesis, other than place names?

I know that I don't speak the same language as Chaucer, and barely the same language as Shakespeare. While the vocabulary of modern Hebrew is much larger than what appears in the Bible, I'm not sure what you think has changed so much about Hebrew that my rabbi is dreaming. Orthography? Agreed. Phonology? Grammar? Shoresh and binyan?

The discrepancies of biblical and "modern" Hebrew are the subject of thousands of years of minute study. I'd guess most orthodox rabbis are very aware of where there is evidence of a change in the language.

But perhaps you are arguing that even the text of the Bible does not capture the language of 3-4,000 years ago, but dates from a later era. David and Moses are figments of the imagination?

Date: 2008/10/14 11:16:54, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Badger3k @ Oct. 14 2008,11:44)
[quote=dvunkannon,Oct. 14 2008,10:19]
Quote (Dr.GH @ Oct. 14 2008,10:20)
David and Moses are figments of the imagination?

Moses - definitely.

David - quite probably.

Does that help?

Only if that is what Dr Hurd meant!

Date: 2008/10/14 15:36:46, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Denyse gets subversive with an artificial evolution video. She's not quite courageous enough to pull the trigger and say

1 - complexity, even within the understanding of human ingenuity, can be produced by an unthinking process
2 - many small and distributed increments of an unthinking process can lead to complexity.

Wow, Denyse, if evolution can do that with walking, imagine what it can do with the rest of the brain!

To her credit, she does not try to play the "design smuggled in" card. GilD to lay it down in 3... 2... 1...

Date: 2008/10/14 16:31:53, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Dr.GH @ Oct. 14 2008,15:44)
Quote (dvunkannon @ Oct. 14 2008,08:19)
 
Quote (Dr.GH @ Oct. 14 2008,10:20)
The languages I was refering to were Akkadian, Ugaritic and Phoenician. But for that matter, bronze age biblical Hebrew is far different from modern Hebrew.  There are many examples of wordplay in the Bible which does make it possible to imagine the pronunciations. If your rabbi thinks he speaks the same language as David or Moses, he is dreaming.

Where do those languages appear in Genesis, other than place names?

I know that I don't speak the same language as Chaucer, and barely the same language as Shakespeare. While the vocabulary of modern Hebrew is much larger than what appears in the Bible, I'm not sure what you think has changed so much about Hebrew that my rabbi is dreaming. Orthography? Agreed. Phonology? Grammar? Shoresh and binyan?

The discrepancies of biblical and "modern" Hebrew are the subject of thousands of years of minute study. I'd guess most orthodox rabbis are very aware of where there is evidence of a change in the language.

But perhaps you are arguing that even the text of the Bible does not capture the language of 3-4,000 years ago, but dates from a later era. David and Moses are figments of the imagination?

The major features of Exodus never happened. For the entire patriarchal and most of the pre-exilic period Yahweh was one of a number of gods. The bloody battles in Exodus, as well as 1st and 2nd Kings were the result of conflicts between the different cults.  There was a long period during which the Pentateuch was essentially unknown to the Hebrews. This is particuarly clear in 2 Kings 22:8 through 23:3.

As far as linguistics goes, there are many loan words and cognates between all of the Western Semitic languages. The mythic conventions of Ugarit preceded the Bible and established the basic structure.

ETA: Sorry, I was interupted for a momment.

Some very good books you might find helpful are:

Cross, Frank Moore
1973 "Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel." Boston: Harvard University Press

Dalley, Stephanie
2000 "Myths from Mesopotamia: Creation, The Flood, Gilgamesh, and Others. Revised" Oxford: Oxford University Press

Smith, Mark S.
2002 “The Early History of God" 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Wm B Eerdmans Publishing
_
2003 “The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel's Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts” Oxford University Press.

The work by F. M. Cross is probably the most frequently cited text in the field.

Sorry, I don't need to be convinced the bible isn't an accurate record and also contains material adopted from other cultures.

We were discussing the text of Genesis, what languages it was written in, and why those languages fit into the category
Quote
An even greater problem is the proper interpretation of texts far older which were written in languages no one living has ever heard spoken.    


I disagree with you that the phonology of biblical Hebrew is so different as to be problematic in the interpretation of Genesis, which is what I understand you to be saying. Are you arguing that there is a word which has been conflated with 'yom' but didn't mean 'day'? Which was divided into 'erev' and 'boker', which did not mean 'evening' and 'morning', but are words conflated over time with those common Hebrew words?

AiG's argument is not turning on whether the fourth river out of Eden is pronounced Prat, Frat, Porat, Perat, Fruit, or Poirot. People who take the bible literally happily admit this is a word from another language, and that the text is only approximating its original sound value. But 'yom' isn't. Arguing that yom was originally pronounced iyahm doesn't touch the issue at hand. "Languages no one living has ever heard spoken" is a fine rhetorical flourish, but not very useful as an argument.

Date: 2008/10/15 09:56:39, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 15 2008,10:03)
Wow, Denyse gets all superficial about computer science!

Besides which, Turing's "imitation game" as originally described did not take the step of having the computer being distinguished from a human, but rather the more specific class of human female. The bar could be substantially lowered if one offered a modified Turing test that only had to distinguish between a computer and Denyse O'Leary.

Somehow, I get the feeling O'Leary has never interacted with Eliza, which is pretty darn simple so far as interactive response systems go.

Edited: iBCode, not HTML.

DO'L-face wouldn't understand how Eliza works. She thinks Turing test programs are like Alicebot, all canned response. She misunderstands the Chinese Room in the same way.

Date: 2008/10/15 10:28:21, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Dr.GH @ Oct. 14 2008,18:09)
Genesis 1 - 2:3 was a post exilic add-on to the restored montheistic temple texts. We agree that "yom" in the context of Genesis 1 means literal 24 hour days.

Some how I don't think that you know where the 7 day week was invented, or the theological significance it held outside of the older Hebrew creation myth more or less preserved in Genesis 2-3.

Oh, there's oceans of things I don't know about that! Do you have a good source which explains it? I'd be interested to see how it explains the justification of the Sabbath in the Decalogue, the introduction of the concept wrt the manna, the building of the mishkan, Joshua at Jericho, etc.

Unfortunately, those things are irrelevant to the issue, which is that you started your argument badly. It is simply not true that the difficulties of understanding the text derive from an uncertainty about what the words mean, an uncertainty driven by the remoteness in time in which the words were composed, and changes in phonology.

Just btw, can you read biblical Hebrew?

Date: 2008/10/15 10:53:47, Link
Author: dvunkannon
My alma mater's 15 minutes of fame start tonight! Go Hofstra!

Date: 2008/10/16 13:22:58, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Dr.GH @ Oct. 15 2008,16:53)
I am not going to argue the point here.

http://www.opposingviews.com/counters/the-origin-of-the-seven-day-week

I think you do a good job of answering the AiG claim of biblical uniqueness of the 7 day week. Wikipedia quotes others as to the naturalness of quartering the lunar cycle.

It wasn't clear to me from your presentation of the material whether you were bringing example of the Egyptian astrologers simply as an example of a non-biblical seven day week (one with strong influence on European culture) or whether you meant to imply that the biblical week was adapted from the Hellenist Egyptian week. I think the second case would be much harder to prove.

Do you have more than one source for the idea that Genesis 1 was redacted into the Torah separately from the rest of the J material? I'm having trouble finding that this is more than a single person's opinion. It seems unlikely if redaction events were prompted by the need to accomodate different traditions in newly mixed communities - a typical theory for what drove the redaction of J and E together, then JE, P, and D. After Ezra, its difficult for me to see how Gen 1 could have been introduced, or why.

BTW, this same process of redaction/conflation is responsible for the inordinate length of the Rosh HaShannah and Yom Kippur prayer book. As different European Jewish communities were destroyed and mixed, liturgical poems multiplied by "lateral gene transfer" as individual traditions were combined. Now the services are actually difficult to get through during daylight if you insist on reading everyone of them.

Date: 2008/10/16 14:06:39, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Going to a Halloween party on Saturday night, I'm planning on making pumpkin mochi. Anyone ever make mochi before?

Date: 2008/10/16 20:49:07, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Wow, 7 out of 10 responses to Scooter's post on Joe the Plumber are from... Scooter!

By Nov 4, Scooter will be the only one left on UD, and he won't even notice.

Date: 2008/10/17 11:28:53, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Thanks, I'd seen the idea associated with Freidman.

It makes sense to me to add the story as an exercise in post-exilic nationalism. The reason you adduce re asserting sovereignty over other gods is one I have heard before, though not necessarily related to the timing of its introduction.

In a sense, the classic comment of Rashi on Gen 1:1 is similar in focus. Rashi asks (following the Midrash) why the Torah, as a legal text, includes any of Genesis at all, and particularly the first chapter. His answer is that it establishes that God is the legal owner of the planet, and can dispense any part of it as gift to whomever He wants. So the right of the Jews to Palestine is set in a legal framework.

I think all of the documentary strands, JEPD, include the idea that there is a day of rest more frequent than the new moon, and it is the seventh day of a cycle. As such, you'd have to argue that all the sources were radically editted in the Hellenistic period, and there was a complete break with Palestinian agrarian traditions, and Jews in Babylon had a better affinity to Egypt than Persia. And, probably, that the original Hebrew week was longer than seven days, because you can't sell having less time off, as the Revolutionary French found out!


I thought your first Tanaka was slip, but since you repeated it, let me point out the word is Tanakh. It is an acronym for Torah, Nevi'im, and Ketuvim, the three major divisions of the Hebrew Bible.

Date: 2008/10/21 10:59:21, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Interesting GA paper posted on the EIL site. The author appears to have designed a trap function which is hard for a certain class of GAs to solve.

Points to consider -

The paper is unpublished.
NFL guarantees the existence of such hard functions.
Trap functions are used routinely to investigate the power of new algorithms in GA research.
The author references none of the literature on the construction and scaling of trap functions.

But the attractive point for EIL is the code word 'Irreducibility' in the paper's title. Of course, this word has nothing to do with the content of the paper...

Date: 2008/10/21 11:03:14, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (sparc @ Oct. 21 2008,00:23)
DO'l's world:

Nazis = Fascists = Nazis
Communists = Fascists = Nazis
Socialists = Fascists = Nazis
Liberals = Fascists = Nazis
Atheists = Fascists = Nazis
Non-Christians = Fascists = Nazis
Moslems = Fascists = Nazis
Non-Republicans = Fascists = Nazis
Human rights activists = Fascists = Nazis
Pro Abortion = Fascists = Nazis
Scientists = Fascists = Nazis

What about Federal judges? Baylor Presidents?

It's too late. She's surrounded by them. They are everywhere. She's alone.

Hopefully, she will post something on those black helicopters soon. Or maybe something on Nazi-aliens who Nazi-kidnapped her in their Nazi-spaceship to their Nazi-planet where they did Nazi-surgery on her spritual brain.

Word mean exactly what I say they mean.

This explains why word salad looks like sparkling prose to her.

Date: 2008/10/23 13:20:21, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Frosty the No-Nothing expounds on the NAS
 
Quote
They pay themselves good salaries for doing nothing and dont care about anything except shaping public education around socialist ideals because bigger government means more money for them.

Compare Wikipedia
 
Quote
The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is a corporation in the United States whose members serve pro bono as "advisers to the nation on science, engineering, and medicine."


Is Frosty really VenomFangX from YouTube? Something about his willingness to spout on topics he knows nothing about reminds me of the basement dweller.

Date: 2008/10/23 21:04:36, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 23 2008,18:12)
My first stab at JavaScript coding is a "weasel". It is aimed at dispelling the misinformation (referring to those who haven't previously been given a clue) and lies (referring to those who have gotten a clue before, but continue to assert the known-false stuff) about Dawkins' "Weasel" program and the "locking letters" issue.

Once I've gotten some feedback, I'll add it to the main AntiEvolution.org site.

Looks good!

It seems from your description of Dawkins' algorithm that several different individuals could tie for "closest". How do you choose to populate the nest generation in this case? Do they each get an equal share, or do they get a share proportionate to their representation in the previous generation. If you could show in the console the number of best individuals and all of the phenotypes, it would be better than always showing a single best individual.

Using a 7 letter target and a population size of 10, I was able to force the code to step, not backwards, but at least sideways. That is to say, the best went from ABCDxFG to ABCDEzG. This does prove that letters are not locked. However, I think that with larger population sizes (and target string lengths?) it becomes very very unlikely. Everybody in the population would have to mutate very badly for a merely bad mutation to be closest to the target. So you don't have to write an explicit rule to lock letters if you only choose to explore that part of the parameter space where it will happen "for free".

Date: 2008/10/24 10:47:12, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 23 2008,23:31)
It's very simple. The "closest" is the first string that turns up the high number of matches. I have thought about more complex options for the source, but it wasn't necessary to implementing the description from "The Blind Watchmaker".

Actually, it seems your code takes the last maximum, not the first, since you don't keep the score for each population member and then loop back, looking for those which equal the max score.

Since your written description of Dawkin's algorithm includes "string or strings closest" in step 3, I'd go for roulette wheel selection in the next version, or drop the "or strings" phrase.

Personally, I don't think that using a completely elitist algorithm (as you have now) is wrong. The purpose is to show the power of cumulative selection. It might be better to call it an (1,lambda)-ES algorithm than a GA but that is a quibble. Given the nature of the fitness function, the differences in how they explore the landscape are not important to the main point.

While it is not a point explored by Dawkins, it is interesting to discuss the situations in which you do see stepbacks. Small populations and large mutation rates can step back, which is a counter example to another canard - that crossing a valley is difficult for evolution.

This shows why the anti-evolution shorthand RM+NS is wrong (again). To get the diversity we see in the world in an artificial setting, a sense of space (demes) and transfer of individuals between demes is very useful, if not necessary. Demes allow small populations to bud off, explore new solutions rapidly, and bring those new solutions back to the rest of the population. Better optimization through peripatry!

Date: 2008/10/29 14:54:47, Link
Author: dvunkannon
When I was learning how American politics was organized, there were four parties on the ballot. The Liberal Party always backed the Democratic candidate, and the Conservative Party always backed the Republican candidate.

The Liberal and Conservative parties were themselves inconsequential, but provided a good way for the main parties to hold at arms length the more rabid supporters they attracted.

Now it seems that the Reagan era transformation of the Republican Party into the Conservative Party is just about complete. I can only hope a new Republican Party emerges from the circular firing squad, one that realizes "Palin 2012" is code for disaster.

Date: 2008/11/04 19:14:29, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 04 2008,06:51)
According to the Foundation for Thought and Ethics Newsletter, they had to terminate the Design of Life blog. Oh, also, Design of Life has been an overwhelming success and they are broke. Send money.

Dang, here I was with Contributor status on DoL! Personally approved by DDrr.. Dembski and Ms. Morphodyke herself.

Date: 2008/11/07 12:00:22, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Maya @ Nov. 07 2008,11:26)
Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 07 2008,09:54)
Davetard is back.

In Memory of Michael Crichton

That explains the six days he was missing.  He had to look up all the polysyllabic words he used and figure out why his word processor flagged all his grammar as "WTF, are you six?"

Nah, Scooter is just quoting Chrichton, we still haven't seen him defy the Second Law by putting his own ideas on the screen.

Date: 2008/11/10 09:22:41, Link
Author: dvunkannon
I just did a bit of wiki-research on Mims, wrt Pianka. I don't get it.

Pianka's material is the kind of stuff that gets quote mined all the time by "end times" Christians. Nor is Pianka's speculations about Ebola anything new to anyone who read The Hot Zone. Weaponizing a plague has been around in novels from the The Satan Bug to Tom Clancy.

It leaves me wondering what gripe did Mims have against Pianka from before, which was ignited by Pianka's doomsday talk.

Date: 2008/11/10 12:53:46, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (sparc @ Nov. 10 2008,12:04)
Unfortunately, I currently don't have access to Mims's Science and Nature "papers" (I guess these were rather just comments because otherwise one would find abstracts in Medline). However, one of his "article" is freely accessible: Avian Influenza and UV-B Blocked by Biomass Smoke. Again, it is just a comment.
From the title one would think that "biomass smoke" blocks Influenza. Not so, in the article Mims agues that    
Quote
periods of prolonged cloudiness and severe smoke pollution could play a role in initiating avian and other influenza outbreaks by attenuating the solar UV-B that might otherwise suppress influenza viruses in outdoor air exposed to sunlight.
Is that the kind of research ID will produce?
Aetiology has more on Wells, Mims and influenza.

F. M. Mims III, Significant changes in the ratio of pigmented to non-pigmented airborne bacteria associated with suppressed UV-B during smoke events in Brazil (in preparation; to be submitted to Photochemistry and Photobiology).

The DI never liked peppered moths, how will they react to Mims finding variation and selection operating on pigmented bacteria?

Date: 2008/11/12 09:42:22, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (dheddle @ Nov. 11 2008,16:46)
It is worth noting that the popular multiverse theories  do not require a MWI. In my opinion the MWI is even more speculative than, say, The Cosmic String Landscape.

I agree, though I'm far out of my expertise. MWI =/= multiverse. MWI says that this universe is in a large number of states at the moment, a number that has been growing since time zero. However, it has nothing to say about the fine tuning (or lack thereof) of the constants of this universe. All it assumes is that this universe has QM physics.

Side question: can a universe with Newtonian or other non-QM phyics support life?

Date: 2008/11/16 10:11:32, Link
Author: dvunkannon
How The Mighty Have Fallen

It is sad. This thread lies discarded, like a favorite vibrator whose batteries FtK has not replaced.
Lama, lama, FtK sabachthani

So here is a little tidbit for you. Walt Brown's Ph.D thesis online.

Damn, it hurts to read this. This is real hard science. From this to hydroplates, it is like the trajectory of Behe or Gonzalez. When did Walt catch the YEC meme?

Date: 2008/11/20 17:42:30, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (JLT @ Nov. 20 2008,08:07)
That's hysterical:

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


Source: Evolution proponents descend on State Board of Education

Someone should point out that the "eminent scientists" include JAD, Berlinski, DDrr.. Dembski, Granville Sewell and many others of suspect sciencieness.

(No disrespect to Mims, Heddle, etc. who are also on that list.)

Date: 2008/11/21 16:21:52, Link
Author: dvunkannon
In Denyse's latest link to futility, Robert Deyes takes down Sean Carroll with this deep thought:

Front loading

Quote
From a philosophical perspective the possibility remains that a designer may have supplied an organism with more genetic information than may have been needed for life- what one may call an "all the options, all the bells and whistles" approach. Such a designer could have been interested in placing non-functional genes in the genome for a future role in his or her design. We all install software into our computers that may not be operational until some later date when we finally choose to use it. Computers can now be accurately scheduled to start a process at a specified instant in the future, similarly to the programming of a recording on a video-recorder.


DNA = God's own Tivo

Will Scooter support the backwards walking butt shaver from Toronto?

Date: 2008/11/25 15:23:19, Link
Author: dvunkannon
According to Patrick, switch89 is no longer with them.

Has comment by comment deletion increased in the BaryA era?

Date: 2008/12/02 15:34:26, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Turtle on the Half Shell

I missed this news item will cooking my turkey to perfection. Aren't turtle shells one of those things creationists always point to as a great unexplained mystery?

Gotta love that little confirmatory evo-devo thing!

Date: 2008/12/02 17:09:33, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Henry J @ Dec. 02 2008,16:40)
Oh, you mean this guy? :)

That's my last years' turkey!  :p I thought I buried that where nobody would find it...

Why am I not surprised that PZ and PT have it covered, while UD is hosting a symposium on speciation by the Great Northern Bass-walkin' Shav-ackwards.

Date: 2008/12/05 15:06:46, Link
Author: dvunkannon
The latest from Granny Smurf-o-dyke has some great anti-sequiturs.

Quote
which I first learned about, perhaps accidentally


but in her linked article

Quote
I learned at a briefing this evening, hosted by Discovery Institute


Exactly how could she have been there accidentally? She mistook Seattle for Toronto, and the DI offices for the bathroom?

Further
Quote
Unfortunately, by “support” Ruloff seems to mean advertising. That’s too bad; increasingly, advertising is the least bang for his buck, compared to viral marketing -


but in her first article

Quote
The filmmakers plan to use viral marketing, as well as other strategies, to ensure that EXPELLED reaches students.


No wonder Ruloff was annoyed at her interview.

Date: 2008/12/09 13:09:28, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (keiths @ Dec. 05 2008,18:02)
Remember this?
Quote
X-Sender: [Dembski’s email at discovery.org] (Unverified) Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 21:11:27 -0600 To: Richard Dawkins [email] From: “William A. Dembski” [email] Subject: President Bush Cc: “Eugenie C. Scott” [email], [Daniel Dennett email], [Paul Gross email], [Barbara Forrest email]

Dear Prof. Dawkins,

I enjoyed this bit of fun in last week’s Guardian. It might interest you to know that Senator Rick Santorum, who is close to President Bush, endorsed my forthcoming book The Design Revolution. It might also interest you to know that President Bush lives in the same Texas county that I do (McLennan County – his home is about 35 miles from my home). It might futher interest you to know that my university, Baylor, today made a bid on the George W. Bush Presidential Library (for the news conference, go to www.baylortv.com).

Why might all this interest you? With the recommendations by Senator Santorum and others close to President Bush, I plan to pay him a visit at his home early next year and have a frank discussion with him about the future of science in the United States and the possibilities for public funding of intelligent design research. I expect your remarks below will help me make my case.

Thanks for all you continue to do to advance the work of intelligent design. You are an instrument in the hands of Providence however much you rail against it.

With all good wishes, Bill Dembski

That didn't work out so well.  You think Dembski's brushing off his famous sweater for a visit with President Obama?   :p

If only DDrr.. Dembski had had that little chat with Shrub, he could have prevented the lame duck defection to evilution.



Evidence of Backsliding

Date: 2008/12/11 13:18:04, Link
Author: dvunkannon
The Worm Squirms

I heard this during my drive to work this morning and laughed out loud in my car. The silence is deafening near the end when Duncan has literally NO answer to the question - is it accurate to say that the Republican Party has been too close to the religious right?

Date: 2008/12/11 16:50:31, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Peter Henderson @ Dec. 10 2008,17:22)
This from Andrew Snelling on the AiG website today:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/article....es-wood

Quote
Therefore, it was concluded that the measured 14C is in situ radiocarbon intrinsic to the ammonites and wood when they were buried and fossilized, so that they are very young, not 112–120 million years old. Furthermore, because the earth’s stronger magnetic field in the recent past reduced the atmospheric 14C production rate, and because the recent Genesis Flood removed so much carbon from the biosphere and buried it, the measured apparent radiocarbon ages are still much higher than the true ages of the fossil ammonites and wood. So their true ages are consistent with their burial during the Genesis Flood only, about 4,300 years ago, when the ocean waters washed sediments and ammonites onto this continental land.

It is a pity Snelling doesn't report on radioactive dating with some other decay process of the same samples. My guess is that other radioactive dating method would yield ages consistent with the accepted scientific ages, not with Noachian ages.

The real problem of course is that Snelling's sample have been contaminated by a powerful source - prayer.

Date: 2008/12/11 17:05:28, Link
Author: dvunkannon
FYI, I have been unbanned at UD, to the extent that I can log in and get a comment box. I haven't seen any of my comments show up yet.

No sockpuppetry involved, I just asked politely.

For those of you scoring at home, congratulations!

Date: 2008/12/17 15:20:19, Link
Author: dvunkannon
BTW, My appeal to resume commenting on UD seems to have hit the proverbial brick wall.  The UD mods I was referred to, Jack Cole (The Country Shrink), and Jake Akins, don't seem interested in actually letting my comments get seen by anyone but themselves.

Since I hadn't seen those names mentioned by others, I thought I'd share them with you. Cole seems to be a small town psychologist with a side practice in anti-science. Akins I can't find a trace of on the web unless he's a 70-ish nerd that hates every book or game he's ever reviewed on Amazon.

These are the guys Denyse turned me over to on my request to get reinstated. I don't know how many mods there are at UD or where they are in the pecking order.

Date: 2008/12/18 13:11:51, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (khan @ Dec. 18 2008,14:00)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 18 2008,13:58)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 18 2008,12:59)
So, what other simpsons prank phone call names can be used :)

After the Simpsons, we can move on to chicks from the Bond flicks.

Choo Mi?

Choo Mi?

Date: 2008/12/19 10:39:32, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (keiths @ Dec. 19 2008,09:02)
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Dec. 18 2008,21:00)
This kind of shit spread by the Fundies pisses me off no end. :angry:
Quote
O'Leary:

Ideas have consequences: Jesse Kilgore

Here’s a podcast with the father of 22-year-old Jesse Kilgore, who killed himself after reading The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins.

Too bad young Jesse did not give himself a chance to read Alister McGrath’s The Dawkins Delusion. My thoughts and prayers are with all who knew him. No doubt there was more going on than we know.

It’s a very sober reminder that, in a world where many believe that young people care only about text messaging aimless gossip, some take the critical questions deadly seriously.

In a very different chain of events a lttile over a year ago, a young Finnish social Darwinist killed himself and eight others , in an event reminiscent of Eric Harris at Columbine.

I wonder if any of the UD ass sucking sycophants will ask about the thousands of gay Christian teenagers who have committed suicide over the years after being rejected by the Church they trusted and told they are evil sinners who will burn in hell?

Domoman announces the results of his careful research:
Quote
That’s sad about Jesse Kilgore.  I heard suicide rates increased in one particular country after Sam Harris released “The End of Faith”.

Can someone 'splain to me how suicide is the "right answer" if you've been convinced by a book that there is no other place to go to, that this world is where we must make our mark, that our significance is in our own lives lived well?

So sadly far of the mark.

Date: 2008/12/19 12:51:48, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Patrick plays The Glass Bead Game and loses.

Yes, it's a telling criticism of this research that they used glass beads swished around, but glass beads are not found in nature. Patrick really told us to pound sand with that one.

Date: 2008/12/23 14:01:10, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Missing Shade of Blue @ Dec. 23 2008,00:13)
So the enhanced physical complexity of a grue detector is a red herring. A grue detector would only need to be more physically complex if grue were not a projectible predicate. But that is just to assume what needs to be proved.

OK, I'll admit to following the discussion to this point without knowing what you mean by projectible. From nosing around on the internet, I can't find a definition of "projectible" that sounds different than "useful for induction". Is that how you mean it?

Just to help me out on the whole grue/bleen thing, let's say it's a short time before time 't' and I have an emerald with a light shining on it. The reflected light passes through a beam splitter and one half goes through a long piece of fiber optic cable. Time 't' passes. If the photons exiting the cable are compared to the photons coming directly from the emerald, is there a short time when a machine or a human could detect that one stream was grue and the other was bleen?

Are we discussing labels that humans put on their mental states, the perception of color by a species of primates, or dramatic changes in the real world? A good part of this discussion feels like "after 2012, we have always been at war with Eastasia."

Date: 2008/12/24 09:48:49, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Louis @ Dec. 24 2008,04:50)
Quote (Missing Shade of Blue @ Dec. 24 2008,04:09)
[SNIP]

I hope baby Jesus brings you lots of presents.

Wait, does this mean Santa's not real?

Louis

childhood Xmas induction FAIL

Date: 2008/12/24 09:50:43, Link
Author: dvunkannon
On the bus into work this morning, it struck me that a world of mixed green and grue critters is just exaptation waitng to happen. Then I fell asleep again.

Date: 2008/12/26 19:08:31, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (keiths @ Dec. 25 2008,13:19)
Quote (Cubist @ Dec. 24 2008,16:35)
In sum: As a practical matter, this "grue/bleen" schtick is basically mental masturbation. If that's the sort of thing you enjoy doing, feel free; just don't expect anybody else to take it seriously.

Cubist,

You're missing the point.  Nobody believes the world is grue/bleen.  We all think it's green/blue.  The question is whether we can justify our belief rigorously, and the question for MSB specifically is (or was) how natural selection is able to choose green/blue over grue/bleen despite having no visibility into the future.

The grue/bleen example may be contrived, but the issues at stake are important because induction is central to science.

If I understand what Wikipedia is saying about Goodman's argument, we could be discussing dogs that smell explosives in America and limburger cheese in France. Time and color are not important to the problem.

Date: 2008/12/29 09:12:44, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 29 2008,09:53)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Dec. 29 2008,09:39)

And here I thought the labradoodle was a weird idea.

Google or Wikipedia "crested duck" for more info. Apparently a point mutation, well known to breeders.

Date: 2008/12/29 09:18:04, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (mitschlag @ Dec. 29 2008,07:40)
Tucked behind the Christmas tree:

Steve Fuller joins the Tardfest!

:D

and he starts out so well...

Gravity, shorn of it's scientific scaffolding, is just a 17th Century social theory...

Steve, that's a great explanation of why everyone focuses on the power of the scientific scaffolding and leaves the 19th Century social theory to historians of science.

Date: 2008/12/29 14:06:49, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Seelke
Quote
just two mutations are needed to produce a new, functioning structure


and Behe thought how many were required for the creation of chloroquinone resistance? So why are they pushing this "five mutations"position? Bueller? Anyone?

Seelke can now educate the rest of the ID community that evolution does move towards a particular target (recreating the protein he inactivated), but towards any improvement available. No gradient = stasis.

Date: 2008/12/29 14:08:16, Link
Author: dvunkannon
does not move

Dang.

i can haz edibuddon?

Date: 2009/01/07 22:03:02, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Anyone wanting to read along with DDrr.. Dembski in Wallace's World of Life can do so in this online edition. Note chapter XIX on Pain!

It is easy to see why Wallace's teleology would appeal to the ID crowd, though they will have to swallow a great deal of Darwinian evolution along with it. Makes me wonder what kind of "editing" they have done to the book.

Wallace was the master of proofs for evolution from biogeography. It is an area of consilient evidence that is never addressed by Paleyists.

No matter that the arguments from incredulity are almost 100 years old.

Date: 2009/01/09 09:14:26, Link
Author: dvunkannon
My atheist bus comment that Clive will never let see the light of day at UD -

Even if you accept that "eastern ethics" come from God, they are not being taught in the name of God. The point stands that the Golden Rule can form the basis for human relations, independent of its source.

Why is there social and altruistic behavior in nature, outside of human society? At the very least, those same principles can operate within human society. A human is not a virus.

Date: 2009/01/12 09:40:35, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (J-Dog @ Jan. 12 2009,08:33)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 11 2009,21:33)
Gil Dodg'em:
     
Quote
I’ve been called every name in the book, the most common being IDiot.

Click here for just one such example of the vitriol to which I’ve been subjected. I could give you hundreds of more examples.

Gil - we can create more instances if that would be helpful. Post something on simulation to get us started.

We could even help establish Gil's reputation globally!

Gil Dodgem es muy estupido y idiota.

Ja, Gil Dodgem est ein dumkopf!

Now, we need Advocatus to put it into Moon Language, and Jeannot or The New French Guy into French, and perhaps, over time, the world could be united with it's opinion of Gil and ID.

Giru Dodegemu ha gottsu ahoya desu.

Japanese, with Osakan dialect for extra flava.

Date: 2009/01/12 10:02:51, Link
Author: dvunkannon
For a few short days, this thread fell off the the first page. I was wondering how far it would sink before being re-animated.

If FtK can post again on her own blog, perhaps there is hope she will once again grace us with a personal appearance.

Date: 2009/01/16 09:48:49, Link
Author: dvunkannon
DaveScot leaves a gift for my grandchildren in the form of a prediction. We all know how well Scooter predicts things.

Date: 2009/01/27 18:44:02, Link
Author: dvunkannon
I was playing around with Google Maps today and decided to map "Discovery Institute". Whoa! Three locations in Seattle and one in DC. I thought they were in one tiny office that Ben Stein couldn't find with GPS. It's bi coastal anti-intellectual kudzu!

What if they start selling coffee and public policy from thousands of locations? A venti double Luskin, to go, please. Mega-churches are so big box retailer, what DI's secret strategy is heading for is a presence in every school cafeteria.

Date: 2009/02/13 12:08:34, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Ftk @ Feb. 13 2009,08:40)
Don't get too excited there...the way that poll was worded I would be compelled to answer yes to the question "Do you believe in the theory of evolution".

What a moronic way to word the stupid poll...of course I believe in the theory of evolution...duh.  Obviously the mechanisms of evolution are detectible in regard to adaptation or microevolutionary change.  

I always wonder how long this thread can go without it's fearless leader...

And when does micro leave off and macro start? Creating a word doesn't conjure the category into reality (thank FSM). It's turtles all the way down...

 
Quote

*FtK sticks her tongue out at *all* of you*

Now that's a Valentines Day present we can all be thankful for! Hold that pose, Louis is down to the short strokes...

Date: 2009/02/16 20:07:59, Link
Author: dvunkannon
All this made me go read Wikipedia's page on Haldane's Dilemma again. That page never looks the same from one visit to the next!

Reading the discussion panel was fun. Hilarious to see WalterR talk about himself in the third person.

Did you know that DaveScot was banned from Wikipedia? Is there any way to collect all of his trolling comments, a sort of "Collected Wit and Slightly Cheezy Poof Dusted Wisdom"? That would be a comedy gold mine...

Date: 2009/02/17 12:04:29, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (J-Dog @ Feb. 16 2009,21:28)
 
Quote (dvunkannon @ Feb. 16 2009,20:07)
All this made me go read Wikipedia's page on Haldane's Dilemma again. That page never looks the same from one visit to the next!

Reading the discussion panel was fun. Hilarious to see WalterR talk about himself in the third person.

Did you know that DaveScot was banned from Wikipedia? Is there any way to collect all of his trolling comments, a sort of "Collected Wit and Slightly Cheezy Poof Dusted Wisdom"? That would be a comedy gold mine...

Got any more details on the DaveScott banning to share with the class?

Was it because:

1.) He insisted in the face of overwhelming evidense to the contrary that Geoge W Bush was the Greatest President Ever
2.) He got Cheesy Poof stains on their front page
3.) They didn't need any Wike editors whose qualifications consisted of over-bearing, power-crazed behavior coupled with an inability to play well with others.


From the discussion panel of the Wikipedia page for Haldane's Dilemma:
 
Quote
This page is linked to from Uncommon Descent via a post today titled "Wikipedia Suppresses Info On Haldane’s Dilemma". grendel|khan 19:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Both the relevant material and personal attacks against Wikipedia editors in good standing at uncommondescent.com don't spell any good for "DaveScot" or anyone he may have influenced if they decide to have a go at this WP article.
Nevertheless, some of the criticisms expressed here by Walter ReMine seem valid to me when weighed against Wikipedia's rules. I suggest we disregard its personal and anti-Wikipedia slant and discuss the relevant content here. AvB ÷ talk 09:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, if we've got the pseudoscience pov pushers frothing, we must be doing something right. DS has been banned from Wikipedia, due to a particularly shabby record of trolling, disruption and legal threats. FeloniousMonk 03:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Date: 2009/02/18 09:45:46, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Is Allen catching BMB (Buy My Book) disease from the rest of the UcD denizens? If you work too long in the psych ward...

Date: 2009/02/18 10:31:38, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 17 2009,15:15)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w....+search

Some classic Scooter there...

Scooter Falls On His Turd For Dembski

The evidence from Missouri...
Quote
Copying the blog posts here so everyone can see
I hope someone keeps track of the 11 parents and their children. Everyone in Dover knows damn well that no children were forced to listen to the 60 second announcement regarding evolution and intelligent design. So what you have is 11 parents whose religious hostility extended to such a trivial matter they were willing to make the tiny school district pay a million dollars.
I won't be at all surprised if the children of these parents are so badly ostracized and abused by other students that they're forced to find another school and the parents will be snubbed and insulted and their cars keyed and their coworkers and supervisors making their lives miserable that they'll all end up moving away.
I hope that's all tracked so that the next group of parents that gets their panties in a bunch and volunteers to the be the designated shitheads know what it's going to cost them." [34] (already referenced in the article). JoshuaZ 02:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


Scooter thinks quoting his own words is libelous of himself!!1!
Quote
The interpretation of what I wrote is libelous.


Then backpedals furiously...
Quote
The last edit was better but it still implied I intended to publish the names to encourage others to cause harm. My only intent there was so that the names could be googled to see if anything untoward had indeed happened which I presume would have received some press. I corrected it to better state what my intent was. I also pointed out that I never actually published any names. It was empty rhetoric. Lastly, I updated to reflect the fact that I had put back as a moderator on uncommon descent after a hiatus of 6 weeks.


What is this "empty rhetoric" you speak of? Ain't you a Marine? This isn't empty rhetoric, just a garden variety FAILED SCOOTER PREDICTION.

The bannination hammer falls on the cheezy poofed fingers of Scooter...
Quote
Per this I recommend that we block an IP Dave is using on sight and revert his edits until he withdraws his legal threats per WP:LEGAL. JoshuaZ 04:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


Scooter decides a guerilla campaign is the only way to continue "helping" his fearless leader.
Quote
Not to engage in ad hominems or well poisoning but the anon who brought the matter up is DaveScot. In fact, the matter was sourced to the primary comments until he got Larry to take them down and then attempted to remove the statement saying the sources didn't have it. He also initially tried to "clarify" what he meant with those comments so his attempt to say on the BLP board that maybe the comments weren't his is insulting to our intelligence. The bottom line is that no matter how unhappy Dave is with his comments and no matter how many times he makes libel accusations the comment is reliably sourced. JoshuaZ 01:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


...and proceeds to talk about himself in the third person...
Quote
DaveScot's comment did not appear on Dembski's blog and there's not a shred of evidence that Dembski either knew about it or agreed with it.


... to no avail. Scooter's nose is rubbed in his own tard.
Quote
DaveScot is a two-bit player on the ID scene and not nearly as important as he'd like to be or think he is. The argument would have to go something like "its relevant because the article is about Dembski and what happens at his blog is a major part of it" It might seem more reasonable to include it if we had a separate article on Uncommon Descent. On the other hand, we clearly don't have enough material to have a separate article on Uncommon Descent, so any such material would be reasonable to have here. I haven't made up my mind on this matter at all. (Given that the content is sourced and such I'm also tempted to keep it in simply in reaction to DaveScot's behavior since he first made libel claims then got Larry to take down the original posts and then tried to blank and vandalize this article, then made some more libel noises, and now is trying to claim that maybe the posts aren't his even though he had earlier tried to argue that he had meant something different. Indeed, Dave seems to be going out of his way to take the info out and if anything just to establish that Wikipedia won't back down from threats and manipulation we should consider keeping it if we think the sourcing is good. JoshuaZ 18:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


Instant replay
Quote
DaveScot is a two-bit player on the ID scene and not nearly as important as he'd like to be or think he is.


Slow motion
Quote
D a v e S c o t   i s   a   t w o - b i t   p l a y e r   o n   t h e   I D   s c e n e


That's gotta leave a mark. A cheezy poof shaped mark, but a mark, nonetheless. Perhaps we should blame JoshuaZ for Scooter's reckless abandon with the bannination stick and loudspeaker in the ceiling since the day he was banninated from Wikipedia. Or maybe we should just blame Scooter hisself. We report, you decide.

Date: 2009/02/18 12:04:47, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Zachriel @ Feb. 18 2009,11:24)
A table may appear very smooth, but a microscope may reveal it to be formed of craters and ridges. The Earth may be a sphere to the first-order, but is oblate when looked at more closely, and full of lumps and bumps when very closely examined. And someone's skin may appear smooth, and their faces may be considered bilaterally symmetrical—unless you look too closely at them.

 
Quote
A VOYAGE TO BROBDINGNAG: I must confess no object ever disgusted me so much as the sight of her monstrous breast, which I cannot tell what to compare with, so as to give the curious reader an idea of its bulk, shape, and colour. It stood prominent six feet, and could not be less than sixteen in circumference. The nipple was about half the bigness of my head, and the hue both of that and the dug, so varied with spots, pimples, and freckles, that nothing could appear more nauseous: for I had a near sight of her, she sitting down, the more conveniently to give suck, and I standing on the table. This made me reflect upon the fair skins of our English ladies, who appear so beautiful to us, only because they are of our own size, and their defects not to be seen but through a magnifying glass; where we find by experiment that the smoothest and whitest skins look rough, and coarse, and ill–coloured.




"Dude, have you looked at your evolution, I mean really looked at it?"

"Dude, it's like, you look at it, and it's macro-evolution..."

"Dude, yeah,... and then you look at, I mean really look at it... and it's all micro."

"Dude, that's so deep."

"Dude, gimme another hit of that South American stuff Charlie brought back..."

Date: 2009/02/18 12:17:34, Link
Author: dvunkannon
"Can you read, Pooh?" Owl asked a little anxiously.

So Owl wrote, and this is what he wrote:
HIPY PAPY BTHUTHDTH THUTHDA BTHUTHDY.
Pooh looked on admiringly.  
"I'm just saying `A Happy Birthday<to Bob O'h>'," said Owl carelessly.  
"It's a nice long one," said Pooh, very much impressed.  
"Well, actually, of course, I'm saying `A Very Happy Birthday with Love from Pooh'. Naturally it takes a good deal of pencil to say a long thing like that."

Date: 2009/02/18 14:06:43, Link
Author: dvunkannon
A report of an omnivorous early dinosaur has created two new gaps in the fossil record.

So when the lion lies down with the lamb, this guy can lie down in between, eat the lamb's lunch for the salad course, then eat both the lion and the lamb...

Date: 2009/02/20 18:00:32, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 20 2009,18:01)
That made beer come out my nose. Bravo sir!

When you go out for more, don't forget the diapers...

Date: 2009/02/20 21:24:27, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (J-Dog @ Feb. 19 2009,19:21)

(I know I'm late to this party, but...)

What is Louis' aunt doing on the set of Ilsa, She Wolf of the SS?

Date: 2009/02/25 09:45:29, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Lou FCD @ Feb. 25 2009,04:06)
Quote (sparc @ Feb. 25 2009,00:37)
Is there some hidden code CSI in Dembski's tie?

ETA: replaced cody by CSI

Yes. I have calculated the CSI of that tie at 4.2 X 1042. It's a special number in Science as I'm finding it occurs frequently in nature when calculating CSI. I'm going to call it "Lou's number".

If my result is incorrect, I'd be happy to have Dr. Dembski give a correction and explain how he came to his answer. Also, it'd be peachy if he could supply me with a standard unit of measurement. Otherwise, I'm going with the metric standard of "obfuscations", symbolized with the Hebrew* letter Shin (almost like a w with a dot over on the right side).





*because all the cool Greek letters have been snapped up.

Louis' number, OTOH, is represented by the Hebrew letter Sin.

Date: 2009/02/27 14:33:27, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Tiki of Mulling's new medication shcedule is working! Comments on a single topic! Fewer quotations! Sentences not requiring punctuation until the end!

KF, if you're reading here, thank you. You should try posting over here.

Date: 2009/03/02 21:55:41, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 02 2009,16:08)
I'm thinking that in a landscape with many hills, some higher than others, that  a system that spawns many offsping, some will work their way around local hills and find the higher ones -- assuming that not finding a hill isn't instantly fatal.

But the key thing seems to be the gradient and the differential success of individuals that land on a higher position.

That's a question.

Gradients aren't so important to GAs, because the new population members are not created by following the gradient.

Your original question about the unreasonable effectiveness of GAs compared to Dembski's snaffling can be answered by assuming that we are only asking GAs to solve problems they happen to be good at solving. The NFL theorems would lead you to expect that there are equally many problems where GAs perform worse than random search. But it seems these are not problems which we humans are interested in at the moment.

GA (and EC in general) are themselves the result of competition among algorithms for the attention of humans. I was just reading about the development of the Differential Evolution algorithm by its inventors, and they were quite candid about the amount of tinkering and competition between versions that went on.

(This same argument can be used for the "unreasonable effectiveness" of mathematics. There are an unlimited number of axiomatic systems, we have kept the one that works best.)

Date: 2009/03/02 22:08:13, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 02 2009,15:34)
Okay, here's the premise.

we create an equation, with just 2 variables, randomly.


let's say y=x^2+3x-8

which would give us a data set of:

DATA SET
y x
-4 1
2 2
10 3

We then go about building equations where the genome is basically pairs of arithmetic operators and coefficients.

let's limit it to

+
-
/
*
^

and

-9
-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
Y
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

If we created a random population of equations using the above pairings, we could probably manipulate them genomically. We could have mutation:

+8 > +Y  or -3 > *3

Deletion

+8 > *nothing*

Duplication

+8 > +8+8

sexual selection, etc.

I'm sure most simple equations could be solved using this method. Obviously the fitness function comes from the data table.


Very rough idea. Someone please build, improve then give me credit.

Yes, it is very cool, and it's called "genetic programming". Invented by John Koza (the man who also invented scratch-off lottery tickets) back in the 90s.

Koza founded the Humie awards, for using GP and other EC algorithms to invent things as good or better than humans. Note to Scooter, MersenneTwister is smarter than you.

Date: 2009/03/02 22:15:19, Link
Author: dvunkannon
I just joined Folding@Home. Now my spare CPU cycles fold proteins for scientific and medical research. Dang! Science is more addicting than TARD!

Everyone should do this. Certainly everyone with a PS3 should do this. Please join!

Date: 2009/03/03 12:20:14, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 03 2009,07:36)
Quote
Gradients aren't so important to GAs, because the new population members are not created by following the gradient.


No, that would imply foresight. What I assume happens is that individuals that happen to find themselves higher on the gradient are more successful at reproducing or avoiding elimination. Repeat.

Yes, population members at a point of higher fitness probably have more children, whether a gradient exists or not.

There is a branch of GA research, led by Dr. David Goldberg at University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, which creates deliberately deceptive fitness functions in order to better understand how GAs work and improve them. Goldberg's "Design of Innovation" is a great book on GA theory and the practice of engineering. I think he also has an intro to GA lecture online. All the IDiots who claim engineers as a class should watch it. So should everyone else!

If you can imagine a fitness function that looks like the white noise on your TV screen - that's the kind of fitness function where random search is even up with GA. THe surface of our planet is much calmer than that, so evolution has a chance to act in the real world.

Date: 2009/03/03 12:25:47, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Mar. 03 2009,02:02)
ahh dirt babies.  nah i'll pass


Don't GAs assume a fixed fitness landscape, at least within a generation?  in other words, the landscape is 'real' and not a function of contingencies such as absence of symbionts, phenotypic plasticity, or anything remotely approaching what ecologists tend to view as the 'niche'?

in order to reduce evolution and ecology to some interchangeable currency it seems that fitness might be a great candidate unit.  yet we know that fitness may depend on maternally inherited plastic responses, or the presence or absence of other organisms with strong interactions with the taxon of interest...  these things are contextual and historical.  

that doesn't impugn the concept of hill climbing or GA solutions at all, as far as i can tell, but it would place some boundary conditions around the output of those solutions, conditions that are unrealistic given what we know about the way that organisms interact in nature.

anyone care to clear up my ignorance?  and not about mud younguns.  hell i don't go to georgia for nothing but cheap gas when I'm in Franklin NC.

Yes, some GA researchers study time-varying fitness functions. I also remember seeing some paper about a fitness function that was mainly a function of the rest of the population. I think it was a good demonstration of the development of sexual selection and "fashion", because the optimum value just wandered around.

Even Dembski's MESA was a GA with a stochastic component. It didn't stop it from working, which I think is why DDrr.. Dembski abandoned the project. Wrong results!

Date: 2009/03/03 13:10:20, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 03 2009,00:12)
Quote (dvunkannon @ Mar. 02 2009,22:08)
Yes, it is very cool, and it's called "genetic programming". Invented by John Koza (the man who also invented scratch-off lottery tickets) back in the 90s.

Koza founded the Humie awards, for using GP and other EC algorithms to invent things as good or better than humans. Note to Scooter, MersenneTwister is smarter than you.

I INVENTED IT IDEPENDANTLY ON MY OWN.


:angry:

HOMO

Richard T Hughes, the Elisha Gray of Information Theory

Date: 2009/03/03 17:00:31, Link
Author: dvunkannon
SETI@TARD

Scooter loves this hobby horse. Does he ever admit that the SETI program makes assumptions about who might be sending a signal? We're only listening for folks like us.

Date: 2009/03/03 17:23:04, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (GCUGreyArea @ Mar. 03 2009,17:45)
 
Quote (dvunkannon @ Mar. 03 2009,12:20)
Yes, population members at a point of higher fitness probably have more children, whether a gradient exists or not.

There is a branch of GA research, led by Dr. David Goldberg at University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, which creates deliberately deceptive fitness functions in order to better understand how GAs work and improve them. Goldberg's "Design of Innovation" is a great book on GA theory and the practice of engineering. I think he also has an intro to GA lecture online. All the IDiots who claim engineers as a class should watch it. So should everyone else!

If you can imagine a fitness function that looks like the white noise on your TV screen - that's the kind of fitness function where random search is even up with GA. THe surface of our planet is much calmer than that, so evolution has a chance to act in the real world.

pedant that I am, I think you are mixing the analogy up a little.  The gradient is defined by fitness so fitter individuals are higher up the gradient.  If you don't have a gradient then individuals in that locale all have the same fitness.

All of the engineers I have met who have expressed doubts about evolution have gone on to demonstrate that they really don't understand evolution at all.

Yes, my metaphors are certainly mixed. However, my understanding of "gradient" as it has been used in this conversation is the assumption that the fitness surface is smooth and differentiable, so that (a la hill climbing and simulated annealing) you can creep along the surface from one spot to another close by spot trying to pick up incremental improvements. My point has been that finding a better fitness point in no way implies there is a continuous, smooth, upward path between the new point and its parents.

The classic GA that uses crossover as an "explore" operator and mutation as an "exploit" operator gets most of the improvement from crossover, and might find the global optimum by bit flipping (mutation, exploitation) at the end of the run. (Vastly simplifying, YMMV, etc.) Crossover might mate (100, 0) and (0, 100) to get (100, 100), flinging the search across the parameter space completely. Gradient, shmadient, the fitness surface doesn't even have to exist in between these points in parameter space, much less be smooth. Crossover == teleportation.

Date: 2009/03/04 11:58:07, Link
Author: dvunkannon
The Origin of Phagocytosis and Eukaryogenesis

Or as Tommy Lee Jones said in Men In Black, "Eat me!"

Date: 2009/03/04 12:44:11, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Hey Louis, is this you?

Skell Abuse at Pharyngula

Date: 2009/03/04 14:00:12, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Microbes have finished evolving, but Domoman asks for extra time.

You gotta wonder what Domomomo-man thinks of rocks with high ratios of lead to uranium. "Nobody witnessed the decay, it's a just so story."

BTW - is anyone a geologist? Is it true that rocks older than 2.5 Gya don't have nitrate compounds? (Or stuff made from nitrates, like hot dog preservatives)

Date: 2009/03/04 14:07:27, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Mar. 04 2009,14:48)
Quote (dvunkannon @ Mar. 04 2009,12:44)
Hey Louis, is this you?

Skell Abuse at Pharyngula

Definitely.  Only Loose could be so flamboyant.  And by flamboyant I mean unabashedly trolling for man meat.

And there is also that little fleck of spit dangling in his bushy bushy eyebrows.  Dead giveaway!

but other than that jolly good show old bean.  it takes, erm, something to wade into the braying den of squid.

The whole Punjabi speaking in-laws thing made me uncertain, then I realized they are probably just speaking Welsh but Louis doesn't realise it.  :p

Date: 2009/03/04 17:45:28, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 04 2009,15:13)
PUNJABI


WELSH

A clear explanation of why India is overpopulated and Wales is not.

Date: 2009/03/05 09:23:43, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Happy happy birthday!

Date: 2009/03/05 11:24:37, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Feb. 26 2009,11:43)
For your amusement, I offer a compelling question from a writer who thinks that Robert Marks "...ranks up there with the likes of Newton and Einstein" and has a "...genius level knowledge of statistical models...":
Is Robert Marks the Greatest Scientist of our Generation?

I call man-crush.

That site has some top top quality TARD.
Daisy May Brings Teh Crazy
Even more crazy - that page has been recommended 154 times!

Date: 2009/03/05 16:40:27, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Louis @ Mar. 05 2009,14:32)
Quote (dvunkannon @ Mar. 04 2009,18:44)
Hey Louis, is this you?

Skell Abuse at Pharyngula

Yup

Louis

Well, I can see why you think it is safe to tell the atheist squid worshipers that you've got a hot Punjabi number at home, and not the home crowd here. No elbow jostling about "one in the tandoor" from that lot.

Date: 2009/03/06 14:53:36, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 05 2009,20:07)
Quote (carlsonjok @ Mar. 05 2009,06:20)
 
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Mar. 05 2009,00:35)
that doesn't bother Domoman.  He is still tripping, while AM is playing accuracy enforcer, Domoman is looking at his hand

     
Quote
Is it not strange that light, sounds waves, availability of substances to eat, to recycle substances, and to touch (to give a few examples) can even exist?


yeah man strange.  Like, what did you expect?  Zoinks!

Domoman isn't just looking at his hand.


A great album, especially "Lehigh vs Hofstra", my alma mater.

Date: 2009/03/06 15:07:00, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (huwp @ Mar. 05 2009,16:48)
Quote (Louis @ Mar. 05 2009,13:36)
FFS! I take a couple of days to relax at an alternate establishment de bloggage and what do I get??? Abuse. Unwarranted, unasked for, undeserved, unintelligent abuse.


Well they are a bunch of louts.  Educated and intelligent and frequently very funny, but they are a bunch of louts.

I mean, you DO ask for it much of the time whereas I tend to keep quiet (after all my degree is in French and Italian unlike all you science types) and I chip in only occasionally.  I'm not even very rude about Arden and EVERYONE is rude about Arden.

But I am Welsh and rather proud it; we may be a very small nation but we have much to be proud about.  So it does stick in my throat a bit when they seek to insult you by calling you Welsh.

All the other insults are fine, however  ;)

It is pleased to be noting that I tried to zig when everyone else was zagging on the Louis is Welsh meme. I said Dr. L couldn't tell Punjabi from Welsh. Granted he could still be Welsh, but too drunk to tell Punjabi from Welsh when his in-laws were speaking. Louis might be Welsh and too drunk to tell Punjabi from Welsh when he's speaking it.

Date: 2009/03/06 15:09:09, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (khan @ Mar. 06 2009,15:56)
Quote
A great album, especially "Lehigh vs Hofstra", my alma mater.


Wasn't that Temple vs Hofstra?

Since he's wearing a Temple shirt on the cover, you must be right!

Bartender, one for the comely albino squirrel, if you please!

Date: 2009/03/07 10:13:15, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 06 2009,00:59)
Hi Hero. I think I might have an offer to code this from a reader of this forum. I'll share it if it happens.


Rich

Symbolic Regression Using Genetic Programming

a Java applet that demonstrates the idea.

Date: 2009/03/07 10:18:19, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (1of63 @ Mar. 06 2009,23:58)
Quote (Zachriel @ Mar. 06 2009,21:06)
 

Paging Dr. Who, Gil Dodgem wants his suit back!

Date: 2009/03/09 15:59:20, Link
Author: dvunkannon
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Lou FCD]

Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 09 2009,14:30)
Quote
4:  If it is a family's fault for buying "too big a home", why didn't the banks and the mortgage lenders stop them?  Isn't that their job?


Who makes the rules that Fanny and Freddy applied to loan approvals? Just asking.

I have no partisan ax to grind here. I think incumbents have an interest in heating the economy, regardless of which party is in power.

A good place to start particularly the material on the CRA and the GSEs.

Date: 2009/03/09 18:48:56, Link
Author: dvunkannon
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Lou FCD]

Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 09 2009,18:56)
But none of that answers my question , which is, after the crisis became obvious and painful, why has their been no rush to buy the toxic loans. You are talking about firve or ten percent of all mortgages dragging the world into a depression.

And even the worst mortgages are worth more than zero.

This entry may enlighten you. Basically, as Pogo once said, "We have met the enemy, and he is us."

It is not just the toxic sub-prime mortgages. It is the broad collapse of all housing prices, with concommitant price collapse of CDOs and other structured financial instruments. In this sense, the real problem is not that my brother's house is worth less than his sub-prime mortgage, it is that my house is down 30-40% in value as well.

With uncertainty of value, the market vanishes. The concept of "mark to market" prices becomes meaningless. Billions of dollars cease to exist.

Before 1929, Wall St invented the mutual fund. It is really a way to spread investments and lower risk (simplifying), but at the time it became an instrument of speculation. Regulation lagged far behind invention, then as today. In the months before the Crash, funds were created and sold that only invested in other funds, pyramid-wise. It all collapsed in late October. John Kenneth Galbraith's book, The Great Crash, is a marvelous education.[U]

Date: 2009/03/09 18:55:10, Link
Author: dvunkannon
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Lou FCD]

Quote (Dr.GH @ Mar. 09 2009,19:04)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 09 2009,15:56)
But none of that answers my question , which is, after the crisis became obvious and painful, why has their been no rush to buy the toxic loans. You are talking about firve or ten percent of all mortgages dragging the world into a depression.

And even the worst mortgages are worth more than zero.

Yeah, I actually agree.

At one point last year in the early fall, or late summer, the total cash-out for all bad mortgages was about 300 billion in the USA. In the late fall, the White House is dumping twice this to their banking buddies, no strings- and all the bad loans are still bad. The rate of White House give-away increased after the election. The receiving banks refused to say how they spent the money. The White House didn't know either.

I would call that theft on a scale never before imagined. That made Blackwater, and Haliberton look like punks.

That's the point, they didn't spend it, they kept it for themselves. As an asset ("Cash") on the balance sheet to offset the negative values of loans. The government wanted them to loan it out to keep money and credit circulating in the economy. They chose not to be altruistic, collectively. And had one bank individually chosen to do so, the others would have taken advantage of it, like vampires sucking the blood of the living. And then that bank's management would have been exposed to shareholder lawsuits for not thinking selfishly enough.

Date: 2009/03/10 09:43:55, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 10 2009,06:50)
Kariosfocus is asked for a quote from Dawkins to substantiate his claim that letters are fixed once correct:
_much bloviation snipped_

I spy no quote. He does link to http://creation.com/weasel-words-creation-magazine-critique-of-dawkins however and thinks that'll do. He thinks wrong.

Link

One place KF will not link to, because it actually does quote Dawkins from the relevant chapter of Blind Watchmaker. But KF would rather repeat DDrr.. Dembski's misunderstanding of Weasel than find out what the original author says.

Date: 2009/03/10 10:05:06, Link
Author: dvunkannon
I just edited that Wiki page to include a reference to Dembski & Co's misunderstanding of the Weasel algorithm.

Date: 2009/03/11 08:42:13, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 11 2009,02:37)
Yeah, but did she invent COBOL?

That was Rear Admiral Dr. Grace Murray Hopper.

Date: 2009/03/11 08:50:43, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (dnmlthr @ Mar. 06 2009,14:01)
Quote
ARGONNE, Illinois — In the basement of a nondescript building here at Argonne National Laboratory, nickel particles in a beaker are building themselves into magnetic snakes that may one day give clues about how life originally organized itself.

These chains of metal particles look so much like real, living animals, it is hard not to think of them as alive. (See exclusive video below.) But they are actually bits of metal that came together under the influence of a specially tuned magnetic field.


Swim my darlings, swim!

Quote
But when the magnetic field is tuned just right, something strange happens.


The creationist quotemine, appearing on UD in 10, 9,...

Date: 2009/03/12 10:57:06, Link
Author: dvunkannon
How does Clive handle the cognitive dissonance of being a psychologist for a day job, and being a UD immoderator?

Date: 2009/03/12 12:13:13, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 12 2009,12:02)
Quote (dvunkannon @ Mar. 12 2009,10:57)
How does Clive handle the cognitive dissonance of being a psychologist for a day job, and being a UD immoderator?

dvunkannon, apologize to Clive!

Clive, I'm sorry I called you a psychologist. And I'm very sorry your clients call you a psychologist.

Dude, you can do better than this.

Date: 2009/03/12 12:31:21, Link
Author: dvunkannon
And for those scoring at home (congratulations!), here's the source for the Darwinist aborigine genocide meme.

David Monaghan Productions

Not exactly peer reviewed literature, unless your peer group is "Lap Dance War", "Sex Bomb", and "Trees On Mars".

Funny that in some cases, this site links to the script of the show. In the case of I Was Darwin's Love Zombie, it links to Weiland's article quoting from Monaghan's article.

I did find at least a part of the original article with quotes from original sources via Google Book Search in a tome called Law and Culture. Monaghan does seem to have found clear evidence that some people killed native Australians to sell their remains to science museums.

Date: 2009/03/12 14:56:36, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (FrankH @ Mar. 12 2009,15:31)
Bolding is mine.  
Quote
436

DaveScot

03/12/2009

1:41 pm

Perhaps the greater flaw in Weasal is that it starts from an initial state of gibberish. Evolution doesn’t work that way. It begins from a highly optimized state and transitions to a different but similarly highly optimized state in response to dimunitions of the original optimization caused by changes in the environment. We have a wonderful case study in real life, in real time, of how this works. Behe examines it in “The Edge of Evolution” where the malaria parasite begins in a highly optimized state which is diminished by the introduction of anti-malarial drugs. If evolution worked the way Weasal works these drugs would be overcome in such very short order that they would be utterly useless from the very start. After all, chloroquine resistance only requires three amino acid substitutions to become functional. The parasite only has to go from “Methinks it is like a weasel” to “Methinks it is like a beagle”. It takes the parasite some 10^20 tries to get there. So there is clearly a huge disconnect from the Weasel program and how the diversification of life actually happens.
As a (hopefully) a learned novice, where is it said that evolution STARTS at a "highly optimized state.

Isn't this a strawman?

No, I think Scooter has actually learned something from all those kind souls who have been beating on the "random assembly is vastly improbable" strawman. This another example of him being the smartest wanker in the chat room.

He's also right that if the fitness function changes fast enough (weasel -> beagle -> dongle) the population will never converge on the global optimum. That's true and perfectly normal. Just more evidence that evolution is backward looking, imperfect, and happens all the time.

Date: 2009/03/13 12:53:23, Link
Author: dvunkannon
If BarryA and Clive can keep the bannination thread off the first page here, I will believe that they have made a permanent change in policy.

To really test the strength of their resolve, I think Calrsonjok should try to post a potty mouthed HAHA THIS IS YOU LOLcat aimed at Clive over at UD. Extra points for working in the word "morphodyke".

Date: 2009/03/13 16:42:46, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Crossposted from the Dawkins On Purpose thread, in case Clive doesn't have the juice to get me out of the moderation limbo.

DonaldM @16,

I think Dawkins would argue that we have always had "archi-purpose" as long as we have been trying to fulfill our chemical drives of hunger, thirst, and sex. Thats a few hundred million years.

What does it take to build a brain that is more than a stimulus response mechanism? How many hidden layers of neurons can be built by duplicating genes and lengthening timelines? These changes in development require GA operators beyond the mutation and crossover typically used in scientific research. But just as crossover vastly increases the reach of a GA compared to simply mutation, so having a variably sized genome that works hierarchically adds vastly more opportuniy to reach very different "places" on the fitness landscape in one or a few steps.

Date: 2009/03/13 16:44:30, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Editted To Add - I HAZ NO EDIBUDDON HALP!!1!

Date: 2009/03/16 14:21:48, Link
Author: dvunkannon
R0b's barking up the wrong tree on Dembski's new Weasel thread. The parameters have to be different to produce an answer in 2400+ generations compared to the book's avg. of 50.

How would DDrr.. Dembski answer this question: Is MESA a different program if you change the parameters?

Date: 2009/03/16 14:33:05, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 16 2009,15:24)
Quote (dvunkannon @ Mar. 16 2009,14:21)
R0b's barking up the wrong tree on Dembski's new Weasel thread. The parameters have to be different to produce an answer in 2400+ generations compared to the book's avg. of 50.

How would DDrr.. Dembski answer this question: Is MESA a different program if you change the parameters?

THIS AM NOT A HELPS!

THIS AM THE WRONG THRED SORY!!1!

Date: 2009/03/16 15:11:33, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (k.e.. @ Mar. 16 2009,16:00)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 16 2009,22:57)
uh-oh, page roll-over broken?

ETA - dvunkannon had a post which was not showing up for me.

nor me

nor I. That teaches me to disagree with mods.

combined with being in moderation limbo at UD, i'm starting to wonder if I still exist...

Date: 2009/03/16 15:14:32, Link
Author: dvunkannon
ok, having broken out of the Phantom Zone, here's what that post tried to say:

Wes, you're wrong. THe gens on the Weasel video go up to 2485, proof the params are different. Probably a smaller pop size, perhaps a higher mutation rate. It's a better visual image, that's all.

Date: 2009/03/16 15:36:02, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 16 2009,16:24)
David,

I don't think I asserted that the parameters were exactly the same between the TBW runs and the Horizon video runs, but I do disagree with the canard that using different parameters is the same thing as having a different program. Letter-level latching is the thing asserted by Dembski and others on no evidence whatsoever. Saying that the parameters might be different doesn't even bear on that issue.

Saying the parameters might be different is Dembski's notpology and sidejab at KF to STFU.

One thing I've never seen done with the parameter space of a GA like weasel is to map the convergence times a la all those pretty Mandelbrot set pictures. I doubt they come out as spectularly intricate. More to the point for DDrr.. Dembski, there would be very little black where the choice of parameters never converge. The robustness of GAs is a slap in the face of ID.

Date: 2009/03/16 18:05:00, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Wes, I retract my disagreement on weasel params, book vs video. R0b's point (over at UD)on the word "tries" has opened my eyes.

Date: 2009/03/16 18:11:08, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate

This is sig-worthy:
 
Quote
The whole debacle has painted a new picture of how planetary scientists operate.

"I think this has been one of the more disappointing episodes for science with regard to the IAU," Stern said. "Now school kids see science as voting, and that's not the best way to do science."

"I like to call it the Irrelevant Astronomical Union," Stern added. He summed up the messiness of the scientific process as being "like cats herding themselves."

Date: 2009/03/18 13:11:21, Link
Author: dvunkannon
If Gil's albums are available for free as MP3, in what sense are they a prize?

Date: 2009/03/18 13:22:56, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Recently, Wes made a comment that Weasel doesn't work (converge) in regimes of low population size and/or high mutation rates. (Actually he was agreeing with me on this point...)

I suddenly made the association yesterday that this reflects badly on the Creation Museum and the new style of YEC argumentation. For years, YECs stonewalled against plate tectonics and evolution. But recently, some have flipped the idea around and proclaimed that after the Flood, plate tectonics and evolution worked at warp speed to create the natural world we see today.

But a GA with a pop size of 2 (or 8 for humans, and 14 for kosher animals) is gonna fail fail fail, especially at warp speed mutation rates. God must have stuck Her delicate Fingers into the DNA of all those creatures to ensure that each mutation was beneficial...

Date: 2009/03/18 14:57:01, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Some Id-ists have trouble understanding why abstractions like GA/EC are relevant - ie. but it ain't wet! An important point for these folks (and others) is that GA isn't a model of evolution, it _IS_ evolution.

Date: 2009/03/18 17:01:53, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 18 2009,15:17)
Here's something for David...



Population size is on the X axis, running from 1 to 500. Mutation rate is on the Y axis, running from 0.0 (bottom of image) to 1.0. The lighter the pixel, the better the chance of convergence. This was generated by finding the PPopulation_C2C(K-1) for each condition represented by the pixel and scaling that probability over 1,024 grayscale values.

As expected, there is no local sensitivity to change in parameters.

Expanding the population scale by ten gives this:



Thank you Wes!

Sometimes people are stunned by complexity, but these images are so simple that most people don't see the significance. Evolution just works.

Date: 2009/03/18 20:15:15, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Zachriel @ Mar. 18 2009,21:09)
Quote
Sal Gal: The program makes a pretty picture. What of it? The probability of looking around and seeing a pretty picture is high.

Something funny about the ID obsession with the Weasel program is the oblivion to the context in which Hamlet says, “Methinks it is like a weasel.” On most days, in most places, you can look into the sky and match many patterns.

tribune7: And how specific would they be? Is that a bunny or a giraffe?

HAMLET: Do you see yonder cloud that's almost in shape of a camel?
LORD POLONIUS: By the mass, and 'tis like a camel, indeed.
HAMLET: Methinks it is like a weasel.
LORD POLONIUS: It is backed like a weasel.
HAMLET: Or like a whale?
LORD POLONIUS: Very like a whale.

Polonius was using an early version of the Nixplanatory Filter to detect the designs in the cloud shapes. Do you think a camel-weasel-whale shaped cloud could just happen by accident??

Date: 2009/03/18 22:42:11, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Zachriel @ Mar. 18 2009,22:00)
Quote (dvunkannon @ Mar. 18 2009,20:15)
   
Quote (Zachriel @ Mar. 18 2009,21:09)
     
Quote
Sal Gal: The program makes a pretty picture. What of it? The probability of looking around and seeing a pretty picture is high.

Something funny about the ID obsession with the Weasel program is the oblivion to the context in which Hamlet says, “Methinks it is like a weasel.” On most days, in most places, you can look into the sky and match many patterns.

tribune7: And how specific would they be? Is that a bunny or a giraffe?

HAMLET: Do you see yonder cloud that's almost in shape of a camel?
LORD POLONIUS: By the mass, and 'tis like a camel, indeed.
HAMLET: Methinks it is like a weasel.
LORD POLONIUS: It is backed like a weasel.
HAMLET: Or like a whale?
LORD POLONIUS: Very like a whale.

Polonius was using an early version of the Nixplanatory Filter to detect the designs in the cloud shapes. Do you think a camel-weasel-whale shaped cloud could just happen by accident??

***** SPOILER ALERT *****



{That's why he had to die. You don't really think it was an accident, do you?}

The Nicksplanatory Philtre of the Shakespearean Era contained immoderate amounts of polonium. (Polonius actually spoke the epilogue in Hamlet, but his lines were held in moderation.)

Later versions substituted iron for increased sensitivity to irony. Lead was used to ensure that evidence was followed whereever it, um, lead. Gold helped detect telic (goal-directed) argumentation.

At one time, all Nixplanatory devices had to operate within a Faraday cage. Nowadays, a Templeton field suppressor is used instead.

Date: 2009/03/19 08:37:09, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Louis @ Mar. 19 2009,07:16)
John fucking Calvert?

Oh sweet crap on a stick. This is going to be dumb with a capital STOOPID.

{looks away in embarrassment}

I'm not the same species, I'm not the same species, I'm not the same species, I'm not the same species, I'm not the same species....go to the happy place, go to the happy place....

Louis

C'mon Louis, don't you like how Pendulum is swinging with his comment?

Date: 2009/03/19 10:20:44, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Mar. 19 2009,10:04)
that is a beautiful example (pendulum) of the fallacy inherent in this IDiocy that sees teleology behind every quivering leaf (and livering queef).  

too bad none of the tards can seem to grasp this concept, and i fully expect gatekeepers (much like a sphincter) to expel this comment.  

What If one of the tards suddenly understood the point behind all this probability bound nonsense?  I wonder what would happen.

it would be spectacular to see that on UD.  It would take some dedicated sock puppeting, beginning with lots of jesus dripping and dirping, followed by a long homeostatic period of yammering on about how to perform design detection, followed by a Saul of Tarsus on the road to Damascus Malthusian insight like moment which precipitated a full renunciation of all that is dumb about ID.  this would probably best be accomplished under what a friend elsewhere calls "Radical Agnosticism", only in this case specifically about teleological inferences.  I suppose this narrative would necessarily take a couple of months, and some dedicated puppetry, but it would indeed be fascinating to watch and I wonder what the effect would be on the shared brain hive mind of tard?

Pendulum is just doing to Bignum arguments what others have done for years to hydroplate theory in another corner of creationism. Cdk007's youtube videos, for example. "If I take your idea seriously, what are the other implications, besides the one you want to highlight."

Date: 2009/03/19 11:41:15, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Valaquesse is no longer with them, and Clive has discovered how to operate the Loudspeaker In The Ceiling.

Date: 2009/03/19 11:48:10, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Freelurker @ Mar. 19 2009,12:35)
Quote (dvunkannon @ Mar. 18 2009,15:57)
Some Id-ists have trouble understanding why abstractions like GA/EC are relevant - ie. but it ain't wet! An important point for these folks (and others) is that GA isn't a model of evolution, it _IS_ evolution.

This is true in one sense, but let's not lose the distinction between genetic optimization algorithms and simulations of biological evolution.

It seems to me that Dembski makes mischief in just this way. All this criticism of modelers "sneaking in" information just isn't relevant to simulation models. The entire model, every bit of it, came from the modeler. The real issue is the fidelity of the model; does it match reality sufficiently to justify any conclusions one makes based on the model.

I agree. There are folks who deny evolution can exist at all, and there are those who deny what biology does is evolution.

Date: 2009/03/19 11:51:45, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Mar. 19 2009,12:09)
Quote (dvunkannon @ Mar. 19 2009,10:20)
 
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Mar. 19 2009,10:04)
that is a beautiful example (pendulum) of the fallacy inherent in this IDiocy that sees teleology behind every quivering leaf (and livering queef).  

too bad none of the tards can seem to grasp this concept, and i fully expect gatekeepers (much like a sphincter) to expel this comment.  

What If one of the tards suddenly understood the point behind all this probability bound nonsense?  I wonder what would happen.

it would be spectacular to see that on UD.  It would take some dedicated sock puppeting, beginning with lots of jesus dripping and dirping, followed by a long homeostatic period of yammering on about how to perform design detection, followed by a Saul of Tarsus on the road to Damascus Malthusian insight like moment which precipitated a full renunciation of all that is dumb about ID.  this would probably best be accomplished under what a friend elsewhere calls "Radical Agnosticism", only in this case specifically about teleological inferences.  I suppose this narrative would necessarily take a couple of months, and some dedicated puppetry, but it would indeed be fascinating to watch and I wonder what the effect would be on the shared brain hive mind of tard?

Pendulum is just doing to Bignum arguments what others have done for years to hydroplate theory in another corner of creationism. Cdk007's youtube videos, for example. "If I take your idea seriously, what are the other implications, besides the one you want to highlight."

so which one of our long standing deep cover sock puppets is going to see the light?

if anyone has a puppet to burn this might be very entertaining.  i haven't socked there in a while, it is much more satisfying just to skim the tasty parts and report.  i have Tard Lung, which is severely debilitating and that environment is potentially lethal.  But I am an argumentative bastard anyway.  

any deep cover operative who has toed the ID line until this point, now would be the time to have an Aha moment and say "I get the point behind this criticism of the UPB!  I still believe in Jesus, but I realize that these arguments are based upon spurious calculations and unrealistic hidden assumptions".  

Then we laugh.  over and over.

I nominate El Gordo of TKI. He's almost out of steam. Whoever is running kairosfocus, PM 'Ras for further instructions.

Date: 2009/03/19 11:57:05, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Remember how Scooter used to drop references to "a private message board"? I wonder if he still has any privileges there.

Dave - this is your chance for payback! If you accidentally back up your collection of brilliant BarryA comments to /dev/internet, no one will blame you.

Date: 2009/03/19 14:14:49, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Scooter Redivivus!
Quote
It is very refreshing to read a well designed scientific article that backs ID 100%, and I am really looking forward to more of the same.
The Relationship Game that was descibed makes perfect sense and reminds me of a Corporal I once knew, but nv=ever got to know better.


Before it disappears...

Date: 2009/03/23 05:48:20, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (JLT @ Mar. 22 2009,10:43)
Quote (k.e.. @ Mar. 22 2009,02:51)
     
Quote (FrankH @ Mar. 22 2009,02:57)
[...]
Then there's the fire bombing of Dresden.  Where the USAA lit the city up during the day and the RAF continued at night.  OVer 200,000 people died there.  War is a nasty business but there are more than just "peace" as the alternative.

Subjugation and slavery are others.

I read somewhere that Dr J. Goebbels added a zero on the end of the death toll to make it look "better".

Might or might not be true, don't know and can't be bothered finding out.

Why?

Death toll figures released during war take on  Orwellian baggage and even long after it can be almost impossible to get an actual “true” figure.*
[...]
If the Dresden figure was produced by the propaganda ministry you can guarantee that it's false.
[...]

k.e. is right. The 200 000 deaths figure is wrong.

Current research shows that a minimum of 18 000 people died, more likely are 20 000 to 25 000 deaths.

     
Quote
In the first few decades after the war, some death toll estimates were as high as 250,000. However, figures in the regions of hundreds of thousands are considered disproportionate.[8] Today's historians estimate a death toll of between 24,000 and 40,000,[3] with an independent investigation commissioned by the city itself stated that around 18,000 victims had been identified and that the estimated total number of fatalities was around 25,000.[9][10]

[Bombing of Dresden in WWII]

It was certainly a lot of propaganda involved in producing the very high numbers; first the Nazis wanted to demonise the Allies (some Neo-Nazi groups still claim up to 500 000 died in Dresden).
The GDR government wasn't interested in establishing the real numbers, either. During the cold war they claimed that the Allies unnecessarily destroyed Dresden (and other parts of Eastern Germany) because they didn't want to leave it to the USSR and exaggerated both the death toll and the degree of destruction.

It was (and is) difficult to determine the actual death toll because no one really knows how many people were living in Dresden at that time. A lot of people had fled because of shortage of food and fear of bombardments, many children were sent to rural parts of Germany for protection ("Landverschickung"), and most of the male inhabitants were soldiers i.e. not in Dresden at the time of the bombing. But there were also a lot of refugees and wounded soldiers in Dresden (up to 85 000 in the inner city). It's possible that some of the dead were never found, either because they were completely burned or they were buried under too much rubble. IIRC more than 1 900 bodies were found during construction work in Dresden between 1945-1970.

But even with these uncertainties it's very unlikely that the death toll is substantially higher than 25 000, let alone as high as 200 000.

I'm five pages behind in reading this thread, sorry if this is now considered off topic.

The docent at the Edo-Tokyo Museum quoted a figure of 250,000 deaths in the firebombing of Tokyo (an event he survived as a child). It's easy to believe, given the entire city was made of wood and paper houses.

I couldn't go to the Hiroshima Museum, where some of the docents are also survivors. After standing at Ground Zero (the original), looking at the paper cranes festooning the Children's Memorial, and ringing the Peace Bell, it was just too much for me.

I hate to say it, but in the case of Hiroshima, the "shock and awe" probably did save lives. How terrible to be forced to think in those terms.

Date: 2009/03/24 19:29:27, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Zachriel @ Mar. 24 2009,18:34)
Quote (Zachriel @ Mar. 24 2009,10:31)
 
Quote
Atom: It was actually easier to write Partitioned Search than it was to write the Proximity Reward Search (non-latching Weasel.) The latter required arrays of offspring, more user interface components, functions for mutating strings, and of course a fitness function.

Dawkin's Weasel doesn't require an array.

Just to make sure I'm implementing Weasel correctly.

Quote
Weasel:
1.Use a set of characters that includes the upper case alphabet and a space.
2.Initialize a population of n 28-character strings with random assignments of characters from our character set.
3.Identify the string closest to the target string in the population.
4.If a string matches the target, terminate.
5.Base a new generation population of size n upon copies of the closest matching string, where each position has a chance of randomly mutating, based upon a set mutation rate.
6.Go to step 3.

The mother produces a set number of children and the fittest child is selected to become the new mother for the next generation. If this is correct, then we do not need an array. The mother births each child in turn, compares it to the previous child and discards the least fit.

I agree with your description. The UD post that characterised Weasel as ES, specifically (1, lambda)-ES, also means you don't need an array for the next generation, you just need to keep the current best.

Date: 2009/03/25 15:00:27, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 25 2009,14:59)
Dembski gives props to Granny Spice:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-309766

Quote
3

William Dembski

03/25/2009

1:43 pm
Thanks Denyse for posting this. I recently saw the conventional cant about Gage recycled by Patrick Grim for some Teaching Company lectures on philosophy of mind.

B. L. Harville: Please elaborate. Phineas Gage is the most well known case of what? Fundamental change in personality and moral outlook? That’s precisely the point in question. Have other people’s personalities fundamentally changed through brain injury? That may be, but please provide some case studies.

In any case, the burden on the materialist is to show that mind is nothing but brain and therefore injury to brain injures the mind. For the dualist to challenge this it is enough to exhibit a counterexample, not that brain injury never affects personality.

What's the counter example, a mind injury that doesn't affect the brain?

I thought G-Spice was paid to write for UD, so cause and effect are a bit backwards here.

Date: 2009/03/25 18:49:34, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 18 2009,12:24)
Can you derive an optimal mutation rate?

Start with an optimal population size. Goldberg's research suggests  N= 1.4L, where L is the length of the problem description (and therefore the population members) in bits. That is a good bit higher than the commonplace 50.

Date: 2009/03/25 20:09:43, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 25 2009,19:59)
I get N=178 for that. Is that what you get?

Yeah, I guessed 27 log 2 was around 4.5 so I got 177.

Date: 2009/03/26 09:22:19, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (dvunkannon @ Mar. 25 2009,21:09)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 25 2009,19:59)
I get N=178 for that. Is that what you get?

Yeah, I guessed 27 log 2 was around 4.5 so I got 177.

I should mention that most of Goldberg's research is in GAs using only a selection operator and a recombination operator, no mutation. This despite publishing papers (see the "Ready to Rumble" series) that show mutation is the more efficient operator in some broad classes of problems.

Since Weasel is really a (1,n)-ES, not a selectorecombinative GA, that population sizing heuristic might not be completely appropriate. But I don't know of other work with as firm a footing.

Date: 2009/03/26 09:27:54, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (slpage @ Mar. 26 2009,10:10)
Quote (Bob O'H @ Mar. 26 2009,02:55)
Oh dear.  Clive is annoyed  
Quote
10

Clive Hayden

03/25/2009

5:20 pm

Allen,

“And, more importantly, one should wonder why ReMine’s amazing ‘theory’ can only be read about in his vanity press book? Why has he not written up manuscripts to be critiqued by his fellow scientists? The answer? Creationists prefer writing in a medium wherein they receive only praise from like-minded individuals, such as “John Woodmorappe”, not where those that know better would demolish his flimsy, evidence-less claims.

This book belongs on the scrap heap of egomaniacal creationist rants.”

Prove it. I know you quoted it, but if you endorse it, then prove this charge if you maintain that it is true. Otherwise, you are getting personal and invoking a self-styled motive to paint Remine and all other Creationists with a wide brush. If you cannot prove this charge, then this quote of yours belongs in the scrap heap of ego-maniacal evolutionist rants. And that is exactly where it will go if you cannot prove it.


So Pendulum swings into action
 
Quote
11

Pendulum

03/25/2009

6:19 pm

Clive, please don’t apply this standard even-handedly. If bornagain77 has to prove genetic entropy every time he quotes Sanford, we’ll be here forever! Just ask Allen if he read the frickin’ book, and if he says no, delete the comment.

Which does bring us back to the issue of blog entry as advertising tease. If Message Theory doesn’t put in a timely appearance, we should all ask for these posts to be filed in the Memory Hole. My 2d.

Oh - Alan quoted my ReMine review!  I'm all aflutter...

Many props to you for reading it.

Is there a research library of "literature" like this? Somewhere scholars can access the original sources without paying loons like ReMine?

Date: 2009/03/26 12:16:41, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Dembski's latest, an essay on computational vs biological evolution. This should be great... Though I have a feeling this essay will never see the light of day, it's just a conversational gambit.

Avida, ev, and Tierra not faithful, MESA, Mutationworks, and mendel faithul to biology. What ever kind of dope they have at that bibble school, he's been smoking it.

MESA was written to attack Weasel, it is a OneMax GA with some bells and whistles. It works to well for Dembski to publish the results.

Mutationworks is a web page built to attack Dawkins and Weasel. With the wrong code for Weasel, 'natch. Turn the sound up, and you can hear the flatulence evolving.

Mendelsaccountant seems to be a serious attempt at the numerical simulation of population genetics, though I only read the one descriptive paper. Like MESA, I've never heard ID supporters referencing it, so the results may be too realistic to have propaganda value.

ETA to add link, yay edibuddon!

Date: 2009/03/26 12:37:03, Link
Author: dvunkannon
MutationFlatulence

Quote
At each of your mutation events he will change the letters he has not got right.


Carlson, I need a LOLcat. Weasel, ur doin it rong.

Date: 2009/03/26 15:58:43, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Bob O'H @ Mar. 26 2009,16:04)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 26 2009,13:17)
More ReMine:

http://scienceblogs.com/authority/2009/03/i_love_walter_remine.php

Err, OK.  So according to wMad, the only simulations that are like real evolution are the ones written by people who have staked their reputations on attacking evolution.

Dembski didn't say "like real evolution". He said "less than faithful" and "reasonably faithful". If the faith he talking about is the Southern Baptist faith, he's probably right.

Date: 2009/03/27 07:47:14, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Pendulum Channels Heddle
 
Quote
It concludes that this is not the case, however, without taking into account what does give life meaning for many people.

NASCAR!

All science so far...

Date: 2009/03/27 13:15:09, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (k.e.. @ Mar. 27 2009,13:55)
 
Quote (sparc @ Mar. 27 2009,20:41)
Maybe it due to my native language but I had to laugh when I saw that the first to comment after erectile dysfunction was introduced at UD is pendulum.

It's the same in English don't worry.

Dick to the Dawk to the Ph. D
Swing that shizzle
like a guided missle
takin down clowns of teh ID

-pendulum rap

Date: 2009/03/27 18:20:50, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Pendulum seems to have fallen on his, erm... sword. Last two comments are in the Phantom Zone. They went something like

to DLH -  
Quote
PSSI has 270 signatures? Only 2,662,055 to go in the AMA!


to David Kellogg -  
Quote
Yes, "implicit latching" started as simply avoidance behavior, but it was such a gem of tiki bar science vocaulary that I wanted to save it, and it fit perfectly into the bug/feature analogy.

Date: 2009/03/27 23:40:53, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 27 2009,14:28)
But wouldn't recombination by itself continually reduce the amount of diversity in the gene pool, and eventually producing a deficit of it?

Henry

Yes, recombination and selection lead to convergence, hopefully on the correct allele. Goldberg's Design of innovation is a great resource on these issues in GAs.

Date: 2009/03/29 07:51:59, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (sparc @ Mar. 28 2009,23:50)
Quote
121
scordova
03/28/2009
7:25 pm

Thanks to all for commenting.

I regret to inform you all that UD has just been subjected to a very large SPAM attack since this moring. The volume of the attack is so large that it is possible some of your comments might get deleted accidentally as we try to deal with the problem.

At this point, I’m afraid I’m going to have to sign off monitoring the SPAM and moderation queues for the time being.

As a result, you can keep trying to comment, but I cannot guarantee that the comments will get through.

Thanks again to everyone who participated in this discussion.

For most of us here this will not make much of a difference.

My pendulous comments still go straight to hell, nothing has changed. Time to activate Pudenda, Pendulum's evil twin sister.

Date: 2009/03/29 08:24:31, Link
Author: dvunkannon
In the past, I've worked with the ECJ package from Sean Luke's group at George Mason University. It has support for (mu, lamda)-ES built in. I might have time to build a weasel in ECJ. I think it might be a matter of setting up the parameter file right, all the code is already there.

Date: 2009/03/29 08:45:23, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Not specifically Weasel...

I just read this paper on sexual selection in GA. I was thinking of trying to reproduce (ahem) some of the results. It seems the researchers made a bunch of changes to the standard GA, and I'd like to see which were responsible for the positive variations they report.

Date: 2009/03/30 13:55:34, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Fanboy moment - just had lunch with Wes! First time I've met someone from this forum in person.

Date: 2009/03/30 18:30:32, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 30 2009,17:25)
Censor Clive rejects common descent, dunno what a designer would do:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-310830

Quote
48

Clive Hayden

03/30/2009

4:16 pm
Skeech,

I reject common descent. Therefore the Designer isn’t denied his design in light of it. And I’m really skeptical of what we should “expect” from the Designer, as far as knowing what he would or wouldn’t do, which is what you’re implying, even though you say you’re not implying it. I’m not sure what you mean about literally millions of possible design schemes that do not produce the appearance of common descent, gradual change, and consistent phylogenies. What are just a few of these literal millions? Do you mean a design appearance that doesn’t show common descent? I think that’s what we have. Do you mean a design that doesn’t show gradual evolution? That’s exactly what we have too. Again, we cannot get into the motives of the Designer, which is what you do, even though you say you don’t. And again, by your scheme, the conclusion that there is no Designer would be wrong, even though he tried to hide himself.

I wonder if Clive, the Country Shrink, can explain nested hierarchies any better than FtK. It doesn't matter much what he "rejects" if it makes better predictions of reality than ... what? A completely unconstrained Designer? A Designer whose designs are as likely to look like white noise as they are the Mona Lisa?

ps - excellent discussion of neurotransmitters and their effect on the shape of the human mind by Tom Ray, here at the Computational Intelligence A-Life symposium. I wished Uncommonly Denyse was in the audience so I could have watched her head spin around and vomit pea soup.

Date: 2009/03/30 18:59:11, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Since comments are off for the Second Part of the Reyes/Calvert opus, I suppose I will have to make my comments here.





HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!11!!!!one


Of course, amino acids are completely independent in sequence - if they don't have to fold into anything meaningful. But if they are supposed to fold into functional proteins, then they are constrained by the physics and chemistry of those proteins.

Come on everybody, raise your hands if you think DNA assembled randomly in orbit around Russel's teapot, then fell gently to Earth to land in a warm pond.

(Comments off, like they knew the tard was too strong even for UD.)

Date: 2009/03/31 08:23:03, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 30 2009,19:53)
Quote (dvunkannon @ Mar. 30 2009,18:30)

ps - excellent discussion of neurotransmitters and their effect on the shape of the human mind by Tom Ray, here at the Computational Intelligence A-Life symposium. I wished Uncommonly Denyse was in the audience so I could have watched her head spin around and vomit pea soup.

Especially when Ray discussed the activation of the Histamine1 receptor system and its "extraordinary sexual enhancement".

I was thinking of his comments that the number of Serotonin-7 receptors in your brain determined how religiously susceptible you were - high, very, low, not ("like most of the people in this room" (laughter)).

Date: 2009/03/31 11:02:57, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (slpage @ Mar. 31 2009,11:45)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 31 2009,10:26)
Quote (slpage @ Mar. 31 2009,09:56)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 30 2009,14:17)
 
Quote (Jkrebs @ Mar. 30 2009,14:14)
Clive stands up to Davison:

   
Quote
No childish name calling will be tolerated here John. I’m serious. And secondly, the merits of the arguments stand or don’t stand on their own. You’re welcome to demand no anonymity on your own blog, you’re not welcome to demand it here as a prerequisite to commenting. Let this be a warning.

Link

Clive, part-time and very selective moderator.

Surely you've seen the sophistic and self-congratulatory gibberish that he and mynym spew on his blog....

Being a psychologist and all, how can his amazing powers of insight be wrong?

He has his *own* blog?

If he's country shrink....

http://www.intelldesign.com/

He is.

Date: 2009/04/01 09:50:18, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Hermagoras
Quote
The LOLN is about the difference between expected and actual values: as the trials increase, the difference between actual and expected results goes to zero.


What you need at this point in the conversation is a LOLN-Cat.



Coat. Week. Veal. Waitress.

Date: 2009/04/02 09:31:11, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Zachriel @ April 02 2009,10:21)
Quote
gpuccio: To simulate NS, as I have many times stated, no fitness function must be present. Fitness has to be true functional fitness, and must be sufficient to guarantee a reproductive advantage in the system “of its own”, and not because it is “recognized” by some pre-programmed function in the system.

I know of no simulation of NS.

Sorry, gpuccio. I can't tell from your nebulous language what would satisfy your objection. Obviously, we have to have existing replicators. And there has to be differential reproduction based on some criteria. That's what we mean by an evolutionary algorithm. Indeed, it seems it's a problem with your inabilty to abstract the problem.

But there are a variety of evolutionary algorithms that should satisfy your objection, e.g. Darwin's Pond. Well, most anyone else who looks.


I tried recommending A-Life to him, as well as ECHO, Sugarscape, etc. I think he would prefer ignorance at this point.

Date: 2009/04/02 10:16:53, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (GCUGreyArea @ April 02 2009,10:44)
Quote
[URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/pretending-that-darwinism-is-sophisticated-and-difficult-to-understand-science-in-order-to

-deflect-challenges-or-mickey-mouse-pretends-to-be-a-scientist/#comment-311094]jerry[/URL]: There is very little left of the original Darwinism. What is left is common descent and natural selection and natural selection is looked at as a weak force/process in that it cannot create anything new only select from what among what is currently available.

Quite right, natural selection doesn't create it filters, to generate novelty you need random mutation.  Selection then has something to work on.

Kind of proves Darwinism ain't a religion. Jerry, please remind yourself of this comment later.

Date: 2009/04/02 16:36:08, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Own goal by DLH, who triumphantly quotes Behe trying to slap down (as if) Eugene Koonin.
 
Quote
Old enigma? Old enigma? Who knew that evolving just a couple of interactive amino acid residues was a long-standing mystery? Someone should tell Carroll and Coyne….

Referring to: The look-ahead effect of phenotypic mutations Dion J Whitehead et al.


The Whitehead paper points out (with a GA!11!) how copy errors at the transcription and translation stages can allow neutral or even deleterious genotype mutations to ride along in a big enough population, until a second mutation comes along to make the pair of mutations advantageous. The phenotype fitness contains noise, instead of a pure and direct expression of the genotypic ideal fitness.

Believe it or not, this was an idea that Dembski set up MESA to test. Another lost opportunity to do good science.

Date: 2009/04/05 20:12:48, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Bijection Fail meets the Immovale Tard

This Abel paper is a complete hairball. Instead of DDrr.. Dembski's troika of law, chance, and design, Abel has created his own law, chance, and selection. But selection implies agency, therefore FSM did it.



Date: 2009/04/06 13:14:50, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Bob O'H @ April 06 2009,13:50)
Quote (Gunthernacus @ April 06 2009,12:17)
 
Quote (dnmlthr @ April 06 2009,12:20)
 
Quote (Maya @ April 06 2009,17:06)
   
Quote (Louis @ April 06 2009,10:04)
Oh no Maya, it would be oh so right!

Careful and responsible exercise of power is always appropriate. Using your Jedi powers to gain control of a website is fine, as long as it generates Teh Funneh.

Louis

Will you teach me to sashay?

Short skirt and batting your eye lashes won't work on CS geeks. You might have more luck with spock ears though.

Yep.  Forget the skirt, just go with the Spock's ears.  That's sashay on any planet - sashay with cachet!  Okay, okay, beam me, er, down Scotty.

Quite.  Not wearing a skirt would usually get attention.  Even from geeks.

As a CS geek, I always pay attention to women wearing nothing but spock ears.

Date: 2009/04/06 18:31:49, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Advocatus Diaboli @ April 06 2009,16:55)
Quote (Dr.GH @ April 06 2009,15:49)
   
Quote (dvunkannon @ April 06 2009,11:14)
As a CS geek, I always pay attention to women wearing nothing but spock ears.

Well, that perked up my ears.


Only ears?


Star Trek sure has changed since Kirk.

If you can sashay with that much cachet, you don't need to worry about holding a conversation, Maya!

Date: 2009/04/06 20:34:36, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Maya @ April 06 2009,19:53)
Quote (dvunkannon @ April 06 2009,18:31)
 
Quote (Advocatus Diaboli @ April 06 2009,16:55)
 
Quote (Dr.GH @ April 06 2009,15:49)
     
Quote (dvunkannon @ April 06 2009,11:14)
As a CS geek, I always pay attention to women wearing nothing but spock ears.

Well, that perked up my ears.


Only ears?


Star Trek sure has changed since Kirk.

If you can sashay with that much cachet, you don't need to worry about holding a conversation, Maya!

You just made me sprain my neck checking to see how my dimples compare!

ETA:  You boys are welcome for me finding an excuse to copy the picture again.

Don't hurt yourself, I volunteer to check for you.



(Begins looking for robe and wizard hat...)

Date: 2009/04/06 21:36:09, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Maya @ April 06 2009,21:51)
Quote (dvunkannon @ April 06 2009,20:34)
Don't hurt yourself, I volunteer to check for you.



(Begins looking for robe and wizard hat...)

Wow, you found something less sexy than Spock ears!

The Saga of Bloodninja is in the pantheon of geek humor. Or perhaps the Parthenon. It's the inverted mirror to the geek certainty that talking to girls is simply a painful method of assisted suicide.

So forget the spock ears. Just set your nipples to 'stun'...



[Bathroom Wall in 5... 4...]

Date: 2009/04/07 08:54:57, Link
Author: dvunkannon
ID Poetry Contest!
 
Quote
“existence is given”

Where is the evidence of that?

Existence just is.


This is a haiku
the way ID is science,
close but no cigar.

Date: 2009/04/07 16:42:58, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ April 07 2009,16:55)
you guys who are continuing to participate in the Shermer thread are gluttons for tard, that's all i know.  there is some seriously dumb conversation going on over there between stephen b and whoever he imagines is talking to him.

SteviewonBer needs to re-read Aquina's Treatise on General Relativity. He's really not keeping up his end of the conversation.

Date: 2009/04/07 18:51:13, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (JohnW @ April 07 2009,19:21)
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 07 2009,16:16)
http://www.uncommondescent.com/educati....-of-law

 
Quote
The Rembrandt of flash animation and I are working to enhance “The Judge Jones School of Law.” As a first step we have made the animation less offensive to more refined sensibilities. All the overt flatulence has therefore been removed. Go to www.overwhelmingevidence.com for the less objectional version of this animation (we are keeping the original, however, so that when the history of evolution’s demise is written, all versions of this animation will be available to historians).


Emphasis mine.

I wonder if he sits at night sipping his single malt that really belongs to someone else thinking 'why did I write that? What was I thinking?'

What an instrument of grace he is!

Dr Dr D plays a mean delete key.  As this is still up on UD for all to marvel at, I think we can conclude that the Isaac Newton of Farty Noises stands by his statement.

I missed both versions. Are they archived somewhere? I just went to OE and didn't see it in any obvious location.

Date: 2009/04/08 14:37:39, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Nakashima asks in amazement
Quote
What about French?

I'm pleased to announce that after 40 years, French is rejoining the Platonic universe shared by English, 'Merican, German, Italian, etc. Listening posts will remain in place in the Czech part of the space to defend against the possible launch of Farsi loan words into the NATO zone.

ps - what is TARD in French? Shermer should be alerted to the quality and quantity of TARD now associated with his name.
In other news, Nakamdead seems to have narrowly avoided falling into a CTA (Closed Timecube-like Argument) with SteviewonBer, which would have resulted in going back in time to kill Aquinas' grandfather. Seversky is under pseudo-ban for not being rude. Over 200 posts, and KF has not found a way to introduce Weasel into the conversation.

Date: 2009/04/08 14:47:18, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (J-Dog @ April 06 2009,12:55)
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 06 2009,10:22)
Privileged Planet? - notsomuch:


http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/23309/

Poor , poor ID :(

After all this time, they get expelled by an old friend - thermodynamics.

RIP Dr. Gonzales... Baya con Dios.

I thought they had gone back and done more sensitive analysis of Miller's results and found all 20 amino acids. This paper still says only 10.

Date: 2009/04/08 15:22:54, Link
Author: dvunkannon
4 cups of wine, matzah, roasted eggs, horseradish, bananas dipped in salt water - I chose my religion by looking at the menu!

Happy Passover, y'all!

Date: 2009/04/09 11:06:07, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Waiter, ther's a God in my sushi
Quote
Are these Damascus Road experiences different from what others report from eating mushrooms

Yes, Nakashima-san.

Quote
Mr Tribune7,

Where can I read about the differences?

He's going to be disappointed. The experiment was reported in a festschrift (posthumously published), but the sample size was low (N=1). I don't think that paper is out of peer review yet.

Date: 2009/04/09 11:07:29, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 09 2009,12:03)
I just sent off corrections on the page proofs for my second peer-reviewed paper on "intelligent design" creationism issues. I don't know how long it will take the journal issue to get printed, but I will note then when it happens.

Just as long as it comes out before the Dembski and Marks papers!

Date: 2009/04/10 10:43:50, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (k.e.. @ April 10 2009,10:59)
Quote
Fear not! Some denizens of AtBC were worried that their supply of TARD would dry up once DaveScot was no longer in power at Uncommon Descent. In fact, as strange as it may seem, DaveScot was a moderating influence.


I MODERATED THE CRAP OUT OUT OF THOSE HOMOS

HAHAHAHAHAHA I KILL ME SOMETIMES d.t.

Banninating Scooter was like pulling the rods out of the reactor at Chernobyl.

However, there are three semi-rational discussions going on right now, SteviewonBer is self medicating to treat his rudeness, excessive rudeness by JAD is being ignored or ridiculed, several complaints about moderation lags have quieted. DenseO'L is being ignored. Fuller is ignored. Idnet.au is ignored.

Is it Holy Week, or is it just springtime?

or is it ... Satan!

Date: 2009/04/10 23:27:32, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Hermagoras @ April 10 2009,18:53)
Nakashimi seems like a new species of sock: I'll call this the "naive exotic."  Someone with better Latin can come up with the precise term.

Nakashimi-san reminds me of Araki Yasusada.

The hazel, David Kellogg, Nakashima troika seem to be taming SteviewonBer's savage impulses, all the while beating him around the head with his own philosophy. That thread has seen a number of chances for Clive moderate the conversation into a safer place, but I think they are so happy to discuss metaphysics, they want it to go on. Thank FSM there is no KF on that thread.

Date: 2009/04/12 08:34:31, Link
Author: dvunkannon
The weird thing is that JAD can be tempted into a serious discussion. It's just that there's always a Schindewolf at the door, waiting to derail him into monomania again.

When do you think JAD stopped reading the literature?

Date: 2009/04/12 08:46:37, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Bob O'H @ April 12 2009,02:28)
I missed this last night from wMad:
   
Quote
Oh, but it was a small population, small genomes, and intense selection pressure. Spare me.

Small population?  In a bacteriophage?  Dude, have you any idea what a phage is?

The paper has these explanations for the results:
   
Quote
Three properties of the design may have led to the high rate of convergence, all of which are atypical of what is thought to apply to most organisms:
1. Replicate lineages were exposed to nearly identical selective environments.
2. Strong, mass selection was operating on very large populations.
3. The replicate lineages started with virtually identical genomes.
(emphasis added)

C'mon Bill.  At least read the paper you're sneering at.

Spare me the selective hyperskepticism! Onlookers, it is clear that DDrr.. Dembski meant that phages are really, really teeny tiny small++ bastards. The correct null hypothesis should have been Anagram Neutral Search in shegap space.

Date: 2009/04/13 10:52:55, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Lowell @ April 13 2009,10:38)
Quote
I stay away from philosophy because it takes too much effort to understand and has always been too squishy for me. Though I love Plato and Socrates.


Plato and Socrates? Could someone please tell me where I can find the collected writings of Socrates? Been looking for it forever!

Of course Play-doh is squishy. That's why kids love it!


Psst! Carlson! needz ur mad PShop skillz...

Date: 2009/04/13 14:09:26, Link
Author: dvunkannon
AmeriKanInKansaskis smites his enemies with the jawbone of a TARD

So, do we still think this guy is DS? He just called DDrr.. Dembski 'juvenile'.

Date: 2009/04/15 13:50:30, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Bob O'H @ April 15 2009,13:28)
Don't feel too bad, Hermagoras.  Nakashima has also succumbed to the snark...
 
Quote
530

Nakashima

04/15/2009

10:51 am

Please, let us avoid ad hominem statements. Mr StephenB has already admitted he has a private definition of rationality. No one should take offense if it doesn’t include them.

Nakashima is just angling for the position of thread-nanny. Clive is no longer a moderator on that thread, he's a participant. After all the kissy face over the Easter weekend, I think it's grating on SteviewonBer that his opponents have not yet converted. And as much as he blew kisses to VJ for polishing the TARD, he's really not comfortable arguing via formal logic.

Date: 2009/04/16 17:33:20, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Hermagoras @ April 16 2009,18:02)
Quote (Hermagoras @ April 16 2009,17:02)
Rant unsuitable for UD:
   
Quote
What is the fucking use of honesty with you people?  Lewis and Chesterton.  Romans 1 and Psalm 19.  For fuck's sake, I'm a grown man and a scholar.  I didn't ask for a damn reading list.

To clarify: I didn't even try to post this there.  I just needed a place to vent.

Nakashima Awards DK The Badge of Courage
with Bronze Cluster for resisting snark in the face of overwhelming temptation.

Date: 2009/04/16 23:22:15, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Clive,

From reading the Shermer thread, it's obvious your reading along here in close to real time.

First, congrats on how you are handling that thread. Tempers have flared on both sides, but you've let participants iron out their differences.

Second, congrats on continuing to read here, even though a lot of crap has been flung your way for places where you haven't been as successful.

Given the above, why not cobble up a user name and join the conversation here as well? I think it would raise a lot of people's respect for you, and for UD. There are lots of people here that would prefer talking with you to ranting/teasing a lurker. Even Louis will be nice, once you say the dress doesn't make him look fat.

Date: 2009/04/16 23:44:18, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (sparc @ April 17 2009,00:25)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 16 2009,12:29)

Contour plot of the 5 runs per data point dataset for proportion of losses visible in summary output.

Hopefully KF will comment on the couple of copulating  adult rabbits near the X-axis between 250 and 410 and their offspring between 50 and 80 and 125 and 180. Presumably they formed due to some latching.

By the mass, and 't is like a rabbit, indeed.

Date: 2009/04/17 12:19:46, Link
Author: dvunkannon
I think Nakashima has just been silently banninated, either for saying StephenB is living in an intellectual time warp (on the Shermer thread), or for pushing GilDodgen about human competitve algorithms (on the Texas thread).

Bummer, considering all the nice things I just said about Clive.

I'll try again over the weekend to log back in over there, but very low hopes of success.

Date: 2009/04/17 14:12:46, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (J-Dog @ April 17 2009,13:24)
Quote (dvunkannon @ April 17 2009,12:19)
I think Nakashima has just been silently banninated, either for saying StephenB is living in an intellectual time warp (on the Shermer thread), or for pushing GilDodgen about human competitve algorithms (on the Texas thread).

Bummer, considering all the nice things I just said about Clive.

I'll try again over the weekend to log back in over there, but very low hopes of success.

You might be ok, as long as you didn't comment about Gil's Frilly Shirt Love...

I may have spoken too soon, Nakashima is back online.

Clive, if it was you, thanks!

Date: 2009/04/18 16:12:49, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (olegt @ April 18 2009,13:38)
TARD is strong with this one.  StephenB attempts a refutation:  
Quote
Possible Objections:

—” The universe is uncaused”

That is thinkable only if we abandon the principle of causality, in which case our discourse would mean nothing. Anyway, in spite of your splendid role as Devil’s advocate, (and outstanding source for feedback) I am sure that you don’t mean that objection seriously.

I am sure someone has already pointed out to him that statements of causality require the antecedent to precede the consequent in time (Causality @ Wikipedia) and that as far as we know, space and time "began" with the Big Bang.  So it makes no sense of speaking about a cause that precedes the Universe.  Causality indeed fails.

Here is an essay by Paul Davies What Happened Before the Big Bang? on the subject.

I think that is where Nakashima started his contribution several hundred posts earlier.

Date: 2009/04/18 18:00:17, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (olegt @ April 18 2009,17:23)
dvunkannon,

Nakashima is awesum.

Nakashima raises his sake cup in response, sir. You are too kind.

And if anyone would like to respond seriously to N-san's thoughts on macro-evolution on the Texas Chainsaw School Board thread, he would be honored.

ink-lay
 
Quote
Mr Jerry,

I am also very interested in discussing macro-evolution. However, I think it would be more useful to avoid confrontation and hyperbole to advance that discussion.

Here are some of my initial thoughts on the subject. I freely admit that I have not thought about this subject as long as some others, and certainly don’t know the literature completely.

The operators of micro-evolution, i.e. variation, selection, time, and scarcity, are insufficient to explain the diversity of life. To explain this diversity we must appeal to other historical and ecological concepts, and see how they push or pull the micro-evolutionary engine in certain directions.

Part of the historical context includes
- the distance of the earth from the sun
- changing solar radiation
- plate tectonics
- axial tilt
- existence of the moon (tides)

I believe the last three are very important to understanding macro-evolution. What this adds to micro-evolution is a distribution in space as well as time, and a dynamism to that distribution which helps keep life from falling into a stable equilibrium.

The other major context is ecology, the recognition that other life forms a significant part of the environment.
- competitors for resources
- source of energy and organic chemicals
- source of information
- source of niche (Co-evolution)

Even more than the dynamic physical environment, the dynamic ecological environment drove macro-evolution.

In outline, these are the things that I think have operated historically, and operate today, to drive macro-evolution. To these could be added very basic issues of physics such as the cube square law and the properties of materials that form fundamental constraints on variation.

Micro-evolution itself does not predict the tension between reproductive success from isolation (not having to share resources) and reporductive success from closeness (neighbors are resources). In our world, the balance is tipped towards success from closeness, which has led to biofilms, bacterial signalliing, the evolution of predation, arms races, and cooperation, the preference for self similarty, sex, and multi-cellularity, symbiosis and parasitism.

So that is my thesis, that the engine of micro-evolution, combined with physical and ecological dynamism over long periods of time, is sufficient to explain the level of biodiversity that exists today and the pattern of biodiversity shown in the fossil record.

I would be happy to discuss it further with you.

Date: 2009/04/18 19:11:47, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (KCdgw @ April 18 2009,19:22)
Is Mr Nakashima on moderation? Dave Wisker (me) is all of the time. Frakking annoying.

KC

No, Nakashima hasn't been on moderation since his first post, if he remembers correctly. That was on Denyse's earthquake thread.

Date: 2009/04/19 10:12:52, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (J-Dog @ April 19 2009,10:56)
* Please accept my apologies for putting O'Dreary and drawers in the same paragraph.  I hope your appetite returns soon.

I'm still on a gastric feeding tube since that O'leary On The Half Shell image.

For the love of FSM, don't repost it! Bring back T'Pol as a stand in!

Date: 2009/04/19 10:27:42, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Jerry
Quote
By the way there is a similar program going on by those in favor of a naturalistic process to show that mutations along with other genomic processes can produce useful proteins.


jerry you magnificent bastard, PM me. Your last deaddrop has been compromised, and you need to re-establish a link to your control. The money cannot be delivered until then. Don't tell this to anyone in your network. Especially Joseph.

Date: 2009/04/19 17:06:28, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (midwifetoad @ April 19 2009,17:45)
Quote
It seems unreasonable to me that the non-criminal (?) Eusebius Actron could have a serious action for libel in such a case. He refused to acknowledge that he is not the convicted bank robber, which is all the journalist wanted to know in the first place. And his behaviour led the journalist to reasonably assume that he was.
Annie Oakley won something like 54 out of 55 libel suits based on that kind of reporting. Hearst said she was arrested for drug possession, but it was a case of mistaken identity.

The bad news is she barely broke even after legal expenses.

I think the case would be "defamation per se" in most US courts. If they don't teach you this in journalism school, major media must teach it in on-the-job courses.

Date: 2009/04/21 20:38:27, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Nakashima tries poking it with a stick
Quote
I’m sorry, but I’m having trouble working out the logic. See my comment 23. Do you have any suggestions?


Barry should really know better than to rely on KF for OP material. Godwin fail in the OP, that is embarassing.

Date: 2009/04/22 12:03:33, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (k.e.. @ April 22 2009,10:42)
"This site (UD) is devoted to the search for truth through argumentum ad nausium."

Nausium being one of those newly discovered super-heavy elements with reality altering properties.

Date: 2009/04/22 17:27:34, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Nakashima wants SARDINEs
Quote
How do discoveries such as this affect the standard argument re design in natural environments?


Perhaps Joseph can explain to him how Tiktaalik is really a SARDINE.

Date: 2009/04/23 11:59:02, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 23 2009,12:39)
Barry A gets smug, posits faulty premises and then argues to consequences:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....is-true

Quote
23 April 2009
Materialist Concede that Holocaust was Permitted if Materialism is True
Barry Arrington
In my “Bleak Conclusions” post I quoted kairosfocus who was in turn quoting Hawthorne for the following:

Assume:
(1) That atheistic naturalism is true.
(2) One can’t infer an “ought” from an “is.”

If these two things are true, nothing exists from which we can infer any moral principle. If moral principles cannot be inferred, nothing is prohibited by any moral principle and therefore all things are permitted. This leads to the conclusion that the Holocaust was permitted.

I asked our materialist friends to explain to me how, if their premises are true, they can avoid the conclusion that the Holocaust was permitted.

The nearly 300 comments boil down to indignation mixed with the childhood rejoinder – “Oh yeah, same to ya.”

No one, not a single person, has attempted to rebut the conclusion. Therefore, we must conclude that there is no rebuttal. The materialists are silent; they cannot speak. They must concede that their premises lead to the conclusion that the Holocaust was not prohibited by any moral principle of which we can be certain. How very sad.

I am not giving up though. The comment thread to the post is still open. If any materialist has an answer, there is still time to post it.

All the while shouting "La La La I can't hear you" at Nakashima, MacNeil, etc.

His premises are fine. It's the conclusion that is TARD.

(Filed under Intelligent Design)

Date: 2009/04/23 12:32:15, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Nakashima searches for truth.
Quote
Yes, I must have missed those detailed and quantitative discussion of calculating FCSI and or calculating FSCI.If you can provide links I will try to catch up.


Sorry, Nakashima, UD specializes in calculating CSI (Childish Scathing Invective) and CFSI (Completely Facetious Snarky Innuendo) but ony the results are published, not the intermediate steps.

Date: 2009/04/23 16:43:22, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (midwifetoad @ April 23 2009,16:45)
Quote
CREATIONIST FORM LETTER

Dear Charles,

I’m a
[] longtime poster with 0-3 comments since January 2008
[] longtime lurker
[] sockpuppet

who just read your post on
[] that fossil disproving another talking point
[] a speech by: [] Hitchens [] PZ Myers [] Dawkins [] the Pope
[] a picture from the Hubble
[] a Discovery Institute “senior fellow” saying something dumb
[] some politician stepping on his dick
[] Bobby Jindal

and I am feeling
[] upset
[] saddened
[] betrayed, befuddled, bewildered
[] so angry I could spit

I am not a creationist. I have a degree in
[] biochemistry
[] something
[] science
[] *mumble*

and according to the noted scientist
[] Michael Behe
[] Phillip Johnson
[] Ron Paul

there are too many unanswered questions. What about
[] the bacterial flagellum?
[] no transitional fossils?
[] Darwin’s NAZISM!

Huh? I’m just saying we can’t know everything. In conclusion
[] you’re doomed to burn in eternal torment
[] I’ll be praying for you
[] Just sayin’
[] Please delete my account

Best regards,
[your signature here]

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/33451_Creationist_Clip_n_Save

From the comments to that post:
Quote

1. Pump-action fake.
"This is boring / unimportant. / What is this? / Let’s talk about Islam!"
Counterplay: Nice try buster. Go get your own blog.

2. The fake handoff.
"Stop bashing Christians / conservatives!"
Counterplay: Millions of conservative Christians around the world, including the Pope, accept the facts of evolution. Which cult are you in?

3. The screen.
"You cannot prove life sprang from nothing. / They haven’t recreated life in a lab!"
Counterplay: Wrong argument (again and again). You are talking about biogenesis. The facts of evolution do not explain how life came into existence in the beginning, so scientists do not even try to explain it (though some do have atheist hypothesis). This is exactly why Christians accept the facts of evolution as well as God being the creator.

4. The run and shoot.
"Irreducible complexity! / Cambrian Explosion! / Transitional forms! / Other canard!"
Counterplay: Easily blitzed (they are all directly quoted from Deception Institute websites), and Charles / Sal / Sharmuta have the links where they have been destroyed. The purpose here is not to convince any lizards (far too thorough!), but just to repeat the lies often enough perhaps to sow some confusion in occasional, less-well-informed readers. It can be a lengthy process as they ignore each refutation and just leap into the next lie, with getting the last word in as the objective, so we can just wait for Sal. Or use Ludwig's hammer.

5. The retreat.
"Ok, adaptation occurs but not speciation!"
Counterplay: Stop laughing first, then ask where they learnt about species. This stance involves an imaginary invisible line where evolution suddenly halts. The finches are enough refutation, but now we can reproduce speciation, and watch it in real time, with e-coli. Ask the creationist: What would you call a fish? A lizard with gills, or a fish?

6. The Hail Mary Bomb.
"Jesus said blah blah blah..."
Counterplay: Dogmatic literalism is the easiest to counter: "Jesus said, 'with God, all things are possible.'"

7. The punt.
"You are evil / agree with Hitler if you believe in evolution."
Counterplay: GAZE

8. The self-destruct.
"Well I can’t see any good evidence for evolution, so you must all be crazy and believe in it like a religion!" (No further argument offered)
Counterplay: Go on, you believe the Flintstones is real, right? (You can have fun at this stage)

9. The white flag.
"I'm not a creationist."
Counterplay: Well, you must be happy now that we have pointed out how you say and believe exactly the same lies, so you can accept the facts of evolution now.

10. The utter surrender.
"Well, I have to go take the giraffe for a walk now (etc)."
Counterplay: You win. Reset for the next evolution thread.

Two new plays observed!

11. The honest run down the middle.
"Yes, it's all a load of rubbish, but let's teach it to the kids anyway and let them decide."
Counterplay: There is so much wrong with this it is hard to know where to begin. How can someone advocate knowingly teaching falsehoods to kids? Ask the creationist: How about we also teach an alternative history in which we lost WWII? Let the kids decide!

12. Can we play baseball instead?
"It's no use fighting against creationists, it only helps their cause!"
Counterplay: I make it a personal extension of Godwin's law not to compare people to islamist fascists, but this is so eerily similar to the rhetoric moonbats use to condemn Israeli attacks on Hamas it is hard to ignore.



Barrogant is currently holding at 7.

Date: 2009/04/23 23:00:05, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (carlsonjok @ April 23 2009,22:06)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,April 23 2009,19:36)
stephenB  hahaha
 
Quote
I have read the post, Mr. Nakashima, and I find no argument there. What I found was a symbolic representation of someone else’s argument. I don’t know what kind of inter-cultural language challenges you may be facing, but if you can bridge that gap long enough to present your case in written prose, it will help a great deal.


what an ass.  

Shorter StephenB:  Stop talking like a furrner!

Isn't this the same StephenB that was committing a few days ago to be more civil?

Shorter StephenB: I can't read symbolic logic and prefer to obfuscate in English.

Onlookers that are not oil soaked hyperskeptical hominids will have noticed that Vjtorley, who introduced symbolic logic into that other TARDmine about the cosmological argument, has assiduously avoided commenting on Nakashima's comment 23.

BTW, this afternoon I saw an ad for a Ford hybrid in the ad space at UD. I think the chief result, and perhaps purpose, of these incredibly off topic threads has been to up the page views and earn more money. But according to Alexa, UD is down seriously over the last 3 months. Bring back DS!

Date: 2009/04/24 07:07:19, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (CeilingCat @ April 24 2009,02:18)
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 23 2009,23:55)
From UD:

http://nature.ca/puijila/pr_tm_e.cfm#nr

and a babe, too!

Marisa Gilbert and Elizabeth Ross aren't bad either.  

We should have a Babes of Science vs Babes of UD competition.  We get Natalia, Marisa and Elizabeth.  UD gets ... 'scuse me, I suddenly don't feel too good.

Aetiology

Tara Smith still gets my vote.

Date: 2009/04/24 10:09:33, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 24 2009,10:31)
Oh, I've was at a dinner with Tara Smith - Modeling's loss is biology's gain.

Grrr, no wonder you made fun of me for boasting of having lunch with Wes.

Help me out here. If the assault on science was a movie, how should it be cast?

Tara Smith - Angelina Jolie
PZ Myers - Rick Moranis

Casey Luskin - Dr Phil
JAD - Christopher Lloyd
KF - Idi Amin

Date: 2009/04/24 11:52:50, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Does anyone have the Tao comment by Allen MacNeil that Barrogant obliviated?

Date: 2009/04/24 13:05:29, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Titanium Infused Spider SIlk

Sometimes I read something like this, and I think Kurzweil is right, the Singularity is around the corner. Other times, I just giggle about living in the future.

Date: 2009/04/24 13:54:25, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Allen's Obliviated Post
 
Quote
"The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.
The name that can be named is not the eternal name.
The nameless is the beginning of heaven and earth.
The named is the mother of ten thousand things.
Ever desireless, one can see the mystery.
Ever desiring, one can see the manifestations.
These two spring from the same source but differ in name;
this appears as darkness.
Darkness within darkness.
The gate to all mystery.

- Lao Tze
The Tao Te Ching (The Way and Its Power)
600 B.C. (approx)
- translation by Gia-Fu Feng
and Jane English/1972

plus an alternative version:

The Way of Liberation is not limited
The Way of Liberation has no boundaries
Everyone and everything everywhere
Resonate within it endlessly

The Way of Liberation cannot be named
The Way of Liberation cannot even be described
It is always eternally ever-present
But it cannot be taken by deception or force

The only entrance to the Way of Liberation
Is through That Which Is
Surrender to That Which Is
And you shall be set free! "


I'm not seeing what Barrogant's big problem was. Anyone who can handle Genesis 1 or the start of the Gospel of John should be able to grok this.

It's a pity the thread is closed. Nakashima told me he intended to post the text with one small addition.
 
Quote
ps - I am Spartacus!


ETA - thx Hazel for the text

Date: 2009/04/24 23:19:45, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Am I wrong, or did Gil Dodgen's latest piece on AI, LS-DYNA, cartoons, and simulation just vaporize after about 3 hours? It's not on the top of the UD home page, and the Google link to it goes somewhere broken.

Date: 2009/04/25 09:05:28, Link
Author: dvunkannon
KF Own Goal

Barrogant and El Gordo of Tiki are a great combination for TARD production. Please continue working together. Here are some suggested topics you might want to consider in the future.

Darwin: Holocaust Implicitly Latched By My Book (with help from Uncommonly Dense)
Dawkinsian Hyperskepticism Permitted Klebold To Pull The Trigger
Slavery and the Atheist Onlooker

Date: 2009/04/25 19:39:06, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Frilly Shirted Pianist Has Left The Building

Clown Fearing Banninator - Banninated
Pathetic Level of Sweater - Reduced to shilling TED videos
Respectable Godbotherer - Buy My Book!
UnlatchedOutoffocus - One missed pill away from complete meltdown
AmbulanceChaser - wants his 15 minutes of fame back
AquinasLover - fighting almost singlehandedly on threads started by others (Singlehanded because Tribune7 has tied his other hand behind him accidentally while trying to help)

Gil, the echo chamber is gonna be a lot more echo-y.

Date: 2009/04/25 20:20:06, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Jkrebs @ April 25 2009,21:04)
Quote
110

Barry Arrington
04/25/2009
7:53 pm

Nakashima is no longer with us.


Barry's patience is weighing thin - he's had a tough week.  Maybe someone has the post that did Nakashima in.

Quote
97

Nakashima

04/25/2009

3:23 pm
Mr Arrington,
JTaylor, re your [47]. In my [39] I demonstrate that explaining the existence of the mind is impossible even in principle for the materialist but not for the ID theorist. You do not offer even a scintilla of a rebuttal to that claim. Instead, you change the subject. Is that all you’ve got? Can I conclude from your silence regarding the basic premise of the original post and your attempt to change the subject, that you’ve got nothing to say, that you’ve been struck dumb by the scintillating brilliance of my reasoning [it’s a joke, lighten up will ya]?

Thank you for making your sense of humor clearer to me. I now understand that your previous closed comment post declaring victory over dumbstruck materialists was meant to be humor, or perhaps ’street theater’. I know a joke loses something if it has to be explained, but do I now understand you correctly?


or perhaps

Quote
2

Nakashima

04/25/2009

7:11 pm
Mr Dodgen,

I hope you will reconsider at some point in the future. I am very sad to see a tilt of UD away from discussions of science and important methods of investigation such as simulation, towards amorphous arguments about religion and personal philosophy.
I apologize if you feel I have shown any disrespect to your obvious accomplishments in game AI, or your learning in FEA.

Best regards,
Namkashima

Date: 2009/04/25 20:35:35, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ April 25 2009,21:20)
Quote (keiths @ April 25 2009,21:10)
 
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ April 25 2009,18:06)
We settle into that familiar, old-timey UD rhythm:

110
Barry Arrington
04/25/2009
7:53 pm

Nakashima is no longer with us.

I wonder what pushed Barry over the edge.  Was it this...?

That was my guess, keiths. See my edited post above yours.

I still have trouble superimposing this pompous, red-faced control freak upon the pleasant, chatty voice we heard in the broadcast in which you participated.

Actually, I'll vote for the off-topic comment in which Nakashima congratulated Rybczynski on her new fossil seal.

Date: 2009/04/25 20:43:03, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Personally, I think the saddest part about Nakashima's brief career on UD was not that it ended so abruptly, but that his polite and relentlessly fact based comments got so little traction with the regulars there. Staying on topic just doesn't work in the Barrogant based UD.

Luckily, my kairosfocus sockpuppet has survived Nakashima's assault!

Date: 2009/04/25 21:46:01, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Maya @ April 25 2009,21:56)
Quote (dvunkannon @ April 25 2009,20:43)
Personally, I think the saddest part about Nakashima's brief career on UD was not that it ended so abruptly, but that his polite and relentlessly fact based comments got so little traction with the regulars there. Staying on topic just doesn't work in the Barrogant based UD.

Luckily, my kairosfocus sockpuppet has survived Nakashima's assault!

Ah, but you've taken the easy route with voluminous computer generated prose that can easily devolve into incoherence since no one is going to read more than the first and last paragraph.

My StephenB sock requires more attention to tardy detail.

Just kidding, Barry, really.  Don't ban StephenB.  Please don't toss me in dat briar patch!

Girl, you have that whole Grand Inquisitor wannabe thing down cold in your StephenB! Bravo! PM me if you want to meet up, I promise I won't ask you to wear Spock ears. [looks desparately for T'pol pic again]

Date: 2009/04/25 22:03:09, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (keiths @ April 25 2009,22:28)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ April 25 2009,18:20)
 
Quote (keiths @ April 25 2009,21:10)
     
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ April 25 2009,18:06)
We settle into that familiar, old-timey UD rhythm:

110
Barry Arrington
04/25/2009
7:53 pm

Nakashima is no longer with us.

I wonder what pushed Barry over the edge.  Was it this...?

That was my guess, keiths. See my edited post above yours.

I still have trouble superimposing this pompous, red-faced control freak upon the pleasant, chatty voice we heard in the broadcast in which you participated.

Yes, it's really hard to reconcile the two Barrys.  Maybe there's something about the Intertubes that brings out the worst in him, or perhaps he dons his "public face" on the radio, but not, for some reason, at UD.

I'm hoping Barry will respond with an explanation of the bannination. If the reason was a post accusing him of having a sense of humor - now that would be funny!

Date: 2009/04/25 22:23:52, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Base 4 or Bust!

Unquoteable drivel by a KF wannabe.

But a good excuse to direct your attention to a cool paper on the evolution of the genetic code.
A four-column theory for the origin of the genetic code: tracing the evolutionary pathways that gave rise to an optimized code

Date: 2009/04/26 08:18:42, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Voted Back Onto The Island?
 
Quote
119

tribune7

04/25/2009

10:46 pm
My vote is to bring back Nakashima.

120

mauka

04/25/2009

10:52 pm
Good for you, T7. Thank you for stepping forward.

121

kairosfocus

04/26/2009

4:38 am
Moderators:

First, I concur with Trib 7.

If only he had stopped there!

Quote
[Perhaps -- and I seem to have missed the offending comment he made (which must have been well over the top to get such a sharp response) -- he slipped up for a moment?])


Can someone please tell KF that Nakashima's last post on that thread is still available? Quoting it in full might help. Perhaps KF could tell us which part of the new moderation  policy was implicitly latched by it? Nakashima would say that KF is now sounding like one of Job's friends - he must have done something wrong!

Date: 2009/04/26 08:36:28, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Jkrebs @ April 26 2009,09:11)
On Gil's goodbye thread - this won't last long:

Quote

23
Mirrortothesun
04/26/2009
7:57 am

Someone’s widdle feelings get hurt? Maybe this is for the best then.

Long enough for T7 to comment on it.
Quote
24

tribune7

04/26/2009

8:08 am
Barry, here is the problem with the mod policy.

You boot Nakashima who has been challenging but generally respectful, yet Mirrortothesun remains.


That's gonna make it harder to disappear down the memory hole.

The bottom line is that frilly shirts do not have the same level of rights as stuffed shirts.

Date: 2009/04/26 10:48:15, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Doc Bill @ April 26 2009,11:02)
The question remains, then, is Nakashkmi the captain of a garbage scowl or not fit even to be captain of a gargage scowl?

Nakashima Forgoes Hunger Strike, Returns
Quote
137

Nakashima

04/26/2009

10:21 am
Mr Arrington,

It is a pleasure to again join the discourse on this forum.

I apologize, sir, if you felt that any of my comments were directed at a person, whether yourself or another, rather than the positions such a person held. I appreciate the offer of close scrutiny, and I only hope that the quality of my contributions will rise to deserve your attention, and the attention of others.

Thank you, again.

ps - I will be watching you closely, also!  


Barry is captain of the scow, and Nakashima will be giving plenty of helpful driving directions from the back bench. Obviously, Nakashima is angling for eventual white box posting privileges. Perhaps he can fill the frilly shirted void left by Gil's departure.

Date: 2009/04/26 11:27:41, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Is anyone with an active sock on UD in moderation at the moment?

Date: 2009/04/27 13:45:47, Link
Author: dvunkannon
I think Joseph used to have a comment 192 on the Materialist poofery thread, which has evaporated. Just feces flinging, but a missed opportunity for Barry to show how 'even handed' he is.

Date: 2009/04/27 14:55:47, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Lowell @ April 27 2009,15:20)
Somebody help! Angryoldfatman is in danger!!!!:
 
Quote
13

Ludwig

04/27/2009

1:37 pm
Angryoldfatman #10:

 
Quote
So if other animals endanger us with their tools, we will use our tools to purposefully exterminate these other animals, rather than just accidently and haphazardly doing so as in the past.


Could you please expand on this? I don’t understand what you’re trying to say. Are you being threatened by tool-wielding wild animals?

His neighbors are Neanderthals. They let their jumped up pond scum run all over his yard.

Date: 2009/04/27 15:06:04, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Louis @ April 26 2009,13:06)
Quote (Bing @ April 26 2009,15:29)
Quote (Dr.GH @ April 25 2009,22:48)
I think I am too old to fully grasp the sense of that song.

It was freshman year and I was bangin' a girl who reminded me of Claire Grogan.

Which is much better than freshman year for Louis when he was banging someone that reminded him of Boy George.

Not true. It was Luciano Pavarotti.

Louis

P.S. DAMN!

I can't believe Pavarotti would have banged Louis just because he reminded him of Boy George.

PS - Happy Belated Birthday! Make us proud, and safe from H1N1 related terrors.

Date: 2009/04/28 14:04:47, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Stomping on PaulN defending ReMine is almost as fun as stomping ReMine!
Quote
10

Nakashima

04/28/2009

1:53 pm
Mr PaulN,

The burden is not on Mr Derwood. If Mr ReMine has published a number such as 1,667 then it is on him to justify the discrepancy of his theory with the numbers of positively selected genes reported in the scientific literature, such as 154 in Bakewell, 2007. It would seem that selection is at least 10 times more powerful than Mr ReMine thinks it isn’t.

Date: 2009/04/28 17:52:49, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ April 28 2009,18:28)
Quote (Touchstone @ April 28 2009,17:22)
AmerikanInKananaskis:

   
Quote
Clive, you’re playing on a little equivocation fallacy, and I think you’re aware of it.


I think he's right, but is it just me, or has AmerikanInKananaskis "sock-flipped"? I don't care enough to go search back, but I seem to recall AiK being sort of "cheerleaderish" for the ID side. Now, he's sounds more like Diffaxial or mauka.

-TS

("sock fatigue"? when a sock tires of its feigned sycophancy employed to ingratiate itself with the thought-censors, and reverts to the natural voice of the puppetmaster)

i have private odds on AKK being Davetard back from the grave.  i thought his cheerleader efforts were just a tad overdone.  if it's one of you guys hey take that as constructive criticism.

ETA  Hey Touchstone I have been laughing my ass off at Joe Tards nickname for you, which of course has no bearing on your most excellent needlepoint work with his logic and emotions.  You guys were wearing him out there for a while.  Which one of you is joe again?

AKKK is DT, I think. His spleen is reserved for morphoDO'L and Clive.

Date: 2009/04/28 19:25:02, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,April 28 2009,19:13)
Quote (dvunkannon @ April 28 2009,17:52)
AKKK is DT, I think. His spleen is reserved for morphoDO'L and Clive.

dvunk are these independent assessments or have we been drinking from the same koolaid container?  i think this topic has been broached, lackadaiscially, a time or two but it seems that it might be fruitful to investigate more closely.  

how could one test the hyp that AKK is DT?  i am not sure.  social scientists, to the deck!

I'm hoping for posts on AGW, or DDrr.. Dembski saying that the EF predicts Cavuto was gay - topics where the Scooter response is a known constant. Then we could measure the AKKK response against this standard.

We also need to introduce stimuli such as clowns, stock market performance of computer manufacturers, and lesbian corporals. Inuit women need not apply.

in re: koolaid, I would be honored to sample your koolaid if it is ice cold and 50 proof. what are your preferred ingredients?

Date: 2009/04/28 23:14:20, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote
131

AmerikanInKananaskis

04/28/2009

8:16 pm
This was one of the books that got me thinking about my personal theory of ID, where design “flaws” actually turn out to be the things that were designed.


More AKKK = DT evidence. Der Scooter was a convinced front loader, who often argued flaw = design.

Date: 2009/04/28 23:52:40, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (CeilingCat @ April 29 2009,00:32)
Quote (midwifetoad @ April 28 2009,13:16)
Worst case scenario: sunspots come roaring back in 2012, coinciding with the eruption of the Yellowstone caldera, melting of the ice caps, swine flu merging with chicken flu, and Jaguars falling from the sky.

You forgot the Dreaded Palin-Jindal Presidental ticket.  

"End of the world.  Pictures at eleven."

As amusing as the prospect would be, I can't see Palin surviving a full primary season. She barely survived the time between the convention and the election.

My bet for the Republican 2012 ticket? Bloomberg-Lieberman!

Date: 2009/04/29 00:07:12, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (paragwinn @ April 29 2009,00:47)
Quote (dvunkannon @ April 28 2009,23:14)
 
Quote
131

AmerikanInKananaskis

04/28/2009

8:16 pm
This was one of the books that got me thinking about my personal theory of ID, where design “flaws” actually turn out to be the things that were designed.


More AKKK = DT evidence. Der Scooter was a convinced front loader, who often argued flaw = design.

don't know if this will help...from wikipedia regarding Kananaskis:
"Kananaskis is an improvement district (a type of rural municipal administrative unit) situated to the west of Calgary, Alberta, Canada in the foothills and front ranges of the Canadian Rockies..."

He moved the Floating Command Center to Canada for the length of the Obama Administration!

Date: 2009/04/29 00:09:59, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ April 29 2009,01:06)
i'm looking for one of those glowing beagles they just made over there in taiwan or sumtin, and also I think the time will be ripe for a Mel Gibson run .  I am not sure who is going to head the ticket and who is going to pony up for VP but I suppose you could replace one of these folks with Mike Behe or Ben stein.

i'm serious.  they've got to start fanning out here somehow.  the AGW folks don't have the media coverage of the Expelled Flunked.  

That's It

Stein-Behe

make it so

i love it so

i scrub it so

i glove it so

Hold up on the koolaid big fella! Still a little while before the weekend...

Date: 2009/04/29 09:38:59, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Jerry:
Quote
Is it the possibility many of these transcribed RNA polymers have no current function? And if so then maybe their ultimate function is to be reverse transcribed into the DNA polymer for some future use. Is this one of the ways that the DNA molecule is modified over time to include more information?

Now this is certainly a naturalistic point of view but could it also be an ID point of view if true? What I am describing is the basis of how many in the evolutionary biology community think genomes get changed over time to produce the new complex novel functional elements. How feasible is this? They (many in the evolutionary biology community) believe so but is it really?


This is the kind of stuff that makes me think Jerry is indeed a sock. "This what those other guys think, why don't we think that way?" Very Socratic method, very subtle.

OTOH, Jerry is obsessed with ENCODE in a way that only a true denizen of UD can be. If this is deep cover, it is the deepest! PM me you magnificent bastard!

Date: 2009/04/29 10:16:41, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ April 29 2009,10:41)
Quote (dvunkannon @ April 29 2009,09:38)
Jerry:  
Quote
Is it the possibility many of these transcribed RNA polymers have no current function? And if so then maybe their ultimate function is to be reverse transcribed into the DNA polymer for some future use. Is this one of the ways that the DNA molecule is modified over time to include more information?

Now this is certainly a naturalistic point of view but could it also be an ID point of view if true? What I am describing is the basis of how many in the evolutionary biology community think genomes get changed over time to produce the new complex novel functional elements. How feasible is this? They (many in the evolutionary biology community) believe so but is it really?


This is the kind of stuff that makes me think Jerry is indeed a sock. "This what those other guys think, why don't we think that way?" Very Socratic method, very subtle.

OTOH, Jerry is obsessed with ENCODE in a way that only a true denizen of UD can be. If this is deep cover, it is the deepest! PM me you magnificent bastard!

wow.  this is great.

like peering into the abyss

if jerry wasn't on reel we would have to invert him

Pogo was definitely thinking of sockpuppetry when he said, "We have met the enemy, and he is us!"

or as Louis the LOLcat might say, "I haz metz the ene-jerry, n he iz lolz!"

Date: 2009/04/29 11:07:53, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (k.e.. @ April 29 2009,11:31)
Quote (dvunkannon @ April 29 2009,17:38)
Jerry:    
Quote
Is it the possibility many of these transcribed RNA polymers have no current function? And if so then maybe their ultimate function is to be reverse transcribed into the DNA polymer for some future use. Is this one of the ways that the DNA molecule is modified over time to include more information?

Now this is certainly a naturalistic point of view but could it also be an ID point of view if true? What I am describing is the basis of how many in the evolutionary biology community think genomes get changed over time to produce the new complex novel functional elements. How feasible is this? They (many in the evolutionary biology community) believe so but is it really?


This is the kind of stuff that makes me think Jerry is indeed a sock. "This what those other guys think, why don't we think that way?" Very Socratic method, very subtle.

OTOH, Jerry is obsessed with ENCODE in a way that only a true denizen of UD can be. If this is deep cover, it is the deepest! PM me you magnificent bastard!

...erm Jerry  is just stupid enough to make everyone think he is smart.

J'accuse! Jerry is no Forrest Gump, but you, sir, are obviously feigning hyperskepticism to throw off the trail of self referential incoherence.

Date: 2009/04/29 17:58:59, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Nakashima on the ReMine thread pt 4
 
Quote
It would seem that selection is at least 10 times more powerful than Mr ReMine thinks it isn’t. :D

 
Quote
it is completely acceptable to put yourself in your opponents shoes for sake of understanding their argument.

 
Quote
New functions can eventually come to dominate because in the kingdom of the blind, the one eyed man is king. But in the kingdom of the two-eyed, the one eyed man is toast.

 
Quote
As for 1667 not being enough, well then tell us how many mutations it did take and HOW can you test that premise?
154 Please see the Bakewell 2007 paper I referenced earlier. Also, this month’s Scientific American cover story is on this subject.

 
Quote
As a great philosopher once said, “Your princess is in another castle!” :D


T7 alone seems to have gotten any of the humor. The SciAm reference (while relevant) might have been an attempt to draw out AKKK into a DT-like moment.

Date: 2009/04/30 10:30:20, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (keiths @ April 30 2009,10:26)
Quote (keiths @ April 30 2009,07:01)
 
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,April 30 2009,06:53)
bwaaaa

how many dead soldiers are you kicking around over there, sport?

i am amazed.  and proud.  god dam that brings a lil ol tear to my eye.  for years, i have been reading UD thinking "christ that is one dumb bastard" and who knew that most of the stuff I was reading was intentional tard bait lain by master baiters

Wow.  I made 'Ras cry, and he's not even drunk yet.  I assume.

For the record, none of my socks at UD have been socktards.  My socks are always me, under a different name, smelling just as sweet.

There should be an "I am Spartacus!" thread where we can register proud ownership of socks.

Date: 2009/04/30 10:47:51, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (franky172 @ April 30 2009,10:31)
Allen_MacNeill in response to Nakashima

 
Quote
Your analogy between Occam’s Razor and “least squares” method of line-fitting is one I have never read before, but one that seems quite useful. With your permission, I would like to use it my forthcoming book on evolution.


Nakashima makes a very good point that preference for simple models in science is a form of Occam's razor, with LS regression a special case of that.  

Allen, if you are interested, there is a wide literature on mathematical models for simplicity that generally follow Occam's razor (often in the form of "sparseness" regressors).  For examples, see the Support Vector Machine, and Relevance Vector Machines for classification and regression.

Also, many Bayesian treatments of regression problems can be viewed as application of Occam's razor - see "Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning", by Bishop.  The first section of Chapter 1 of "Pattern Rec" presents a nice overview of the problem of model inference and mentions ridge regression, shrinkage,  and other approaches to constraining model complexity (although "Occam's Razor" is not explicitly mentioned, see the Chapter by MacCay: http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~mackay/itprnn/ps/345.357.pdf , or a google for "Bayesian Occam's Razor").

Enjoy.

Nakashima Has A Proof Text For His Version
Quote
260

Nakashima

04/30/2009

10:37 am
MacNeill-san,

as a post-script in re Occam’s Razor, I would note that the preference for low order polynomials is explicit in the Latin phrase “entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem”! ;-P

#punning in a dead language must be the absolute lowest form of humor!


Try the sushi, tip your geisha! I'll be here all week.

Date: 2009/04/30 15:46:50, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 24 2009,14:43)
Quote (dvunkannon @ April 24 2009,13:05)
Titanium Infused Spider SIlk

Sometimes I read something like this, and I think Kurzweil is right, the Singularity is around the corner. Other times, I just giggle about living in the future.

Probably better to cite Venge?

I love Marooned In Real Time! I have a friend who owns the oil painting used for the original hardcover cover art. Is there an SF thread on this board?

I think more people associate the Singularity with Kurzweil than Vinge.

Date: 2009/04/30 17:38:32, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (keiths @ April 30 2009,18:22)
If I claim that the Rapture will happen at 14:29 UTC, and that I will disappear from the face of the earth at that time, you can place me on a scale and measure the (non)reduction in mass that occurs at 14:29 UTC.

Has anyone volunteered to be weighed while dying?

Date: 2009/05/01 08:41:32, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (J-Dog @ May 01 2009,09:01)
Quote (afarensis @ May 01 2009,06:44)
 
Quote (Amadan @ May 01 2009,05:58)
Persecution!!!!!11!!!!

He is still on the board and the idiot governor will still get to pick the next chairman...

Quick!  To the Floating Command Center!

Maybe they really will be dumb enough to seceed - and take their McElroy's and DaveScott's with them.

Logic, as only Fafarman can do it (at 1 in the morning)
Quote
By Larry Fafarman

May 1, 2009 12:58 AM | Link to this

—There are too many other important issues to take up on the floor to waste time on a doomed confirmation, Jackson said.—

That’s just a cop-out. How much time is required to take a vote? If McLeroy loses, then he loses.

I suspect that a lot of senators who would vote for McLeroy tried to discourage a full-Senate vote by threatening to vote against him.

Date: 2009/05/01 08:48:07, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (keiths @ April 30 2009,20:30)
Clive attacks Allen MacNeill, and Diffaxial calls him on it:
Quote
25

Diffaxial
04/30/2009
6:51 pm

Clive:
Quote
I find your rhetoric to be at a rather junior high level. I think you’re a large repository of information, but a rather small shack of actual argument. I’m baffled that you teach at any college, to be honest. I hope you only present information to the students, and not arguments.

Here we have the moderator himself, charged to discourage personalized comments, himself directly wielding insults from within the secure confines of his moderation box.

Go figure.

To be fair to Clive (did I just say that?), Allen was being pretty asinine at that point, and later apologized. I think Allen has veered several times recently just to the line or maybe a squeek over it. I'm surprised he hasn't been warned/threatened.

Date: 2009/05/01 10:30:19, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Happiest. Birthday. Evar.

Date: 2009/05/01 11:07:22, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Zachriel @ May 01 2009,11:45)
Quote (keiths @ April 30 2009,19:15)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,April 30 2009,16:17)
but there are many cases where the simplest explanation is wrong.

Ockham's Razor isn't about always preferring the simplest explanation; it's about preferring the simpler explanation when weighing two hypotheses that match the facts equally well.

It's an especially useful heuristic when the simpler explanation is a reduction of extraneous and non-evidenced entities.

Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitate.

Don't worry Zachriel. They didn't laugh when Nakashima said it, either!

Date: 2009/05/01 23:33:00, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Reading the Dembski and Marks chapter, here are some points I see of interest (pp 1-14):

everything that is intelligence is a search

Equivocation on definition of information

Chesterton quote! ack

everything reduces to matter and electrochemistry

Darwinian evolution is an efficient cause

Acceptance of deep time

rejection of front-loading:"There’s no sense in which human beings or any other multi-celled organisms are latent in single-celled organisms, much less in nonliving chemicals."

oh so subtle connection of Darwin and Marx lol

Dissing TE

p7 first sighting of WEASEL!!1!one

1st probability faux pas: "If we tried to attain this target sequence by pure chance (for example, by randomly shaking out scrabble pieces consisting solely of letters and spaces), the probability of getting it on a given
try would be around 1 in 10^40, and, correspondingly, it would take on average about 10^40 tries to stand a better than even chance of getting it." (s/b 10^20 on average!)

Dembski finally gets it right!!! : "(iii) keep those newly
formed sequences that match more letters in the target sequence, discarding the rest."

target smuggled into fitness function yawn

"There are only so many ways that matter can be configured to be alive and, once alive, only so many ways it can be configured to serve different biological
functions." he assumes this number will be very small

scary bignums 10^120 max queries available in the yooniverz

Darwinian evolution is inefficient (duh)

Heinz pagels “The only way to see evolution in action is to make computer models” wrong he never heard of acquired resistance ??

wow refers to MESA contra AVIDA, though no results have ever been published using the program. not just none that support his argument NONE AT ALL

contradicts earlier quote of pagels "Lenski observed some small scale changes, but nothing remarkable."

successful simulations cook the books

quote of Miller re 'ev' information comes from selection

information included in the fitness function is an input

quote Brillouin begin LCI argument

claim to define information measure in other papers "forthcoming"

pure chance - the target is improbable, EA - the fitness function is improbable

defining active information (very poorly and with imprecise terms)

funtion theoretic version of Conservation of Information Theorem - a search that is hard for random search in some space can be mapped to a search that is easy for random search in another space, but choosing the mapping soaks up all the difficulty

Date: 2009/05/01 23:51:01, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Skipping forwards a lot, here is a choice quote from the conclusion of the paper.

Quote
Tracking and measuring active information to verify intelligent design is readily achieved experimentally. Consider, for instance, that whenever origin-of-life researchers use chemicals from a chemical supply house, they take for granted information-intensive processes that isolate and purify chemicals. These processes typically have no analogue in realistic prebiotic conditions. Moreover, the amount of information these processes (implemented by smart
chemists) impart to the chemicals can be calculated.


Pure chemicals are high information chemicals.

Date: 2009/05/02 07:35:26, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Zachriel @ May 02 2009,08:28)
Quote
Searches that operate by Darwinian selection, for instance, often significantly outperform blind search. But when they do, it is because they exploit information supplied by a fitness function—information that is unavailable to blind search.

Duh. Fitness selection links the information in the environment to the evolving population.

Quote
According to LCI, any such search-forming process must build into the search at least as much information as the search displays in raising the probability of success.

You just said the information is in the environment!

Yes, and then do some hand waving to show that the physical environment doesn't contain information, so the information has to come from some infinite source which is coupled with the system to avoid infinite LCI Regress - aka God.

Date: 2009/05/02 07:40:06, Link
Author: dvunkannon
I detect a subtle goal post shift compared to earlier efforts. Did Dembski previously accept the power of evolution, just doubt the power to evolve complexity? That seems to be his position here.

Date: 2009/05/02 10:04:05, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Who is Robert Deyes, and why should I care about his opinions?

I see in his Spontaneous Generation piece the polemic bookend to the preceding pseudo-scholarly Dembski posting.

Date: 2009/05/02 12:30:40, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Texas Teach @ May 01 2009,21:47)
Quote (afarensis @ May 01 2009,19:30)
P.S. We Missourians prefer to think of ourselves as midwesterners not yankees.

Oh, I know.  I actually find Midwesterners in general, and St. Louisans specifically, a very pleasant people.  (We spent two years in Florissant while my wife did a post-doc).  We even forgive y'all for not understanding the proper pronoun for the second person plural.

Youse!

(Which you must have heard on the A train, which ran even in 8 inches of snow!)

Date: 2009/05/02 12:32:00, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Amadan @ May 01 2009,10:40)
Akshully, I'll side with the Faroutmaaan. If you can dump a mine of batshit like McLeroy* without publicly provoking The Base, it would be a great tactic.




* How did the good Clare name Mac Giolla Rua end up as this misbegotten hash?

Son of the king - eet iz verry French

Date: 2009/05/02 12:43:27, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ May 02 2009,13:17)
Quote

I don't think Dembski's fan base is going to like this.


I think that you misoverestimate them.

Dembski's base trusts that he has done their thinking for them. Dembski writes arguments that are supposed to be cited as if proof-texts, not understood. Dembski's fan base is supposed to know that however he argues, "intelligent design" comes out ahead thereby. Dembski, after all, has made it clear time and again that no one without his own set of credentials has any business saying something critical about his work. A critical attitude correlates well with Dembski's dismissal of the critic as somehow not understanding his arguments.

The shift in argumentation is simply Dembski making good on his 2005 promise to change the rhetoric to "intelligent evolution". It's all about repackaging the same old religious antievolution arguments to squeeze as many as possible into public school science curricula.

A classic thread, especially the DS triumphalism. I wonder if that hotmail address of his ever worked?

Date: 2009/05/02 12:53:53, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (keiths @ May 02 2009,13:35)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ May 02 2009,10:17)
Quote
I don't think Dembski's fan base is going to like this.

I think that you misoverestimate them.

Dembski's base trusts that he has done their thinking for them. Dembski writes arguments that are supposed to be cited as if proof-texts, not understood. Dembski's fan base is supposed to know that however he argues, "intelligent design" comes out ahead thereby. Dembski, after all, has made it clear time and again that no one without his own set of credentials has any business saying something critical about his work. A critical attitude correlates well with Dembski's dismissal of the critic as somehow not understanding his arguments.

The shift in argumentation is simply Dembski making good on his 2005 promise to change the rhetoric to "intelligent evolution". It's all about repackaging the same old religious antievolution arguments to squeeze as many as possible into public school science curricula.

I'm not so sure, Wes.

Dembski and Marks are essentially saying "Darwin was right.  Evolution is driven primarily by random mutation and natural selection.  It's just that fitness is teleological."  Do you think that someone like Slimy Sal Cordova -- a Dembski sycophant if there ever was one -- is going to be happy about "Darwin was right about RM and NS"?

Sal can spin himself any way he chooses. His current love affair with the Abel paper aligns nicely with this position, and he can always express private reservations that the details have not yet been worked out. For him this is all wink, wink, nudge, nudge creationism anyway.

A guy like vjtorley, OTOH, might be pained. What is the point of quoting all those 'evolution can't do jack' websites about the eye if the Dear Leader is going this direction.

We can only hope for a public break with real YECs like Paul Nelson, ICR, AIG, etc.

Date: 2009/05/02 16:01:37, Link
Author: dvunkannon
AKKK had a comment obliviate on the Dembski Marks 2009 thread. Nakashima has memorialized it.

Quote
28

Nakashima

05/02/2009

2:28 pm
Mr AmerikanInKananasKis,

I agree your comment is gone. Most unfortunate.

If I recall, you commented on the section:

But the fact that things can be alive and functional in only certain ways and not in others indicates that nature sets her own targets. The targets of biology, we might say, are “natural kinds” (to borrow a term from philosophy). There are only so many ways that matter can be configured to be alive and, once alive, only so many ways it can be configured to serve different biological functions.

You simply stated a disagreement with this terminological borrowing. Can you be more expansive in your disagreement? Thank you.

The original was pithier.

Date: 2009/05/03 00:37:21, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote
7

Barry Arrington

05/03/2009

12:20 am
Marduk, re your [5]:

Let’s start with the name you choose to write under. The Babylonians gave the name “Bel,” meaning “Lord” to their god Marduk, thus “Bel-Marduk” or often simply “Bel.” The cult devoted to Marduk was particularly cruel and bloodthirsty, with practices that included sacrificing babies to their “god” Why would you want to go by that name? It’s like calling yourself “Hitler.” Perhaps you are ignorant of these facts.


On the upside, Barry does not banninate Marduk, or even threaten it. Props to Barry!

On the down side, Barry, you lose on Godwin's Law ALL THE TIME! Did you talk this way in the Legislature?

Date: 2009/05/03 10:06:48, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Color me slow, I just twigged to the fact that TCS = The Country Shrink = Clive Hayden

A sockpuppet on a blog he moderates, what does that say?

Date: 2009/05/03 18:52:30, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ May 03 2009,11:43)
dvunk Clive has denied being TCS if i remember correctly.

You're right. Apologies to Clive. I think I've accused him several times of being The Country Shrink, but looking back at e-mail from last year, I have another name that should be associated with TCS.

mea culpa

Date: 2009/05/04 09:46:02, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Lou FCD @ May 04 2009,10:15)
Quote (Bob O'H @ May 04 2009,09:56)
OK, I haven't gone as far as chopping limbs off to see if they regenerate,

I <3 experiments.

Jesus was pretty sure limbs wouldn't regenerate, otherwise he wouldn't have advocated chopping them off.

Date: 2009/05/06 17:03:40, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote
34

Nakashima

05/06/2009

3:45 pm
Mr Magnan,
Since Darwinism can’t be falsified, the Darwinists will naturally claim that this (like anything and everything else) somehow came about purely through RV + selection.

You really should say KJV + selection, since the RV was only published in 1881-1895.


How do you say <rimshot> in Japanese?

Waitress wa, tippu o shimasu, onegaishimasu!

Date: 2009/05/08 14:05:41, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ May 08 2009,14:38)
did you know goat legs fit down into oversized galoshes.

i'm just saying

Design Inference!

Date: 2009/05/08 23:10:33, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Badger3k @ May 08 2009,23:54)
Quote (olegt @ May 08 2009,19:59)
StephenB reveals his proof of a personal Creator.  Enjoy.  
Quote
An impersonal law cannot be responsible for the universe or the laws that regulate it. It must be a personal creator.

1: Premise: For all impersonal, unchanging causes that have always existed, none can begin in time.

2. Therefore: All effects that have always existed could not have begun to exist

3. Therefore: All impersonal, unchanging causes that have always existed could not have begun in time.

4: Therefore, no effect can begin to exist if its impersonal, unchanging cause always was.

5: Therefore: No impersonal, unchanging cause can begin to exist if its effect always was.

6: Therefore, no impersonal, unchanging cause can exist without its effect.

7: Therefore, no effect can exist without its impersonal, unchanging cause.

8: Therefore, the impersonal, unchanging law cannot cause the universe to begin to exist.

9: The universe began to exist.

10: Therefore, a personal agent caused the universe to begin to exist.

I tried to work that out one at a time, but..... ;)

Seriously, I'm not the greatest in logical arguments - I'm still learning how to do it correctly, even if I can figure out most of the common creationist/theist arguments (even such stupidity such as used by Plantiga), but...WTF?

If nothing else, how does he switch from cause and effect to law?  Is this the common misunderstanding that laws do not cause anything, they merely describe what we have discovered?

StephenB has nothing better to do than restate his arguments from the Shermer thread and hope everyone already forgot them.

Since Mark Chu-Carroll was just doing temporal logic, Nakashima told me that he is tempted to drop some temporal symbolic logic on StephenB, since he is ueless-clay in that area. But with the great logician tied up with the Lord of the Flies, Nakashima gets to have a reasonable conversation with VJ Torley. Thanks, Beelzebub!

Date: 2009/05/09 12:07:30, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Hermagoras @ May 09 2009,11:49)
Can anybody remind me where StephenB brought this up earlier?

The "Disappointed with Shermer" thread.

Date: 2009/05/09 17:35:41, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (CeilingCat @ May 09 2009,17:51)
Reading StephenB softens your brain.  It's got me thinking of this:    
Quote
How much cause
would an uncaused cause
if an uncaused could
cause cause.
I've going to lie down now.

Causal Haiku

How many cows could
an uncaused cow cause if an
uncaused could cause cows!

Its got a kind of Hindu flavor, what with the uncaused cows.

Date: 2009/05/11 08:27:50, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Nakashima challenges KF to grow up
Quote
If you don’t like how I’ve modified some of the terms of Leslie’s parable, don’t accuse me of creating a strawman. My point was that the original parable itself was a strawman, just one that played to your preferences. The true path forward is to abandon parables in favor of experiment. Do you agree with that, sir?

Date: 2009/05/11 09:51:01, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 11 2009,10:00)
Is Barry still in hiding after being called on his hypocrisy?

On DO'L's latest thread he pops up and is immediately reminded why he is hiding.
Quote
10

Alan Fox

05/11/2009

5:55 am
Barry Arrington:

I will let James Madison have the final word

At first glance, I thought you meant you were offering Madsen a final word. My mistake!

11

Nakashima

05/11/2009

8:45 am
Mr Fox,

Yes, what experiment was done on the liberties of Mr Madsen? Would you care to comment, Mt Arrington?

Date: 2009/05/11 12:41:44, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Jkrebs @ May 11 2009,09:34)
I liked the preceding paragraph of Nakashima's:

Quote
However, it has to be recognized that the FTA is something that has moved from analogy, parable, and bignum arguments into the scientific arena. So I will only be really interested in scientific evidence. Otherwise we start wandering about asking silly questions like “If the Marskman is God, what is the fly? How does the fly know the local wall is empty, and what does that mean? Perhaps the universe is really the bullet? Have you ever looked at your hand, I mean really looked at it?”

Leslie's parable might not do much for the Fine Tuning Argument, it's explanatory power to theodicy is unmatched!

"This is not me at my most sadistic, this is me at my most masochistic."

Date: 2009/05/11 13:50:01, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ May 11 2009,13:54)
DaveTard by proxy sighting

   
Quote
   Bill Dembski posted an article at Uncommon Descent discussing a science blog rant against the proposed law of conservation of information.

   I don’t understand the resistance to this. It is a commonly assumed tenet of science that in principle complete information about a system at one point in time is sufficient to determine its state at any other point in time. It’s the underlying principle behind materialism. It’s the refuting principle employed against mind/brain dualism i.e. that all thoughts and behaviors can be, in principle with complete information, reduced to brain chemistry and physics. Also, in principle, all the information in the universe was present at the instant of its creation (Big Bang) some 14 billion years ago.

   This principle is so widely held that when Stephen Hawking proposed that information might be permanently lost when matter falls into a black it annoyed a great many physicists and resulted in a famous bet. In 1997 John Preskill bet Stephen Hawking and Kip Thorne that information isn’t lost even in a black hole. In 2005 Hawking published a paper describing how quantum perturbations at the event horizon of the black hole allows information to escape and along with the paper he conceded the bet to Preskill and paid it off. Thorne refused to concede and didn’t contribute his share of the payment.

   Why an intelligent materialist would argue against the conservation of information is is beyond me except perhaps as a kneejerk, indefensible reaction when someone like Dembski asks the loaded question - what is the original source of the information in the universe? The answer for many great thinkers, such as Albert Einstein and a good fraction of the founders of the United States of America, minimally leads to deism i.e. God created a clockwork universe where everything was predetermined at the instant of creation.


Check out R0b's reply(s).

EDIT: And how will Dembski respond to this point from R0B
Quote
It appears that all active info needs to be regressed at least to the origin of the universe.

Dembski has conceded that evolution works (well, for the purposes of his paper anyway), is this the final step before he simply announces he has become a T.E?

The start of the paper criticized front loading, even if the phrase did crop up again later.

I'm hoping he'll go the infinite-wavelength-photon route. It would be cool if he tried to demonstrate that the universe is not a closed system, that the total amount of information in it is actually increasing (as demonstrated by increasing complexity and bio-diversity) and this is due to the direct intervention of the Designer.

I've been wondering if we are in the middle of a big goal-post shift within the ID movement. Previous moves
Bible -> Creation Science
Creation Science -> ID
"evolution doesn't work" -> "micro, not macro"

and now "Sure evolution works, by active information provided telicly by the Designer. Conservation laws do not apply to the Universe."

Date: 2009/05/12 23:43:44, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Jerry deepens his cover
Quote
10

jerry

05/12/2009

11:40 am
Ted Davis,

I can not find the talk by Messer. Do you know when it was?

On a separate topic, we have some anti ID people here denying the fine tuning of the universe. Has this ever been discussed on the ASA forum? If so do you have any recollections on when? I can then go and look it up.

I know some of the people there think the universe was so well fine tuned that it led to everything including origin of life and evolution but I was wondering if there were some discussions that might have cited references. I have a bunch but wanted to see what else was out there.


Jerry, you frikkin brilliant bastid - PM me!

Date: 2009/05/15 04:56:22, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (damitall @ May 15 2009,05:26)
And to add to the general hilarity, Robert Byers makes a flying visit from whatever corner of the multiverse he is currently infesting...

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-317797

He showed up earlier on the "Grill the IDiot" thread. It was my first time seeing the name. Is he an internet classic tard?

Date: 2009/05/18 11:43:57, Link
Author: dvunkannon
On the Sternberg Not A Baptist thread

Quote
13

Nakashima

05/18/2009

11:30 am
I don’t understand why Dr Sternberg bothers having this conversation in the first place, unless his correspondent is extremely good looking. He could have simply stated that from an ID perspective, no one doubts the common descent of humans and simians, and the details are being worked out. Is he actually trying to argue that the ITSs observed in different species are designed artifacts? That would seem to be a testable prediction.

Date: 2009/05/19 08:32:40, Link
Author: dvunkannon
I think the DI is missing out on attacking the most subversive Darwinist voice of the 20th Century.

Cole Porter.

 
Quote
birds do it, bees do it
even educated fleas do it
let's do it, let's fall in love
in spain, the best upper sets do it
lithuanians and letts do it
let's do it, let's fall in love

the dutch in old amsterdam do it
not to mention the finns
folks in siam do it
think of siamese twins

some argentines, without means, do it
people say, in boston, even beans do it
let's do it, let's fall in love

romantic sponges, they say, do it
oysters, down in oyster bay, do it
let's do it, let's fall in love

cold cape cod clams, against their wish, do it
even lazy jellyfish do it
let's do it, let's fall in love

electric eels, i might add, do it
though it shocks 'em, i know.
why ask if shad do it
waiter, bring me shad roe.

in shallow shoals, english soles do it
goldfish, in the privacy of bowls, do it
let's do it, let's fall in love


and even more directly

Quote
You could have a great career,
And you should;
Yes you should.
Only one thing stops you dear:
You're too good;
Way too good!

If you want a future, darlin',
Why don't you get a past?
'Cause that fateful moment's comin' at last...

We're all alone, no chaperone
Can get our number
The world's in slumber--let's misbehave!!!

There's something wild about you child
That's so contagious
Let's be outrageous--let's misbehave!!!

When Adam won Eve's hand
He wouldn't stand for teasin'.
He didn't care about those apples out of season.

They say that Spring means just one little thing to little lovebirds
We're not above birds--let's misbehave!!!

It's getting late and while I wait
My poor heart aches on
Why keep the breaks on? Let's misbehave!!!

I feel quite sure affaire d'amour
Would be attractive
While we're still active, let's misbehave!

You know my heart is true
And you say you for me care...
Somebody's sure to tell,
But what the heck do we care?

They say that bears have love affairs
And even camels
We're merely mammals--let's misbehave!!!

Date: 2009/05/19 11:01:26, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (k.e.. @ May 19 2009,10:24)
Is there a gene for memes?

What does ID have to say about that?

God did it. ....ought to be ashamed of himself.

Gene for Memes? Sounds like a Dawkins question.

God - that guy has to have hair on His palms by now...

Date: 2009/05/19 17:31:58, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Scooter
Quote
131

Scot.David

05/19/2009

1:09 pm
jerry: In “Silver Blaze” The dog did nothing in the night…

ps: Please pm Erasamus ASAP!


So when AmeriKKK said he was ditching UD, it was just to shed the chrysalis.

Davey, if it is really you, work the words "morph" and "dike" into your next post on an O'Leay thread. We know you want to...

Date: 2009/05/19 18:19:55, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Texas Teach @ May 19 2009,19:12)
D'OL will love the fact that ABC just reported on their nightly newscast that it is the "oldest fossil ever found".  <Lack of qualifiers theirs> Twice.  Sigh.

Since "fewer and fewer people believe in Darwinism" according to DO'L, it really is amazing the influence that the Darwinist Illuminati have over the media. It's a good thing their Wedge document was never leaked.

Date: 2009/05/19 20:42:33, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Ra-Úl @ May 19 2009,17:23)
Quote (Lou FCD @ May 19 2009,09:11)
Or even more blatantly, that bunch called the Bloodhound Gang

   
Quote
You and me baby ain't nothin' but mammals
so let's do it like they do on the Discovery Channel.

Maybe more blatant, but Porter rhymes.

Cole Porter song = Intelligent Design!

Date: 2009/05/20 13:15:09, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (cogzoid @ May 20 2009,13:43)
The debt our country owes to you, Wes, is incalculable.

He didn't say which military.

TEACHING DARWINISM TO THE IRAQI REVOLUTIONARY GUARD DOES'NT COUNT! - dt

Date: 2009/05/21 07:39:56, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Not In My Back Yard!


I saw these guys when I was walking on the grounds of Bertramka, last Saturday. Bertramka is in the Smichov suburb of Prague, just across the Vltava River. Bertramka is famous for Mozart having stayed there during his visits to Prague. He finished Don Giovanni there.

In any case, these reminded me more of African masks than Mozart. Anyone know what they are?

Date: 2009/05/21 23:46:21, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (keiths @ May 21 2009,19:31)
Quote
3

Nakashima
05/21/2009
1:22 pm

Mr Arrington,

[snip]

How is that experiment on the liberties of Mr Madsen going? Is he still banned? Why?

Quote
9

Barry Arrington
05/21/2009
6:06 pm

[snip]

Nakashima, one more crack like the one in [3] and you will join Mr. Madsen. I have “experimented” on no one’s liberties. Commenting on this blog is a privilege, not a right guaranteed by the First Amendment nor any other provision of law. Abuse that privilege and suffer the consequences.

You skipped the intervening boot lick by Clive

Quote
5

Clive Hayden

05/21/2009

1:36 pm
Nakashima,

—”How is that experiment on the liberties of Mr Madsen going? Is he still banned? Why?”

Lets try to stay on topic.



Of course , the question still stands, how did Madsen abuse the privilege?

Date: 2009/05/21 23:57:42, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,May 21 2009,08:48)
hemiptera nymphs, maybe lygaeids

nice pattern never seen that'un

monday I got a life list odonate Lanthus parvulus.  rare critter down here, range just barely extends into the south appalachians where it prefers bogs and seeps and springs.  

also two other very very rare caddisflies, one of which has only been collected 5 times (4 and 5 were Monday!!!!).  Other rarities abound, including at least 2 undescribed species (well, one is described and all but published which is why we were there.  now we'll be back again!)  


the other sites yielded cool bugs also. stoneflies Viehoperla prob ada and Beloneuria sp. nymphs.  i didn't even collect the mayflies but there were lots of things out and about.


May is a fantastic time of the year to stand in the spray zone of a wet rock face.

Thanks, i found this
Quote
Pyrrhocoris apterus
Firebug
Family: Pyrrhocoridae
Again, not shield bugs but having the red markings that may be confused with other families. Pyrrhocoris species are common round the Mediterranean but only recent established in northern Europe.


With picture at this shieldbug website.

Date: 2009/05/22 11:57:56, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ May 22 2009,11:03)
i guess for someone studying the rhetoric of "science" communication these have to be golden days.

of course if you have to argue about what is science probly not so much.

And for "sciency" communication, even better! Perhaps that is why DO'L is going to the Canadian Science Writers Association conference.

Date: 2009/05/22 13:41:39, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Jerry gets snarky, with deterministic results

Quote
53

jerry

05/22/2009

12:54 pm
“Is materialist evolution a bad idea? No, just a description of reality. It isn’t dependent on anything special about biology, it is what happens in any situation that meets a few basic criteria. That is why evolutionary algorithms work.”

Nakashima must be smoking some powerful stuff today. Maybe the Great Nakashima, the Great Denier, should hold forth on the the description of reality he is privy to. No one has been able to explain this reality to us yet but Nakashima the Great, might deign to lower himself to enlighten the masses both here and elsewhere.

We impeach that you do not deny us this small favor and tell us which evolutionary algorithms work and why.

54

Nakashima

05/22/2009

1:31 pm
Mr Jerry,

You force me to confirm I am a denier by making me deny I am great!  PM Erasmus ASAP!!

But really, it is simple. Any situation where

A population
with varying traits
that are heritable,
in an environment
with limited resources,
with reproductive success
coupled to the environment
by some of the traits,
over time
the change in traits
of the population
is called
“evolution”.

Extra! Bonus denial in every post: I deny the universe is deterministic. No amount of information available 1 second after the Big Bang could have predicted Bill Buckner letting Mookie Wilson’s ground ball roll between his legs. And if you can’t predict that, what is left worth predicting?

Double extra bonus fortune cookie wisdom: You cannot replace a random variable by its expected value.

Date: 2009/05/22 15:56:45, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ May 22 2009,16:22)
Quote
57
jerry
05/22/2009
2:07 pm
The Great Nakashima has become a pro ID advocate. By agreeing to micro evolution the Great Nakashima has taken the ID position that the only evolution that is explainable is micro evolution. When given the chance to proceed further he didn’t and effectively denied anything else existed and in essence denied macro evolution.

And it also seems that Nakashima the Great is a Red Sox fan and a true believer in the supernatural. How else could that ground ball have ever evaded Buckner. And how else could the Red Sox be down three games to none and behind in the 9th inning in the 2004 AL Championship series and facing the best closer in baseball and expect to win except with the interference of the supernatural. The odds were vanishingly small but prayers to the Great Designer in the beyond changed a quantum event in our universe and the curse was gone.

Welcome oh Great Nakashima to the ID fold.


I call sock, no takebacks.

The really disturbing thing is that my tally sheet would indicate that, unless jerry's puppet master doesn't post here, one of you guys has been running two puppets at once.  either now or at some point in the recent past.  

that is absolutely amazing.  Whoever you are, i salute you.  don't even PM me I don't wanna know.  you are the king.

I'm not sure how much baseball Jerry knows if he thinks Bill Buckner's trouble fielding makes Nakashima a Sox fan. Perhaps Heddle can straighten him out. Perhaps Jerry is a sockHeddle! That would be deep cover.

We know Lou FCD can run two socks at once. He might be Jerry and Joseph.

(I did consider running a second sock, just so I'd have someone to talk to.)

Date: 2009/05/22 16:06:54, Link
Author: dvunkannon
...and then Barry's next post has comments turned off. I think Barry would feel more comfortable moderating Evolution News and Views. I wonder if Barry has a fantasy about retrying KvD with himself as the lead TMLC attorney. Strangely, I have a similar fantasy.

Date: 2009/05/22 21:47:03, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (keiths @ May 22 2009,20:13)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ May 22 2009,16:31)
 
Quote (dvunkannon @ May 22 2009,16:06)
...and then Barry's next post has comments turned off. I think Barry would feel more comfortable moderating Evolution News and Views. I wonder if Barry has a fantasy about retrying KvD with himself as the lead TMLC attorney. Strangely, I have a similar fantasy.

You think that you could do a better job of sinking IDC than Richard Thompson did?

Nah.  Just as Dembski's fantasy is to be the Isaac Newton of information theory, I think dvunkannon wants to be the Clarence Darrow of ID (if that isn't a contradiction in terms).

Can you imagine the adulation that would have been lavished on Thompson by the fundies if he had won in Dover?

No. I want to see BARRY sink IDC!

Date: 2009/05/23 16:15:29, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (khan @ May 23 2009,12:49)
Quote
jerry

05/22/2009

12:54 pm
“Is materialist evolution a bad idea? No, just a description of reality. It isn’t dependent on anything special about biology, it is what happens in any situation that meets a few basic criteria. That is why evolutionary algorithms work.”

Nakashima must be smoking some powerful stuff today. Maybe the Great Nakashima, the Great Denier, should hold forth on the the description of reality he is privy to. No one has been able to explain this reality to us yet but Nakashima the Great, might deign to lower himself to enlighten the masses both here and elsewhere.

We impeach that you do not deny us this small favor and tell us which evolutionary algorithms work and why.


Say what?

Either he meant implore or he thinks Nakashima-san can be tried in the Senate for treason, bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors, or pounding ID into the mud.

Date: 2009/05/23 20:04:52, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (AmandaHuginKiss @ May 23 2009,17:40)
Quote (JLT @ May 23 2009,22:21)
StephenB:
     
Quote
Most people, after hearing that the Old Testament contained 459 prophecies about Jesus Christ, all of which became manifest in time/space/history, would be flabbergasted by the mere improbability of it all. They would demand that I offer a few examples, and, once satisfied that they were legitimate, would be impressed by that astounding fact. Your response, on the other hand, was to shrug it off without another thought or to mischaracterize it as you did as an “after the fact” event—as if Scripture writers had taken New Testament events and redacted them back into the Old Testament records, which is impossible.


You know, Stephen, there is a second possibility. They might have written some stuff in the New Testament to "fulfill" prophecies of the Old Testament. But of course, that is totally completely utterly impossible, isn't it, because everything in the bible is true which is proven by the fulfilled prophecies. I really can't understand why everyone is so reluctant in accepting these facts. I'm convinced. Your logic is impenetrable.

Not only that a lot of prophesies that were full filled were taken out of context.

Is Saint StephenB aware that not all people agree that the NT is right about these things?

I'm not sure where the 459 number came up. I can't find it with Google fingers. There appear to be lists of 100 or 300 approx.

Obviously, the NT writers were attempting to align J's life with as many proof texts as possible. You can make Obama the Messiah using that strategy. Heck, you can probably make Osama the Messiah that way.

Was this UD thread supposed to be about sciencyness or truthiness?

Date: 2009/05/25 08:37:35, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (khan @ May 24 2009,22:01)
Sigh.
My sister, who previously sent medical woo, is now forwarding, forwarding, et al right wing crap.

Khan, are you in the US? Wondering if you read the crap, if so how much of an Obama is the anti-christ mania it has in it.

I just got spam from a business associate (!) about vispace, which seems to be an MLM scam.

My sister is a witch, but she doesn't pitch woo at me.

Date: 2009/05/25 13:37:40, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Zachriel @ May 25 2009,12:13)
Quote
Diffaxial: You (and several others) advance by means of very idiosyncratic language (”physically inert meaning,” etc.)

CJYman: So you are admitting that you haven’t read enough ID material to understand and therefore critique it? That would make sense since it does indeed appear that you are indeed arguing against ID THeory based on your own ignorance of the subject.

For a bit of fun.

A google for "physically inert meaning" yields two hits, both are Diffaxial's own comments in the comment bar of Uncommon Descent. Diffaxial is apparently a leading critic of the concept.

And while "physically inert" is a common scientific phrase yielding thousands of hits, "physically inert" AND "intelligent design" yields fewer than a dozen—with Uncommon Descent listed first.

Nakashima has tried to talk to Uptight BiTard about "physically inert symbol systems" and "chance operating at maximum uncertainty". The first might be derived from Newell and Simon.

Date: 2009/05/26 10:37:42, Link
Author: dvunkannon
I haven't seen JAD posting on UD for a while. Is he still erupting on other sites, or is he completely offline?

Date: 2009/05/26 11:19:37, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Henry J @ May 15 2009,23:01)
Quote
A perduring object, or species, thus threatens to disintegrate into a series of theoretically infinitely thin time-slices, i.e., fleeting Whiteheadian ?occasions? (Whitehead 1979) that are spatio-temporally located parts of processes whose moment ?of becoming is also their moment of perishing? such that they themselves neither change nor move (Sherburne 1966, pp. 210, 222).


So a species is a quantum waveform in a four dimensional space? Such that taking one kind of measurement makes look like a single thing, but another type of measurement makes it look like a wave that's spread out in several directions? Also with the problem that the act of trying to measure it causes uncertainty in the result. :lol:

Henry

I haz confuze. How does Sherburne 1966 quote Whitehead 1979?

Date: 2009/05/26 11:40:08, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (deadman_932 @ May 26 2009,11:54)
Quote (dvunkannon @ May 26 2009,10:37)
I haven't seen JAD posting on UD for a while. Is he still erupting on other sites, or is he completely offline?

As of May 17, John A. Davison, interstellar space cadet, was still alive and posting here.

:O
I got this very strong Bates Motel vibe out of the interaction of JAD/VM over there!

Date: 2009/05/26 18:52:09, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Louis @ May 26 2009,18:45)
tonight's gorgeous Chinese meal.

Louis

What is her name?

Date: 2009/05/28 17:47:34, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Digging backwards into the references from the first Abel paper which Uptight Spoonfed has quoted, trying to find where this idiosyncratic jargon comes from, I'm led to HH Pattee. Here's a sample from the Physics of Symbols:

 
Quote
An epistemic cut is required for all dynamical laws
Before defining these flexible constraints I need to emphasize the generality of the dynamics that they can control. The Newtonian or classical picture is often believed to have been replaced by relativity and quantum theory, but this is not a fair assessment of Newtonian dynamics. First, classical laws are still valid for gravitational forces and velocities small compared to the velocity of light. Second, the results of all measurements of both relativistic and quantum mechanical systems must be expressed in this classical language. It is true that the forms of these modern dynamical laws are different from Newton's, and that the concept of state is defined entirely differently, but the three fundamental epistemic conditions must still hold for all dynamical laws to make objective sense. It is still required that (1) the laws and the initial conditions be crisply separated, (2) initial conditions must be determined by measurements, and (3) measurement and laws must not influence each other8. It is for this reason that Eugene Wigner (1982) considered Newton's greatest discovery, not his laws but rather, "his sharp separation of initial conditions and laws of nature."


My strong feeling is, here is another guy not really comfortable with 20th Century physics, who'd rather ignore QM, the Uncertainty Principle, etc. My take from this paragraph is that he feels that if we can't measure these initial conditions, the laws themselves don't make sense.

Date: 2009/05/29 07:23:16, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (CeilingCat @ May 29 2009,07:06)
Dembski spills the beans:  
Quote
In this course we’re going to take an extended look at the origins of “intelligent design,” a phrase coined not in our own time but in the context of the debates over science and religion in the eighteenth century.

Or, in plain English, "intelligent design" is an old, disproven theory.

It is a Rutgers course, I was hoping Jerry Fodor was the prof, but it is some Asst Prof in the English dept. who can't get the difference between 1800's and eighteenth century.

Date: 2009/05/29 09:43:59, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Dr.GH @ May 29 2009,09:59)
1) I am a real archaeologist

BUT HAV U PLAYED 1 ON TV??!!1! HA DARWINIST INUIT SKIRTCHASER -dt

Date: 2009/05/30 13:22:48, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (k.e.. @ May 30 2009,13:50)
Quote (dvunkannon @ May 29 2009,17:43)
 
Quote (Dr.GH @ May 29 2009,09:59)
1) I am a real archaeologist

BUT HAV U PLAYED 1 ON TV??!!1! HA DARWINIST INUIT SKIRTCHASER -dt

geezez i step out of the frikken room for like i dunno 2 frikken seconds and some frikken dude claims my frikken clown suit. It's like someones been taking notes. What next? I find my box of rabbits is empty?
Have the balloons but leave the rabbits, 'k?

OK carry on and amuse yourselves for a while I've got a gig across town. Paying customers 'n all that.

But I'll be back and when I am, those kids in the front row will get to see a new act I've been working on.

Dr.& Rev of witchcraft k.e..

I PUT IT BACK WHAIR I FOUND IT, CLEANED OFF THE CHEEZZY POOFS THIS TIME, LEFT THE KEYS IN THE IGNITION AND TOOK THE MICE OUT OF THE BLENDER - WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT !!11!1 - dvk

Date: 2009/05/31 14:41:31, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (FreeSpeachFan @ May 31 2009,15:08)
I am a Swedish ID supporter, so I hope you won't ban me as you banned Dave Scot, Air Force Dave, and Four the Kids. I came unto this forum while reading about evolutionism vs. ID on the web, and was appaled at what I saw here.

This site might be the worst train wreck I have ever seen on the net, and believe me when I say I have seen many a uninformed site. It is a cesspool of insults and profan language, a repgnutant swamp of ad hominems passed of as scientific discoarse. I do not expect a rational dialogue thusly[/I], although I concede to change my view should you prove to be able to converse in a civil tone free from the abuse that is so typical of Darwinist forums on the internet. Nevertheless, let it be repeated that my expetactions are low.

Now that I have thusly introduced myself, I must ask why I cannot start topics of my own? As a part of an attempt at supressing open dialogue, perhaps? But I shall showe some goodwill and reconsider this opinion if you can give a cridible reason why I should not be allowed to set up my own tread.

--Crister Wimblén

Hi Crister,

The dis can get somewhat coarse, but you won't get banned unless you threaten to hack the site. FtK has flounced out of her own choice. As you may notice, she has her own thread, so not likely that she was banned, eh?

Don't be so egotistical that you deserve what you have not earned! Stick around, make lots of comments, and you too may follow in the footsteps of Denial Smith, FtK, etc.

In the meantime, we need more Swedish poontang so if you've got pictures of your sister, start posting them. PZ Myers has some great posts on why the vagina is proof of design.

Date: 2009/05/31 19:21:37, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (FreeSpeachFan @ May 31 2009,16:15)
If you want, I can act all troll-ey just for your amusement.

Just post those pictures of your sister.

Date: 2009/06/01 08:45:13, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (CeilingCat @ June 01 2009,07:30)
Dembski's written a really, really deep book.  

For instance:        
Quote
10At least part of Eve’s fault was that she uncritically accepted Satan’s explanation of
God’s refusal to let her eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. She didn’t
ask who Satan was or why he was suddenly supposed to be an authority about God. If she
had done any checking at all, she would have discovered that Satan had been kicked out
of heaven, that his current address was far from God’s, and that he was widely regarded
as a liar and the father of lies (John 8:44).

Question: As one of the only two people on earth, who would she have asked?  Not Adam, he was as ignorant as Eve was.

Look, a quick Google search would told her the answer in, like 0.005 seconds. My search on "Satan" returned 30 milion hits in 0.21 second, and the first was the Wikipedia entry!! How simple is that!

Truly, there is no excuse for the woman's ignorance of who she was dealing with. In the KJV, she has twenty one words (plus spaces and punctuation!) between when the serpent shows up, and when he starts talking. She could have been reading the commentary. She had time to call the Garden of Eden Better Business Bureau! All wasted. God is just, her ignorance was willful.

GERM of TIKI

Date: 2009/06/01 08:51:09, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (keiths @ June 01 2009,09:23)
Gil reveals the self-hatred that is at the root of his faith:
   
Quote
3

GilDodgen
<snip>
Thus began a reexamination of myself. Contrary to conventional, contemporary, secular thinking, I’m not okay, you’re not okay, and not one of us is okay. We all have a great capacity for creativity, compassion, and altruism, but also a dark side that would compel us to perform unspeakable acts of cruelty and degeneracy, given the right circumstances. History has demonstrated this over and over again, and every attempt to create utopia on earth through human effort has resulted in the exact opposite.

Walking into a gay bar wearing a frilly shirt being one of those circumstances.

Date: 2009/06/01 23:41:16, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (N.Wells @ June 02 2009,00:16)
All the comments about Gil and the frilly shirt got me thinking (unfortunately).

So, what do you get if you cross the Frilly Shirt with The Sweater?

I was just going to leave that as a mind-boggling open question, but I started having nightmares about it, so I thought I’d share:

A) A woolly tardigan
B) Unintelligent design
C) A frillet of soul
D) The ID big tent stategy
E) A divine poof
F) A cheesy poof
G) Wretched excess
H) The Gordon Mullins String Bikini
I) Leading ID personage shaved and trained to walk backward, with frills
J) Waterloo!!!

This is why labs have ethics committees! Horizontal gene transfer like this can only be handled in a TardMat Level 5 Containment Facility.

My advice to you - destroy all the samples you may have already created. Make sure no fiber samples are adhering to any lab surface. If there is any sign of a containment breach (lab coats suddenly growing frills or becoming overly large), call the CDC. They have teams specially equipped to wash down the lab with a solution containing nylon eating bacteria. (You may need the 50% nylon 45% rayon 5% spandex eating bacteria if you were dealing with certain frill lines.)

Date: 2009/06/02 22:46:25, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (olegt @ June 02 2009,22:42)
Atom gets worked up about ISCID:
   
Quote

Atom: Furthermore, I remember seeing many discussions on ISCID in its heyday about a “4th Law of Thermodynamics” (with relation to information) where many similar ideas were discussed and if I remember correctly, the phrase Conservation of Information was also used in association with those concepts.

serendipity: The ISCID forums aren’t exactly the first place I’d go if I were trying to gauge the scientific zeitgeist.

Atom: Aside from your unnecessary jab at ISCID, you’ve made your point... But if you’d like to have conversations with me in the future you’ll stay clear from the “I’m-so-clever” little references to ISCID’s popularity and Moonies. I have limited time and prefer not to spend it on people who would think to insult me behind a keyboard.

A word of advice, Atom.  If you are so sensitive about ISCID's lack of scientific standing, don't bring it up in the first place.  Ditto the 4th law of thermodynamics.

Atom might be a Moonie, so the remark may have hit close to home.

Date: 2009/06/03 13:37:05, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ June 03 2009,13:22)
thanks, King of Tard Miners

as cool as Bill Dembski

Said without a trace of irony. Onlookers, how is that possible?


ETA - ok, sigs don't get quoted.

Date: 2009/06/03 14:12:07, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Nakashima
Quote
A good one is the example of the self evident truth that all men are created equal. It only took the American Civil War to work out that, yes, it really was self evident. If you’d prefer to discuss self evidence in terms of the American Declaration of Independence, I’m happy to continue.


Jiu to the Fu to the StephenB, he's kicking your butt with epistemology!

Date: 2009/06/03 15:20:54, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Omedeto! Now you will learn the value of in-laws. Take advantage of their charity and continue to ignore everything they say.

Date: 2009/06/03 16:19:37, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ June 03 2009,12:36)
what you mean "us" kemosabe?

Another great Bill Cosby line!

Date: 2009/06/03 16:36:00, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,June 03 2009,16:27)
   
Quote (dvunkannon @ June 03 2009,16:20)
Omedeto! Now you will learn the value of in-laws. Take advantage of their charity and continue to ignore everything they say.

wow.  that's brilliant.  i will now do that.

Brilliance is just one of the services we provide. Feel free to ask about our package deal on brilliance and condescension, and other great limited time offers.

i hava patend on that darwinoid!!1! shit where is thephone yur heering from my lawyer in the morning11! -dt

and Louis, the staff od the Floating Command Center salut yu!!1 if it wasnt inuit poon, the kid is human don worry -dt again

Date: 2009/06/04 12:31:14, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (JLT @ June 04 2009,08:37)
 
Quote

FOXP2 and Human Cognition

The proximate “tinkering” logic of evolution has often been pointed out. In a sense, we can view the effects of the human form of FOXP2 as a sort of “tuning” that brought the cortico-striatal circuits that humans inherited from other species to a state of higher efficiency.


Hmm, I'm going to have to skim it again. I didn't see "efficiency" the first time through. I'm pretty sure mice had a highly efficient FoxP2 gene and cortical neurons for their niche. If they are less jittery and more thoughtful mice, thay are worse mice, no matter what that tells us about humans.

Date: 2009/06/04 12:38:35, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (ppb @ June 04 2009,13:32)
Quote (Texas Teach @ June 04 2009,12:51)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 04 2009,11:40)
It just takes three steps.

1. Actual conservation laws are well-regarded.
2. My idea needs to be well-regarded.
3. My idea is a conservation law.

Since it's that easy, I propose the following:

The Law of Conservation of TARD--Any idea which begins as TARD will remain TARD no matter how many sciency sounding words, equations, or simulations it is put through.

This law is my law which is mine, etc...

TARD in, TARD out.

That is the SLoT - Second Law of TARD.

The First Law of TARD is that TARD in motion will remain TARD, and TARD at rest will remain TARD.

Date: 2009/06/04 22:24:24, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (AmandaHuginKiss @ June 04 2009,23:03)
Quote (Hermagoras @ June 05 2009,12:44)
Quote (keiths @ June 04 2009,18:21)
 
Quote (carlsonjok @ June 03 2009,18:07)
I restore to you the title King of Tard Miners.

From now on, I'm sleeping with the crown under my pillow.  Lest you would-be usurpers get any ideas, I offer the following to squelch your presumption. Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!

Name                           Tenure               "Reason" for Bannination
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



keiths                  11/29/05 -  1/09/06   Quoted Dembski, Behe and Johnson contradicting DaveScot
bradcliffe1              1/12/06 -  1/14/06   Offered "inflatable possum suit" product idea to W. Dembski for his Evolve Yourself, Inc.
woctor                   1/15/06 -  1/19/06   "Accidental" server glitch destroys my comments, then banned for reposting DaveScot's threat to PT
watchmaker               1/24/06 -  2/01/06   Silent bannination  
valerie                  2/06/06 -  3/07/06   Explained to DaveScot that individual photons do not have a blackbody temperature
woody                    3/09/06 -  3/12/06   Stated that P. Nelson's YEC worldview was profoundly threatened by scientific evidence for an old universe
hypermoderate            4/28/06 -  5/12/06   Demonstrated the circularity of CSI to DaveScot
zapatero                 6/07/06 -  8/15/06   Silent bannination  
sophophile               8/18/06 -  8/22/06   Turned Dembski's question back on him and asked for evidence of ID
Karl Pfluger             9/03/06 - 10/04/06   Corrected DaveScot's uninformed blather on microprocessor modeling at the transistor level
                           10/06 -     6/08   The Telic Thoughts Era
                            7/08 -    10/08   Hiatus
Turdus migratorius            stillborn       It seems the scientific illiterates at UD thought this name was scatalogical and were too stupid to check
ribczynski              11/18/08 - 12/21/08   Hurt Clive's feewings by calling him smarmy at AtBC and refusing to submit to a double standard of moderation
                            1/09 -     3/09   Hiatus
skeech & skeech plus     4/06/09 -  4/06/09   Silent bannination
mauka                    3/25/09 -  4/26/09   Silent bannination for challenging Barry's moderation double standards            
beelzebub                5/03/09 -  5/28/09   Advised Clive to put down the Lewis and Chesterton and pick up a newspaper
serendipity              5/29/09 -  6/02/09   Banned for challenging Clive's moderation double standards and for being keiths

That's some nice record-keeping there, pardner.

All the socks should publish a link to this list

All their sock are belong to you!

Date: 2009/06/04 22:45:09, Link
Author: dvunkannon
From the latest O'Dreary Sexual Repression Contest thread:
Quote
Balding, then, is an outward sign of age, and thus might actually attract younger women.


then why Clinton get it for free while Spitzer had to pay!!1! Clinton cud get any poon he wanned even Hilary! -dt
AS IF -dt again

Date: 2009/06/05 14:10:01, Link
Author: dvunkannon
On the C Hunter thread:
Quote
29

Nakashima

06/05/2009

2:00 pm
Mr PaulN,

Of all the plants and animals mentioned in the Bible, which do you think has the weakest support in the fossil record for gradual, macro-evolutionary change?


Which will Paul choose? Which would you choose?

Date: 2009/06/05 22:01:39, Link
Author: dvunkannon
By their TARD you shall know them:
Quote
6

Nakashima

06/05/2009

9:49 pm
Mrs O’Leary,

Maybe the best long run solution would be a figure for the type and amount of genetic difference that should prompt us to classify a given life form as a different species from another.

It is an interesting suggestion, but that is exactly what Mr Mims was complaining about - the reduction of systematics to DNA analysis.


And the original article. And O'Leary's own blog entry at Post-Darwinist!

Date: 2009/06/05 22:33:17, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ June 05 2009,23:29)
Quote (dvunkannon @ June 05 2009,23:01)
By their TARD you shall know them:
 
Quote
6

Nakashima

06/05/2009

9:49 pm
Mrs O’Leary,

Maybe the best long run solution would be a figure for the type and amount of genetic difference that should prompt us to classify a given life form as a different species from another.

It is an interesting suggestion, but that is exactly what Mr Mims was complaining about - the reduction of systematics to DNA analysis.


And the original article. And O'Leary's own blog entry at Post-Darwinist!

how anyone can be that civil in the face of abject stupid is beyond me, but at any rate I betcha respectable tran-mother doesn't get it.  what a maroon

It is easy, every time Nakashima posts, he thinks, WWJD?

Date: 2009/06/06 10:25:36, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote
7

Nakashima

06/06/2009

10:13 am
Dr Hunter,

You are on much safer ground expressing the opinion that evolutionary thought entails metaphysical naturalism than relabelling all post-Enlightenment science as “Evolutionary Thought”. Exactly what part of condensed matter physics deserves the label “Evolutionary Thought”? What part of organic chemistry? What part of meteorology would be done differently if it was all done by Hasidic Jews?

What would Gregor Mendel have concluded differently about genetics if he had been a monk, and not blinded by the implicate metaphysical naturalism of all post-Enlightenment science?


oh, wait...

Date: 2009/06/06 18:51:45, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Zachriel @ June 06 2009,08:48)
Cornelius Hunter has posted several new threads at Uncommon Descent most of which link back to his own blog for the balance of the essay. But there doesn't seem to be a way to comment on his blog.

How Future Scholars Will View Evolution

PZ Myers: The Anti-Authoritarian Authoritarian

The Three Fallacies of Evolution

Religion Masquerades as Science in Forbes Magazine

Its odd. You'd figure he would prefer to be slapped around in private than be humiliated in front of his mates at UD.

Date: 2009/06/06 20:03:32, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote
16

PhilosophyFan

06/05/2009

8:49 pm
I’ll post my response soon, as I’d love to win that magazine subscription. I tried ordering one long ago and it never arrived; probably some problem with my mom’s credit card and their records.


Evidence of youth or basement dwelling? What is the design inference?

Date: 2009/06/07 06:40:56, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Paul Flocken @ June 07 2009,00:26)
Can someone explain to me why cats have not evolved a way to digest their own hair instead of spitting it up all over my floor?
???

if carnivores had figured that one out they would eat the outside of a sheep not the inside, Darwinist!!1! -dt

Date: 2009/06/07 09:19:22, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (afarensis @ June 07 2009,10:05)
Quote (carlsonjok @ June 07 2009,05:36)
 
Quote (sparc @ June 07 2009,00:13)
Gil is back.

Well, then let us crank up the Dodgenator 3000 and see if Gil is bringing something new to the table, shall we?

   
Quote
DLLs are dynamic link libraries of executable code which are accessed by multiple programs, in order to save memory and disk space. But this interdependence can cause big problems
........    
Quote
I’m still trying to figure out how the circulatory avian lung evolved in a step-by-tiny-step fashion from the reptilian bellows lung, without encountering DLL hell, and how the hypothesized intermediates did not die of asphyxia at the moment of birth (or hatching), without the chance to reproduce.

Clearly, this is Argument B1, so Gil isn't advancing anything new here, although I do like the little YEC flourish of "What good is half a lung?" that he added there.

I luv teh internets! I typed "evolution of avian lung" into Google and six pages in found the article I was looking for. Makes me wish I had a sock puppet at UD so I could mention it to Gil...

Edit to fix a typo and to add that this paper is interesting as well

Nakashima recommended that Gil do just that! The first hit of googling "evolution avian lung" is a discussion of that O'Connor paper.

Date: 2009/06/07 10:42:51, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (k.e.. @ June 07 2009,10:55)
DLL hell?

Hah.

Let us all refer to scripture shall we? (kiddie scripture that is dearly belove-ed)

And lo, Torvalds said unto the Pharanancies "We shall smite DiLLs to hell and let the GPL genetically cross drift teh mines of Soloman for Savoir cf Connaître"

And there was much smiting and gorging and oral sex.

but is there spanking first?

Date: 2009/06/07 12:57:45, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (afarensis @ June 07 2009,11:52)
Quote (dvunkannon @ June 07 2009,10:42)
Quote (k.e.. @ June 07 2009,10:55)
DLL hell?

Hah.

Let us all refer to scripture shall we? (kiddie scripture that is dearly belove-ed)

And lo, Torvalds said unto the Pharanancies "We shall smite DiLLs to hell and let the GPL genetically cross drift teh mines of Soloman for Savoir cf Connaître"

And there was much smiting and gorging and oral sex.

but is there spanking first?

Naughty dvunkannon, you turned the Holy Grail light on again, didn't you?

Naughty Zoot!

Date: 2009/06/08 14:08:38, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Nakashima applies for the court jester position at UD
Quote
15

Nakashima

06/08/2009

1:52 pm
Mr R0b,

Even worse, it references self-reference, of which it is an example, so it must be doubly illogical.

Instead of quoting the Knights Who Say Ni, let me note that two illogics make a logic, at least one quarter of the time according to Mendel, or at least half the time according to Schrodinger (but you are never sure of which half).

This concludes the silly portion of this program.


While harsh satire can lead to bannination, we have yet to see what will happen to prolonged periods of bemused giggling. Maybe AtBC memes are tunneling through to the other side. I personally can't wait for BA^77 to write "PM 'Ras, you magni^ficient bas^tard"!

Date: 2009/06/08 16:01:14, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Louis @ June 08 2009,16:10)
 
Quote (k.e.. @ June 08 2009,20:33)
 
Quote (Louis @ June 08 2009,18:35)
   
Quote (k.e.. @ June 08 2009,12:17)
[SNIP]

Take one vile of your sperm...yes yours.

And see how many wimin want to impregnate themselves with it.

If the answer is a Godel series then they are crackpots.

[SNIP]

I can assure of one thing: none of those women will be Eskimos. However, those that do, will practically be breaking their pelvises open to do so.*

Louis

*For the uninitiated this is parody of the late, lamented DaveTard, and not representative of my own views or delusions.

Cracking stuff dude,

....although I'm not sure whether I should be happy or sad for Inuits of the female persuasion.

I'm going with "both".*

Louis

*Joke in 5...4...3...2...1...

sure going for both is probably even legal in whatever darwinist police state you liv in, the sovereign state of Louis's Closet! Issuing stamps of sweaty Welshers in red dresses wrestling Inuit as a way of raising currency to be spent on that WMart classic combo of beer and diapers! ha!!1! which is for which have you figgered that out yet! thoought not -dt

Date: 2009/06/08 16:09:55, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ June 08 2009,15:28)
<SINCE> we are in rare and exceedingly unique times, unifying and synthesizing and doing normal sciencey stuff here and there, it is time for k.e.. to fess up to being mynym's sock driver.  hmm?

Onlookers, note the attempt, feeble and febrile, to reorient the attention of the bystanders at the Clapham bus stop from the atheist ad on the side of the bus, the one that states "I'm Jerry, Be Happy".

Date: 2009/06/08 21:40:27, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Hey, I just noticed the Authors list on the UD page. Was that always there? OLeary has recently overtaken DaveS as the second most prolific author. That must burn!

Date: 2009/06/09 07:09:19, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (keiths @ June 09 2009,04:35)
 
Quote (keiths @ June 09 2009,01:28)
Tonight I was savoring (so to speak) the poetic justice of Dembski's Baylor cafeteria bannination when I got to wondering what the food was like at his new institutional home.  Here's this week's menu:
   
Quote
Monday  
Lunch  11:40 am - 2:00 pm
Home-style Entrees : Sliced Chicken w/ Peppers OR Chicken Tenders
Sides : Corn, Green Beans, Mac & Cheese, Mashed Potatoes



Tuesday
Lunch  11:40 am - 2:00 pm
Home-style Entrees : Meatloaf or BBQ Chicken
Sides : Corn, Green Beans, Mac & Cheese, Mashed Potatoes



Wednesday
Lunch  11:40 am - 2:00 pm
Home-style Entrees : Chicken Fried Steak or Meatballs
Sides : Corn, Green Beans, Mashed Potatoes, Mac & Cheese



Thursday
Lunch  11:40 am - 2:00 pm
Home-style Entrees : Chicken Fried Chicken or BBQ Beef
Sides : Corn, Green Beans, Mashed Potatoes, Mac & Cheese



Friday
Lunch  11:40 am - 2:00 pm
Home-style  Oven Fried Chicken OR Salisbury Steak
Sides : Corn, Green Beans, Mashed Potatoes, Mac & Cheese

That's gotta hurt.  At least they switch the order of mashed potatoes and mac and cheese for a little variety in the second half of the week.

Bwahahahaha.

The Chicken Fried Chicken is a nice southern touch.

Meanwhile, at Baylor University's Harrington House Faculty Dining, Dr G. Baylor Finch chooses  
Quote
A simmering bowl of French Onion soup, topped with
toasted croutons and melted Swiss cheese.

Asian Chicken Salad - Shredded carrots, purple cabbage, toasted almonds,
mandarin oranges, and seasoned grilled chicken breast,
atop a bed of crisp lettuce, complimented with Asian
vinaigrette dressing and crisp wonton skins.

Grilled flatbread topped with melted mozzarella
cheese, sliced tomatoes, fresh basil, and spritzed with
olive oil.
Additional Toppings $0.25 each ~ Ground beef, ham,
grilled chicken, pineapples, jalapeños, bell pepper

Harrington House Bread Pudding - Topped with warm New Orleans sauce.


Vanity of vanities, says the Preacher, all is chicken fried vanity.

Date: 2009/06/09 11:47:43, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ June 09 2009,10:02)
It puts the lotion in the pot and boils it

Quote
When potboilers start covering something like the Discovery Institute, it means that lots of people must know about it, and more soon will. That can’t be bad for the spread of their ideas.


lololololol  

stephen king also boiled the pot with IT.  now everyone knows about malevolent clowns that live in the sewer.  Dennis you sure picked a funny metric for the measurement of 'success' don't you think?  

i think it actually measures "suck excess".  beware the interpretation

Perhaps the Voynich Manuscript is the source of O'Leary's blog entries. If so, most of it can be translated as "Buy My Book!"

Date: 2009/06/09 13:10:54, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,June 09 2009,13:07)
maybe the author of this... ahem... book....  picked on the discovery institute because they too have been long associated withdesign detection FAIL

the wiki entry for the voynich manuscript is an interesting read i had never heard of this thing before.  CSI technicians, to the secret labs!!!

If the Spanish original was published in 2007, his research may have begun in 2004, motivated in part by Gilder's book on Brahe and Kepler. That would put the DI at the height of their pre KvD boasting, with Prez GW Shrub endorsing the intelligent design concept in August 2005. In that era the plot points about the DI's links to the gummamint start to make sense.

Voynich Manuscript is a really tough nut to crack! I read a lot about it a couple years ago when I was more into cryptography. I don't think it is a hoax, more like an early TIMECUBE. The connection to Drebbel is interesting to me.

ETA clarity

Date: 2009/06/09 14:41:30, Link
Author: dvunkannon
As O'Leary can say it...
Quote
4

O'Leary

06/09/2009

11:33 am
David Kellogg, Beckwith distanced himself from ID and resigned from the Discovery Institute in (I think) 2007 - to make clear that he had distanced himself, or so I heard.

As a constitutional law prof, he had only said it was constitutional to teach ID, not that he agreed with it.

That is somewhat like me saying that it is constitutional to teach that Mary Queen of Scots was the rightful heir to the British throne. That doesn’t mean I agree with the view.


Beckwith's name is not in the UD Author list. Was it disappeared? I cannot find a reference to it.

I think a better analogy would be to say "I don't agree with Holocaust Denial, I just think it is ok to teach." But than I would lose via an appeal to Godwin.

Date: 2009/06/09 19:49:14, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Louis @ June 09 2009,19:28)
Quote (JLT @ June 10 2009,00:06)
Quote (steve_h @ June 09 2009,23:48)
     
Quote (keiths @ June 09 2009,22:52)
Unbelievable. He still hasn't learned:
                 
Quote
9 June 2009

A More Realistic Computer Simulation of Biological Evolution

GilDodgen

[snip mindblowing idiocy]

Achh
Err
Gack
Whatthe?

[snip]

Seconded.

Also:
<head explodes>

Thirded.

Oh and one vital discovery: coffee = gud. It's amazing what a grinder, a cafetiere and some truly world class beans can accomplish. Pass it on, buy some stocks. I think this will be a big hit one day. In fact I can confidently predict that there will, in the future, be a small coffee boutique in every major town and city, possibly turning over nearly £100 a day in coffee sales.

You heard it here first folks.

Louis

P.S. Those Wall Street fat cats don't want you to know about it. They are Darwinists who are trying to suppress the truth. It's part of a global conspiracy involving Space Lizards and the Illuminati. Oh no! I've said too much.

P.P.S. Hmmmm I think the combination of excessive caffeine, sleep deprivation and exposure to T.A.R.D. has done busted mah brainy stem. Quick, Nurse!  The screens!

Louis,

The most valuable internationally traded commodity is oil, the second is coffee. (Just counting legal ones, here)

With your help, we can take the number one spot!

Date: 2009/06/09 21:06:01, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Nakashima goes for the nuclear option AKA The Sound Of Phillip Johnson's Head Assploding
 
Quote
Any population capable of heritable variation and selection experiences evolution. There is nothing necessarily biological about that, it applies to GAs. There is also nothing naturalistic about it. You can read the story of Joseph and the goats in Genesis as an evolutionary episode. Evolution is Scriptural!!


This should be good for 10K words from KairosBlabbermouth.

Date: 2009/06/10 18:29:17, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Louis @ June 10 2009,16:06)
Who knows, he may be the one who finally brings balance to the Force....or he could be very good at flipping a burger. Time will tell! ;-)

Were his midi-chlorians checked at birth?

Date: 2009/06/11 22:04:55, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Lou FCD @ June 11 2009,19:07)
Dear Mr. Joseph,

You're a retard.

That is all.

With all respect due,

Lou FCD





P.S. Bwahahahahahahaahahaha

I think Nakashima was angling for his own invitation to meet Mighty Joe G. Can you imagine them meeting for sushi, beer, and karaoke?

Date: 2009/06/11 23:07:16, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote
13

Graham

06/11/2009

10:00 pm
I agree with Mr Kellogg (#1).
Whats the point of O’Learys tract ?


Can you say agit prop, kultur kampf, or Father Coughlin with training wheels?

Date: 2009/06/12 14:24:42, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote
1

Nakashima

06/12/2009

2:11 pm
Mrs O’Leary,

I was going to write something trivial about fly fishing, when I was suddenly struck by the contrast between your treatment of Charles Darwin and your treatment of Adnan Oktar.

What is it about about Oktar that exempts him from your fulminations? Whose views are closer to von Brunn’s, Darwin’s or Oktar’s? Why wasn’t your headline Breaking Story Holocaust Museum murderer influenced by Turkish Anti-Semite Holocaust Denier?

Your double standard is obvious, but do you have an explanation for it deeper than Proverbs 30:20?


For the Bibble-challenged among us:
Quote
This is the way of an adulterous woman: She eats and wipes her mouth, And says, "I have done no wrong."


cue bannination for accusing DO'L of adultery in 5, 4, ...

Date: 2009/06/12 17:54:35, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Ruben's group at OSU has been a hold out against birds being dinos for a long time. So now their position is "theropods that developed in parallel with dinos." Meh.

YECs will happily latch on to any controversy, ignoring the time scale and other areas of agreement among the scientists to only highlight the lack of consensus.

Date: 2009/06/12 23:57:21, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (sparc @ June 12 2009,22:19)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ June 12 2009,14:29)
     
Quote (dvunkannon @ June 12 2009,14:24)
     
Quote
1

Nakashima

06/12/2009

2:11 pm
Mrs O’Leary,

I was going to write something trivial about fly fishing, when I was suddenly struck by the contrast between your treatment of Charles Darwin and your treatment of Adnan Oktar.

What is it about about Oktar that exempts him from your fulminations? Whose views are closer to von Brunn’s, Darwin’s or Oktar’s? Why wasn’t your headline Breaking Story Holocaust Museum murderer influenced by Turkish Anti-Semite Holocaust Denier?

Your double standard is obvious, but do you have an explanation for it deeper than Proverbs 30:20?


For the Bibble-challenged among us:
       
Quote
This is the way of an adulterous woman: She eats and wipes her mouth, And says, "I have done no wrong."


cue bannination for accusing DO'L of adultery in 5, 4, ...

PoTW by proxy.

Seconded.
And here's the missing link.

Nakashima neologizes in round 2 with O'leary
 
Quote
What do I know about Oktar and von Brunn? Not enough to write “journuendo’ the way you have.


The big owwie:
 
Quote
If you can write this way and not feel the need to wash your hands like Lady Macbeth, then you are a candidate for the Roger Ailes/Father Coughlin award in journalistic demogoguery. But I wouldn’t want to be in your position when answering the question “Grandma, what did you do during the Culture War?”

Date: 2009/06/13 00:12:07, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 12 2009,23:07)
I'll check with Reed Cartwright about existing popgen packages.

Avida is not a package that aims to directly model biological population genetics. There is quite a lot of conceptual overlap between Avida evolution and biological evolution, but it isn't at the low-level that MA claims to operate at. For example, current research in Avida is looking at the role of compensatory mutations. But each mutation in an Avidian is an instruction, not a base as in DNA. The Avida research can provide another line of evidence that complements that of biological research on compensatory mutations, but it isn't aimed at answering questions like, "At what rate should we expect compensatory mutations to fix in species X?" It's that kind of question that the folks pushing MA position it as a tool to answer, or would if they took any note of compensatory mutations at all. I think you get the drift, though.

Avida, by the way, has no difficulty in cranking out data on generation after generation for a set population size. Most Avida work is done on population sizes between 900 and 10,000 Avidians. However, I'm working on extending the Avida-ED program, and one part is to allow up to 90,000 organisms in the population. That is, by the way, accomplished with a change to the graphical user interface to allow selection of a grid size of up to 300 by 300, where the current version's grid-size slider only goes up to 100. The underlying Avida instance is unchanged. Tracking mutations is possible in Avida as well, but is done in analysis after the run finishes. Runs can go into the millions of updates. I don't know that anyone has tried to find an upper limit. Avida's ability to do this is because it only needs to hold the current population and grid in memory. Everything else gets written to disk.

Umm, what happened to Model-View-Controller? The idea that the model is costrained by the UI is pretty scary.

Date: 2009/06/13 10:21:49, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Hermagoras @ June 13 2009,09:04)
 
Quote (keiths @ June 13 2009,07:44)
 
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ June 13 2009,04:51)
Gordon shouldn't post when he's drunk:
   
Quote
That Mr Kellogg sees the issues in the BOOK, Whatever Happened to the Human Race [the movie being derivative . . . ], as “peripheral,” tells us all we need to know. Issues like: the abandonment of the sanct6ity of life ethic based onteh rise of scientific evolutionary marterilaism and associated secular humanism, devalues human life and injects amorality inot the public domain. Consequences like: once human life is defvalued, it hen becomes an easy matter to dismiss and destropy first the unborbn child inthe womb, then the “unsatisfactory” child who has been born, thent o euthanise those who are somehow regarded as deficient. rthen, to commit genocide, once there is an utter breakdown in respect for the vaslue of life.

Damn.  I thought I had fixed that bug.  I guess it's time to release kairosfocus 3.1 .

I think Kellogg really gets him agitated.

I thought Kellogg got Joe G agitated? Is this guy hot or what??  :)

Speaking of Mighty Joe G...

In the "twisty maze of little passage, all alike" category, here are some of the twists taken by Joe on the subject of macroevolution:

Joe: there is no evidence for macroevolution

Reality based Commenters: sure there is

Joe: No

RBC: what about plants?

Joe: there is no evidence of macro-evolution in plants

RBC: what about X?

Joe: Even YECs know that plants do not reproduce after their kind, so plants don't count

RBC: YECs don't say that, the Bible doesn't say that

Joe: <chirping>

RBC: as we were discussing macro-evolution earlier...

Joe: there is no evidence for macro-evolution

RBC: even plants?

Joe: only animals count in a discussion of macro-evolution

RBC: SRSLY?

Joe: there is no evidence of plant macro-evolution

RBC: but you previously said plant macro-evolution was allowed even by YECs

Joe: there is no evidence of plant macro-evolution

RBC: how about this two gene mutation?

Joe: I have a call into AiG to say if that is enough to qualify for a new species

RBC: How about calling your local botany professor?

Joe: you're not using the right definition of macro-evolution

RBC: this would be macro-evolution even according to the YEC definition

Joe: your definition isn't debated enough

RBC: so what?

Joe: this is only speciation, not macro-evolution

RBC: both definitions include speciation in macro-evolution

Joe: <chirping>

Joe was getting simultaneously pwned on the subject of whether behavior was subject to selection. His willingness to stake a claim based on no apparent knowledge has led to many amusing exchanges.

Date: 2009/06/13 12:27:17, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Quack @ June 13 2009,11:44)
Wonder what they will say (or maybe Scandinavia (with not only academic freedom but a fair amount of all kinds of freedom - even to the extent that nobody cares whether you ever go to church or not) already has been written off) when they learn that Sweden is about to reform/replace the dated marriage institution and rituals with gender neutral marriage.

I couldn't care less. (Except I think it is a good idea. Gay-ness most likely won't disappear from the planet.)

Born in 1930, I grew up in a town named Trondheim, Norway (population 60.000 back then). A florist owned a shop aptly named Iris, and he was known to all the town by that name. Although married to a woman, all the town knew he was gay.

Many homo jokes and sayings attributed to him were circulating and his homosexuality was a non-issue.

(Edit typo fix.)

More to the point of their fears, non-gay-ness won't disappear either!

since bill dumped me for that canado-morph, the only poofs i car about are cheezy. screw her and the horse that rode in on her. yep, evrthing manly her at the FCM!

call me bill bill she's no good for you!!1! semper fi bill, BFF shit now im crying -dt

Date: 2009/06/13 23:44:02, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Andrew Sibley quotemines in classic UD fashion but somehow misses this from two pages earlier in the same publication - a bona fide reference to UD itself!
           
Quote
Did creationists and ID proponents take succour from the New Scientist article? The leading ID website, Uncommon Descent chose to highlight the quote:
“The tree of life is being politely buried.” Some of those who used its pages to comment certainly sounded gleeful: “It’s interesting to see one of their cherished icons fall” wrote one. Should the QToL network be alarmed that Uncommon Descent chose to use the summary of the Pittsburgh meeting on the EGN website as a useful review of developments and arguments in the field? “I don’t think it’s alarming,” says Professor John Dupré, director of Egenis. “I think most of us feel that our thinking is robust enough to bear scrutiny by anyone, whatever their ideological background. And I use the word ‘ideological’ advisedly, because that, in fact, is part of the problem with this whole area. “Anti-Darwinists treat evolution as a belief system rather than as science, and Darwin as someone whose pronouncements stand or fall in their entirety, rather than a man who posited a theory based on the information available to him at the time.

“As one blogger said, we don’t call physics ‘Newtonism’, and evolution isn’t Darwinism. The theory of evolution itself has and will continue to evolve as different fields within biology make new discoveries. We shouldn’t be afraid of being absolutely clear about that. In a way, we need to reclaim Darwin. He was a scientist with a theory, not a religious figure with a doctrine, and the conflict with those who believe in Intelligent Design is only a sideshow.”

Professor Doolittle agrees. "The current theory of evolution is simpler, more radical and harder to argue against than its detractors pretend," he said. "Trying
to make sense of biology without evolution is like trying to make sense of current affairs without history. Natural selection and descent with modification, Darwin's essential contributions, are but part of evolutionary biology's current explanatory tool kit, but they were what convinced scientists, and much of the public, that life, including our own, is not incomprehensible."


The "cherished icons" quote is from Barb @2  in this post by PaulN. I can't find a clear use of the second quote on UD. It might be a misquote of anonym on a Gil Dodgen thread, but is more likely a slight misquote of Science After Sunclipse summarizing a talk by Dawkins.

What did DDrr.. Dembski say? They're having an impact!

Date: 2009/06/15 12:55:10, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Bob O'H @ June 15 2009,13:29)
Clive, I'd like to ask this over at UD, but you won't let me.  Anyway, you wrote
 
Quote
In 1801, Abraham Louis Breguet, called the “watchmaker of kings and the king of watchmakers,” patented a watch mechanism called the Tourbillon, ...

Among the many Breguet clients have been folks such as Marie Antoinette, Napoleon Bonaparte, Sir Winston Churchill, and George Washington.

Marie Antoinette died in 1793, so whilst she might have been a client, the connection to the Tourbillon is unclear.

Breguet died in 1823. Sir Winston Churchill was born in 1874.  So when he was Breguet's client, was he dealing with a vampire or a zombie?

Wiki says she ordered directly from him. He started his firm in Paris in 1775. The firm sold to Churchill.

Date: 2009/06/15 16:37:47, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ June 15 2009,14:04)
Ok, I definitely have to go and have a puke....

Anything in particular about UD that is making you feel this way, or do you need new filters in your TARD mask?

lock yourself in the bathroom, go ahead <-- get it! i keel myself sometimes full of nuatical humer on the FCM tonitw!!1! back to the show Darwinist! you can get puky when ID is the ruling paramidg paragidm paradmg paradimn fuckit YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN!!1 -dt

Date: 2009/06/16 23:35:20, Link
Author: dvunkannon
I think Dembski's latest notvertisement (Buy My Book In The Future!) went from No Comments to Comments Off. Did he obliviate anything or just chicken out?

Date: 2009/06/17 14:29:19, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Speciation through a single base mutation

Date: 2009/06/17 20:05:15, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,June 17 2009,16:32)
 
Quote
The researchers also used stuffed taxidermic mounts to test the birds' ability to recognize their own subspecies and found that the two groups of flycatchers consistently preferred their own kind. Together, these results indicate that the single genetic swap probably set speciation in motion, Uy said.


NICE TRY CHANCE WORSHIPPER.  WATCH THIS

FLYCATCHER MATE PREFERENCE = F(IMMATERIAL MIND) = CANNOT BE MEASURED = CANNOT BE QUANTIFIED= SUPERNATURAL

SUCK IT DARWINIST HOMOS.  MAYBE THERE ARE INUIT FLYCATCHERS.  GO BURN A CHURCH  -  DT

how do they know what they looklike?! huh?? answer that darwinist!!1! no pocket mirrors in the Malay jungle
besides both subspecies actually preferred the BLOND flycatchers, even ones with dark roots ha i kill myself
"flycatchers" who is gonna believe that anyway sounds gay and gays species go extinct faster than debbie gibson's hairstyle -dt

Date: 2009/06/17 22:53:44, Link
Author: dvunkannon
From the Joseph Campbell thread
Quote
115

Nakashima

06/17/2009

10:40 pm
Mr Jerry,

There was a lot of that kind of analysis carried during the quasi-latching war, and more is available over at AtBC. You would actually have to write extra code to make the letters fix, the text is describing a simple algorithm, and would have need to go on and say explicitly that letters fix if that was the behavior desired. In general, these algorithms, called mu,lambda evolution strategies, do not fix individual parts of the genome.

Really, you should go over to AtBC, you are famous there!


Why, folks would pay money and stop burning churches to watch a conversation between Jerry, Ras and Bob O'H

Date: 2009/06/19 11:38:05, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (GCUGreyArea @ June 19 2009,06:21)
Quote (KenGee @ June 19 2009,04:40)
From  Cornelius Hunter website
"Heliocentrism eventually replaced geocentrism not because it was more accurate, but because eventually it could be made to be so much simpler."
"Fail"
Gee Hunter it could also have been becuase the fucking earth does in fact orbit the sun.

In fact the sun does orbit the earth, just not by nearly as much as the earth orbits the sun.

If the sun really did orbit the Earth in one day from a distance of 93 million miles, what would its orbital velocity be? Faster than the speed of light? Faster than an unladen swallow? African or European?

Date: 2009/06/19 19:39:09, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (CeilingCat @ June 19 2009,20:21)
Those are Cheezy Poofs she's feeding that otter!  Could this be why we haven't seen DaveTard  lately?  Is he so down and out after being kicked off of UD that he's reduced to putting on the ol' otter suit and playing piano in sleazy dives for Cheezy Poofs?

DaveTard is driven away in shame and then an otter appears, playing piano for Cheezy Poofs, possibly on a houseboat?  Coincidence?  I call Tard!

I know, your first instinct is hyper-skepticism.  DaveTard hasn't been within two hundred pounds of getting into an otter suit in a coons age.  But have you ever seen a known otter eat Cheezy Poofs?

Bearing in mind the possibility of crash diets, possibly with the use of powerful reducing mushrooms, and Cheezy Poofs being eaten like they were manna from heaven, I think the probability of that "otter" being DaveTard is better than 10^150.

she was holding them teh smae way Bill uesd to do,making me beg for the bannination stick HOW COULD I RESIST!!1! -dt

Date: 2009/06/19 19:44:35, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Nakashima the Accounting Major (from the Signature thread)
 
Quote
77

Nakashima

06/19/2009

7:10 pm
Mr Blu,

Thank you for inviting my further comments.

Lets think about all the different cell types in the human body. The Wikipedia list of cell types is about 210 distinct types of cells. But to be safe from our own ignorance, lets double that, and round up to 500. Now lets double that again to cover all the cell types that might exist during development, but not in the final adult body. So human development takes 1000 cell types. Wow! How many gene switches would it take to regulate all those?

10.

2^10 = 1024.

OK, our bodies might not be that efficient in terms of using switches, so double it.

20.

Maybe each signalling gene needs 3 other genes to work right.

80.

Lets round up and say that to be safe our original estimate of 10 was off by an order of magnitude.

100.

So the body uses 100 genes to build the eye. It uses the same 100 genes to build every other cell type.

That is cool.


it only takes 10 cuz that is how many fingerz the designer had, Inuit skirt chaser! -dt

Date: 2009/06/19 19:57:19, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Hunter says something sig-worthy
Quote
There are none. I’m referring to evolution, not changes in allele frequencies.


and Nakashima takes the bait
Quote
No worries then! I’m not an evolutionist, I’m a change in allele frequentist!


(from the Answers to Judge Jones thread)

Date: 2009/06/20 08:52:58, Link
Author: dvunkannon
I think you need some more explicit Xian theology mangling, try this:


Before the fall, all the genes were in the correct kind of animal, but because of Eve's sin, God mixed them up. It is the same process He used at the Tower of Babel - a dramatic increase in entropy as a punishment.

DGSEs are trying to rebuild jigsaw puzzle. The natural world has to be ready for the Second Coming. The return of Logos will return the natural world to the order that existed before the Fall. Like a perfect shuffle returning a deck of cards to their original order. We think all of these viral waves around the world are diseases, they are not - they are those last few random seeming shuffles before the massive reshuffling of the End Times.

Date: 2009/06/20 09:41:50, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Extending the lifetime of the biosphere

Thes folks argue that life naturally reduces the partial pressure of nitrogen over time by sequestering it. Is that right?

Date: 2009/06/21 22:11:09, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Do you remember the part of Annie Hall where Woody Allen pulls Marshall MacLuhan out from behind a potted plant? I was tempted to do the same thing on the long running tardfest that started with Cornelius Hunter readting to Barbara Forrest, by actually getting Dr Forrest to comment.

Sadly, intercessory prayer did not work in this case either.

Date: 2009/06/21 22:26:32, Link
Author: dvunkannon
From the MEDAL (Missouri Estimation of Distribution Algorithms Laboratory blog

Quote
John H. Holland will give a keynote speech at GECCO-2009 on July 12, 2009 (Sunday), 10:40am-11:40am. The talk is entitled Genetic Algorithms: Long Ago [Past] and Far Away [Future] and the abstract of the talk follows:

It was in the mid-50’s of the 20th century when I realized that Fisher’s fundamental theorem could be extended from individual alleles to co-adapted sets of alleles, without linearization. That led to a realization that recombination, rather than mutation, was the main mechanism providing grist for the natural selection mill. There was little theory concerning recombination in those days, but now recombination is a standard explanation for biological innovations, such as swine flu.

Much later, in the early 1990’s, GA’s provided the “adaptive” part of rule-based models of complex adaptive systems (CAS), such as the artificial stock market pioneered at the Santa Fe Institute. Tag-based signal processing occurs in systems as different as biological cells, language acquisition, and ecosystems. CAS models offer a unified way to study the on-going co-evolution of boundary and tag networks in these systems

Date: 2009/06/22 18:06:53, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Herb on the mockumentary thread
Quote
Nice to see CMI is behind this—I regularly listen to Dr. John Morris’s radio spots, and I know their doctrine is sound.


Mmm doctrine! The documentary filmmaker's friend! Without doctrine, how would you know what you want your victims to say?

Date: 2009/06/22 18:09:23, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (carlsonjok @ June 22 2009,18:16)
Quote (deadman_932 @ June 22 2009,16:52)
My goodness.

In that thread on StephenB's claim that "methodological naturalism has no history prior to 1983" --- StephenB's brain bursts like a pustule, a veritable Vesuvius of oozing tard.

If he were *here* rather than at UD, he'd have to run off. *There*, he had no choice except to whip out post hoc equivocation &  redefinition fallacies.

Actually, they are even running away over there. After raising the Harvard Intercessory Prayer Study as an example of how science can study the supernatural, not a single one of them wants to offer their thoughts on the results of that study.

I can't say I blame them. Either they have to admit that it seems prayer doesn't work or they have to trot out some kind of "God moves in mysterious ways" justification that would completely cut the legs out from underneath their argument against methodological naturalism.

That is probably why Nakashima brought it up!

Date: 2009/06/23 07:32:22, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ June 23 2009,08:02)
Quote (GCUGreyArea @ June 23 2009,04:48)
Gordon wets himself during an hysterical fit:          
Quote
526
kairosfocus
06/23/2009
2:56 am
Moderators:

At 511, sparc has violated my privacy, in a comment with no substantial relevance, other than being an ad hominem-laced comment.

GEM of TKI

And the noffending post:
         
Quote
511
sparc
06/22/2009
2:15 pm
Gordon,
“onlookers” sounds so Robespiere-esque

Sorry Gordumb, according to a UK Judicial ruling you don't have the right to anonymity because you are posting on a public (ish) forum.

Gordon, Almost all of your massive posts being with claims that the people you are arguing against are some for of sad immoral reflection of society - Way to go, respond to argument by attacking the person then whine about ad-hominem attacks.  I found a web page that is all about YOU.
(and yes, I am attacking you personally)

Not to mention that every Kairosfocus post at UD links to his website, on every page of which appears, "This web page was created by Gordon Mullings; all rights reserved." Sadly.

DaveScot dope-slapped him on this privacy point in one of his more lucid moments.

Actually, GEM's 'always linked' page no longer contains his name.
Quote
[NB: Because of abuse of my given name in blog commentary threads, I have deleted my given name from this page, and invite serious and responsible interlocutors to use my email contact below to communicate with me.]

Date: 2009/06/23 15:07:53, Link
Author: dvunkannon
herb protects the religious from the evil Cornelius Hunter
Quote
23

herb

06/23/2009

1:32 pm
Cornelius,

Thanks again for the reply. We might end up having to agree to disagree here, but I’m still getting the sense that “religion” in your view includes holding to assumptions despite the lack of supporting evidences (or even the existence of contradictory evidences).

That would be a very bad thing, IMHO. As a Christian, I feel that my beliefs are rational and based on evidences—the Bible and writings of apologists such as Josh McDowell or even Chesterton and Lewis if I want something a little more highbrow. And if I cling to any false doctrine, I would pray that God would cleanse me of them.


Somebody's socks are showing.

Date: 2009/06/25 10:07:55, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Zachriel @ June 25 2009,09:41)
The calculation of "working fitness" is seemingly broke. From Mendel's Accountant:

      do i=1,total_offspring
          work_fitness(i) = work_fitness(i)/(randomnum(1) + 1.d-15)
       end do


We can test this by taking a series of fitnesses k from 1.001 to 2,

 For k = 1 To 1000
      Cells(k, "a") = 1+ k / 1000
      Cells(k, "b") = Cells(k, "a") / Rnd
  Next k


This is a typical result:

9 Average
31 St.Dev.
362% Relative St.Dev.
1.04 Min
533 Max

The original distribution of k has a Relative St.Dev. of 19%. It's worse for fitnesses distributed between 0.5 and 1.5 or 0.5 and 1. (Just like the phylogenetic fitness, the calculation is not normalized. And why ÷Rnd^1? Why not ÷Rnd^½ or ÷Rnd^¾?) This single operation eliminates the vast majority of the signal from genetic or phylogenetic fitness.

A more reasonable calculation is Roulette Wheel selection.

I have a working version of Gregor's Bookkeeper. I'll post on that in the next few rotations.


-
Fixed a problem.

I assume you mean the scaling of fitness by total population fitness used in routlette selection, correct?

I'm not following the dissection of MA, is work_fitness being used to drive a selection algorithm? If so, the division by rnd() is equivalent to assuming that all selection takes place after a night of drinking heavily.

Roulette selection assumes that details don't matter - of several equally snappily dressed men at the bar, the one with the clean fingernails will not be selected much more frequently than the rest with dirty fingernails. Is this "realistic"? What does MA assume about sexual selection?

A lot of GAs use tournament selection to maintain a more constant selection pressure. I think you could argue that tournament selection models some part of the sexual selection process.

ETA - or give users a choice of selection algorithm.

Date: 2009/06/25 16:40:54, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Sealawr @ June 25 2009,16:58)
Quote
I'll bet she isn't a woman of few words.


I'll bet she is.  What's the over/under?

Put me down for $10 on "deaf/mute".

Date: 2009/06/26 15:29:33, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Richardthughes @ June 26 2009,16:23)
Bathshit^77 rolls out his 'list of nonsense' for the umpteenth time:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-323350

He's taken to numbering paragraphs, a la KF(SCI). Still needs to add a Lewontin quote at the end.

Date: 2009/06/28 11:50:30, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Apropos of some repeated questions on UD about how a code can evolve, I had been reading up on aminoacyl tRNA synthetase. These are the proteins that actually connect the triplets with the correct amino acid.

I found it interesting that there are 20 of these, not 64. Does anyone here know if this fact has any implication for the order in which the code was developed?

Date: 2009/06/28 18:24:06, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (k.e.. @ June 28 2009,13:13)
Quote (dvunkannon @ June 28 2009,19:50)
Apropos of some repeated questions on UD about how a code can evolve, I had been reading up on aminoacyl tRNA synthetase. These are the proteins that actually connect the triplets with the correct amino acid.

I found it interesting that there are 20 of these, not 64. Does anyone here know if this fact has any implication for the order in which the code was developed?

Can I have the link please ..

Aminoacyl tRNA Synthetase page and following pages also

Date: 2009/06/29 11:25:31, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Hermagoras @ June 29 2009,12:08)
Quote (Louis @ June 29 2009,10:52)
Edited to correct the Latin. Heat + Sleep deprivation + Noisy fucking baby = No Brain Worky.

Been there.

I was there, too. But at the time, I was the baby.

Date: 2009/06/29 17:30:36, Link
Author: dvunkannon
An update on the Steyr 2007 paper:
Evolution and the second law of thermodynamics

the money quote
   
Quote
If we compare this value with the rate of entropy production due to sunlight in Eq. (3), we find that the second law, in the form of Eq. (1), is satisfied as long as the time required for life to evolve on Earth is at least
delta t =|deltaSlife|/(dS/dt)sun ~ 10^7 s, (6)
or less than a year. Life on Earth took four billion years to evolve, so the second law of thermodynamics is safe.


Steyr 2007 was blogged by PZ Myers, which was picked up by PT. This paper tries to be a bit more rigorous, even though there is still a lot of hand waving in parts.

Nakashima mentioned the paper on UD, with no apparent response.

Date: 2009/06/30 21:34:17, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (didymos @ June 30 2009,21:18)
Quote (someotherguy @ June 30 2009,18:00)
Also, I recently confirmed that I still have a non-moderated UD account that I have barely even used (and not at all in the past year).  Hmmm. . .I wonder how I could make use of that. . .

Post stuff like this:
   
Quote

dbthomas

06/30/2009

5:55 pm

I have to say, it bothers me to see this article being promoted when it contains some pretty questionable stuff. Take this:
   
Quote

   “Darwin suits my purpose,” Marx wrote.
 

No, he did not, I’m afraid. You can find the full quote quite easily in an 1861 letter by Marx:
Quote
Darwin’s work is most important and suits my purpose in that it provides a basis in natural science for the historical class struggle. One does, of course, have to put up with the clumsy English style of argument. Despite all shortcomings, it is here that, for the first time, ‘teleology’ in natural science is not only dealt a mortal blow but its rational meaning is empirically explained.


It’s an odd sentiment, considering his own penchant for teleology in history, but it also shows that Marx only liked certain parts of Darwin’s writings. My impression is that he liked it because it gave him license to inscribe his social teleology on nature’s now-apparently blank slate. Whether that bit of guesswork on my part is true or not, it is quite certain that Marx departed from Darwin on what most today would consider the quintessentially “Darwinian” ideas:
   
Quote
1) Of the Darwinian doctrine I accept the theory of evolution, but Darwin’s method of proof (struggle for life, natural selection) I consider only a first, provisional, imperfect expression of a newly discovered fact. [much more along those lines follows]


This was actually pretty typical back then: people would call themselves “Darwinists” and yet disagree with Darwin on many and sometimes almost all of Darwin’s particulars.

Another glaring issue in Buchanan’s piece is this:
Quote
 “All my originality … will be smashed,” wailed Darwin when he got Wallace’s manuscript.


Let’s see that in context shall we? From a letter to Charles Lyell in 1858:
   
Quote
My dear Lyell

Some year or so ago, you recommended me to read a paper by Wallace in the Annals, which had interested you & as I was writing to him, I knew this would please him much, so I told him. He has to day sent me the enclosed & asked me to forward it to you. It seems to me well worth reading. Your words have come true with a vengeance that I shd. be forestalled. You said this when I explained to you here very briefly my views of “Natural Selection” depending on the Struggle for existence.—I never saw a more striking coincidence. If Wallace had my M.S. sketch written out in 1842 he could not have made a better short abstract! Even his terms now stand as Heads of my Chapters.

Please return me the M.S. which he does not say he wishes me to publish; but I shall of course at once write & offer to send to any Journal. So all my originality, whatever it may amount to, will be smashed. Though my Book, if it will ever have any value, will not be deteriorated; as all the labour consists in the application of the theory.

I hope you will approve of Wallace’s sketch, that I may tell him what you say.

My dear Lyell | Yours most truly | C. Darwin


I’d hardly characterize that as “wailing”. In fact, what we have is Darwin telling Lyell, in more current, colloquial language, “Hey, that Wallace kid? Yeah, he figured it out too! You were right: someone was bound to if I kept on holding back from publishing. Well, I’m still gonna do that book-length treatment, so if there’s anything to this selection thing, I’ll probably be fine. Anyway, he asked me to pass it along, so here’s his paper. I think you’ll like it. Get it back to me fairly soon, though, because I’m going to ask Wallace if he wants to publish (he didn’t say in his letter). If he does, I’ll make sure someone prints it.”

Eventually, Wallace and Darwin issued a joint paper. No plagiarism of Wall[a]ce, as is obvious to anyone reading that letter, no nasty priority dispute, and Darwin finally published that book and came out alright, just as he said to Lyell. Quite different from how Buchanan would have it, wouldn’t you say?

So, here’s the deal: this is either very, very dishonest or very, very bad journalism on Buchanan’s part, and there is no excuse for either of those. If he can write for a website, he can certainly use Google to get his facts straight (or have someone do it for him). If he already knew better, then he shouldn’t have written what he did.

Uncovering other equally serious errors of fact is left as an exercise for the reader, but those two alone really ought to be enough [to] make taking everything else he wrote in the piece with a salt-lick or two a good idea.


(subsequently posted corrections incorporated)

Who is Buchanan quoting in that Hitler paragraph?

Date: 2009/06/30 21:36:45, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Nakashima notes the disturbing trend in poll results on ID. Those gullible American voters are falling for evolution!

Date: 2009/07/01 16:57:50, Link
Author: dvunkannon
UD inspired poetry, Nakashima style!
 
Quote
Even in an echo chamber
the sound of one hand clapping
is not applause.

Date: 2009/07/01 17:03:42, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 01 2009,17:02)
StephenB responds
   
Quote
You should not tell outright lies.

And also responds to DavidK
 
Quote
Your confusion is so complete that you may never make it back to the rational world if, indeed, you ever inhabited that place.

EDIT:
and more good stuff!
 
Quote
Clearly, you don’t understand what the constitution means, since you were not able to tell me what it is supposed to protect.

And more, go read it.
Quote
You, like your hero, Judge “copycat” Jones, are scandalously uneducated on the subject matter of intelligent design

I think St. FNB is far down the KvD trail blazed by Larry Fafarman. Screw the principles of right reason, this is frothy mouthed monomania, front and center.

Date: 2009/07/02 13:03:42, Link
Author: dvunkannon
On the Flont Roading post, the Scooter sock tries some ethnic flava on Nakashima

 
Quote
Kanishiwa Nakashima San, Hai!

With all we respect the message of your post #3, but perhaps, I can point out that God Of The Gaps numbers could be considered fractal, since there is no perfect placement of them in any rational sense. And so, chaos theory should be applied best, as pointing to I.D. application in particular.

So, we thank you for your post and your esteemable self and past postings.


N-san turns the other cheek, and gets in some ninja kicks to the head.

Quote
16

Nakashima

07/02/2009

12:45 pm
Scot.David-san,

Konnichi ha! Nihongo-o hanashimasu ka? Sugoi! Furotingu Kommandu Senta-wa, daijyoubu desu ka?

With all we respect the message of your post #3, but perhaps, I can point out that God Of The Gaps numbers could be considered fractal, since there is no perfect placement of them in any rational sense.

Speaking of gaps in the fossil record, large gaps disappear and small gaps are created as new fossils are discovered. The principal of self-similarity at all scales is not preserved. But the author was actually trying to use the term in a more poetic sense, that surrounding every point in the universe are gaps into which God can intrude. An opinion that Cthulhu followers find very much to their liking.

So, we thank you for your post and your esteemable self and past postings.

Douitashimashite!

Date: 2009/07/02 13:12:27, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ July 01 2009,23:31)
hahahahaha at Poythress
Quote
He is an advocate of Cornelius Van Til's presuppositional apologetics, particularly the ideas that epistemology and ontology must find their ultimate grounding in the Trinity. He has also sought to work out presuppositionalism's central claim that there is no neutrality in the area of science and mathematics. In a manner akin to Augustine's view that truth is divine, Poythress views scientific law as a form of the word of God.[2] In 1976, Poythress broke new ground with an article on "A Biblical View of Mathematics," while in a 1983 article, he argued that mathematics is the rhyme of the universe.[3]
A central idea in Poythress' thought has concerned the validity of multiple perspectives, or multiperspectivalism, a project that he shares with his teacher and collaborator John Frame. In Poythress's seminal work Philosophy, Science, and the Sovereignty of God, he explored how the scientific concepts of wave, particle and field can be used analogically to demonstrate different ways of looking at things. He argued that such a triadic structure is a "a means of avoiding unhealthy dualism",[4] and he continued on this line of thought in Symphonic Theology, where he applied multiperspectivalism to theology.


in addition to being deep cover pomo Poythress wrote his own wiki entry.  loser.

Are you saying that Poythress is the user Flex on Wikipedia? I think it is against Wiki rules to write your own page.

Date: 2009/07/02 13:34:48, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (carlsonjok @ July 02 2009,14:09)
 
Quote (dvunkannon @ July 02 2009,13:03)
   
Quote
16

Nakashima

07/02/2009

12:45 pm
Scot.David-san,

Konnichi ha! Nihongo-o hanashimasu ka? Sugoi! Furotingu Kommandu Senta-wa, daijyoubu desu ka?

With all we respect the message of your post #3, but perhaps, I can point out that God Of The Gaps numbers could be considered fractal, since there is no perfect placement of them in any rational sense.

Speaking of gaps in the fossil record, large gaps disappear and small gaps are created as new fossils are discovered. The principal of self-similarity at all scales is not preserved. But the author was actually trying to use the term in a more poetic sense, that surrounding every point in the universe are gaps into which God can intrude. An opinion that Cthulhu followers find very much to their liking.

So, we thank you for your post and your esteemable self and past postings.

Douitashimashite!

Is that Japanese for "douche full of shit?"

It actually means "it was nothing" or "don't mention it", but your translation may be more appropriate in this case.

Date: 2009/07/02 23:51:57, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Zachriel @ July 02 2009,10:25)
Quote (Zachriel @ June 25 2009,11:00)
   
Quote (dvunkannon @ June 25 2009,10:07)
{snipped} ... equivalent to assuming that all selection takes place after a night of drinking heavily.

(Perhaps you should spend more time in bars—for observational purposes, of course.)

I trust, dvunkannon, that your field work is progressing well.

Quote (dvunkannon @ June 25 2009,10:07)
A lot of GAs use tournament selection to maintain a more constant selection pressure. I think you could argue that tournament selection models some part of the sexual selection process.

I've been thinking about your analogy and suggestions. Roulette seems to emulate relative fecundity. Those with higher fecundity will tend to mate with those of higher fecundity simply because they mate and produce offspring more often. (Wimps pass out in the corner, rarely mating.) But Tournament does tend to pair those with like-fecundity, so I suppose it does seem like sexual selection. I may try that next. I thought about some more explicit method, but that might be beyond what we are trying to accomplish with this model.

I'm glad you found the analogy helpful!

in re: field work and observation - piss poor at the moment. The result of living in New Jersey while dating a Czech supermodel that lives in Prague.

Date: 2009/07/03 09:40:08, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Happy Birthday!

Nakashima adds, Tanjobi Omedeto!

typicl Darwinist trying pass off Kafka's b1rthday as his own!!1!  how fucking appropriate is that i ask you!1 glad u ddn't invite me to the party, i herd there was a clown as gust of honor -dt

Date: 2009/07/03 11:10:56, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (JLT @ July 03 2009,10:57)
How to Think, Say, or Do Precisely the Worst Thing for Any Occasion
Daniel M. Wegner
Science 3 July 2009:
Vol. 325. no. 5936, pp. 48 - 50
DOI: 10.1126/science.1167346
   
Quote
Ironic lapses of mental control often appear when we attempt to be socially desirable, as when we try to keep our minds out of the gutter. People instructed to stop thinking of sex, for example, show greater arousal (as gauged by finger skin conductance) than do those asked to stop thinking about a neutral topic. Indeed, levels of arousal are inflated during the suppression of sex thoughts to the same degree that they inflate during attempts to concentrate on such thoughts (8). In research on sexual arousal per se, male participants instructed to inhibit erections as they watched erotic films found it harder than they had hoped, so to speak—particularly if they imbibed a mental load in the form of a couple of alcoholic drinks (30). Ironic effects also may underlie the tendency of homophobic males to show exaggerated sexual arousal to homoerotic pictures (31).

LOL.
Klinghoffer should read this*. Or maybe he knows already...

Ref 31:

Is homophobia associated with homosexual arousal?
Adams HE, Wright LW Jr, Lohr BA.
J Abnorm Psychol. 1996 Aug;105(3):440-5.
   
Quote
The authors investigated the role of homosexual arousal in exclusively heterosexual men who admitted negative affect toward homosexual individuals. Participants consisted of a group of homophobic men (n = 35) and a group of nonhomophobic men (n = 29); they were assigned to groups on the basis of their scores on the Index of Homophobia (W. W. Hudson & W. A. Ricketts, 1980). The men were exposed to sexually explicit erotic stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual, and lesbian videotapes, and changes in penile circumference were monitored. They also completed an Aggression Questionnaire (A. H. Buss & M. Perry, 1992). Both groups exhibited increases in penile circumference to the heterosexual and female homosexual videos. Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli. The groups did not differ in aggression. Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.



* His latest homophobic diatribes: 1**, 2, 3, 4)

** That's the post that started it all. Klinghoffer reposted a comment from a reader that he found "brilliantly insightful". I think it's friggin' hilarious.
   
Quote
The social history behind this piece is clear: once they've experienced sex with other men, Catullus tells us, men are unsatisfied with what their new wives provide them. Notice that the poet is unconcerned about the husband's dallying with other women -- it's the other men around that threaten the marital union. [...]

And so now we come back to the idyllic day of free choice and tolerance envisioned by the gay and lesbian movement. It turns out that that day has winners and losers. The winners -- big time -- are homosexual men, because the historical record shows that they can expect their potential pool of partners to expand exponentially. Of note here is that this expanded pool of partners accrues to gay men, but not to homosexual women. At the risk of getting too explicit, I leave it the reader's basic grasp of anatomy to figure out why in ancient Rome a man who found pleasure in a woman, could also find pleasure in a man, while the record shows that a heterosexual woman rarely found sexual satisfaction in the company of another woman.

The losers from all this will be the vast majority of women. With full social sanction given to homoerotic activity, the historical precedent suggests that tomorrow's women will have a harder time finding and holding on to suitable men. As women will suffer, so will the vitality and stability of the nuclear family.[...]

But there is a utilitarian argument as well: full social sanction for the homoerotic bond is opposed not for God's sake, but for the sake of tomorrow's women.

tl;dr: If homosexuality becomes socially acceptable, all men will become gay and women won't find someone to marry.

Any single woman in new York City could tell you that all the desirable men were either gay or taken.

Date: 2009/07/03 13:37:16, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Is Nnoel banned? I thought I saw a "Goodbye" from Clive.

Date: 2009/07/03 13:39:39, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (didymos @ July 03 2009,14:30)
A rare case of self-bannination:
Quote

ScottAndrews

07/01/2009

7:49 am

I’ve decided to stop posting on this thread and this forum. It’s the nature of this type of “discussion” between entrenched positions to sometimes turn negative, bordering on hostile. I point a finger back at myself when I say that, but either way it’s something I shouldn’t engage in.
I encourage those who know how to keep a discussion civil and constructive to do so, and not be swayed when lesser people try to hijack the debate for the amusement of provoking a reaction. As for the those, perhaps you serve some useful purpose in your real lives and this is just your ugly side, one of which we all have.
Personally, I shouldn’t be taking time from other pursuits to engage in this, and I don’t feel good after arguing that much.
I’m describing mostly myself, not this forum. I think UD is great, and I’ll continue to read it. But if I’m tempted to open my mouth I’ll have to ask Clive to ban me.
(Sorry for interrupting this thread with my irrelevant personal statement.)

Too bad about Scott. He started out posting reasonable, if somewhat condescending comments. We'll see if he can stay away or if this turns into a frilly shirted nadios!

Date: 2009/07/03 18:00:19, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote
6

jerry

07/03/2009

3:55 pm
This is another way of looking at ID versus natualistic evolutionary biology. It is an attempt to demarcate the main issues. Here is a link to this demarcation of what ID is primarily interested in.

file:///Users/jerrycosgrove/Documents/Personal/Evolution/UncommonDescent/UD_081207_basic_arg.html#comment-299358



Did we previously know that Jerry's last name was Cosgrove?

Date: 2009/07/03 18:13:19, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (deadman_932 @ July 03 2009,19:04)
Quote (dvunkannon @ July 03 2009,18:00)
Did we previously know that Jerry's last name was Cosgrove?

I may have known that, but I keep the man, the myth, the sockartistry alive, ALIVE!

[QUOTE]Jeremiah “Jerry” Cosgrove
Jerry Cosgrove, former AFT Northeast Regional Director, recently was named Deputy Commissioner for the New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets, where his program responsibilities include agriculture development, farmland conservation and dairy issues.

Cosgrove joined AFT when then Governor Mario Cuomo signed into law the Agricultural Protection Act of 1992, an act that Cosgrove would work tirelessly to implement, fund and subsequently improve. During his tenure with AFT, Jerry stewarded numerous legislative efforts in New York including the Farmers' School Tax Credit, funding for the state's Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) program, and he expanded AFT’s programs with partners such as the Watershed Agricultural Council. Cosgrove is a recognized expert in the area of farm estate planning and conservation easements on farmland. While with AFT, Cosgrove used his expertise to author numerous publications, and he was instrumental in building support for American Farmland Trust’s farmland preservation, farm policy and conservation programs.
[CODE]

Now that is deep cover. Sail on o' sock of state. Farm estate planning in particular.

Date: 2009/07/03 22:51:21, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ July 03 2009,22:33)
[quote=dvunkannon,July 03 2009,19:13]
Quote (deadman_932 @ July 03 2009,19:04)
 
Quote (dvunkannon @ July 03 2009,18:00)
Did we previously know that Jerry's last name was Cosgrove?

I may have known that, but I keep the man, the myth, the sockartistry alive, ALIVE!

Quote
Jeremiah “Jerry” Cosgrove
Jerry Cosgrove, former AFT Northeast Regional Director, recently was named Deputy Commissioner for the New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets, where his program responsibilities include agriculture development, farmland conservation and dairy issues.

Cosgrove joined AFT when then Governor Mario Cuomo signed into law the Agricultural Protection Act of 1992, an act that Cosgrove would work tirelessly to implement, fund and subsequently improve. During his tenure with AFT, Jerry stewarded numerous legislative efforts in New York including the Farmers' School Tax Credit, funding for the state's Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) program, and he expanded AFT’s programs with partners such as the Watershed Agricultural Council. Cosgrove is a recognized expert in the area of farm estate planning and conservation easements on farmland. While with AFT, Cosgrove used his expertise to author numerous publications, and he was instrumental in building support for American Farmland Trust’s farmland preservation, farm policy and conservation programs.
[CODE]

Now that is deep cover. Sail on o' sock of state. Farm estate planning in particular.

doesn't feel right.  i know lots of folks that work on these issues and none of them are that kind of tard. and i don't see it dropping out of jerry's shtick either, i mean he is a climate change denialist and those folks usually aren't out there trying to prevent the industrial machine from swallowing up ma and pa kettle, those folks are usually social exploitationists who will use any angle to advance their apologetic for capital and corporate.

Didn't Jerry used to talk about his experience with livestock - dairy cattle in particular? I thought that came up a couple times during his "all scientists are doing ID research, they just don't know it" period.

Date: 2009/07/05 21:42:09, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Does anyone subscribe to the UD RSS feed? I'm wondering how many unique posters there have been in the last month. Barrogant is MIA. They brought in Deyes and Hunter but Hunter is just phoning it in. KF and Bussel are on vacation, hiking the Appalachian. Echo chamber is getting real echoey...

Date: 2009/07/06 10:37:04, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Has anyone fessed up to being Nnoel?

Date: 2009/07/06 12:19:53, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Thinking about the problem of evolving a code, I just wanted to bounce some ideas off of anyone that wants to answer...

Here is a genome design:
6*26 bits of data to build a phenotype, followed by
64*8 bits of coding table

The coding table works like this. Each entry contains an 8 bit string. Each 8 bit string mapt to a list of affinities to a subset of 32 characters:

127 -> 20% A, 40% F, 40% J

This table of affinities would be salted with entries that guarantee A-Z have some entry with high affinity.

The GA works like any binary coded GA. To create a phenotype, run the data section of the genome through the code table 6 bits at a time. The 6 bits are like the three codons in DNA, mRNA, and tRNA. Taken as an index, they give an 8 bit value. The 8 bit value gives a set of affinities, and you spin the roulette wheel to see which letter you get. That letter is the phenotypic expression of the 6 bits you started with. Continue to loop until you've finished the data section of the genome.

To score a phenotype, compare with the string A .. Z and take the sum of the squared error at each position (ex target D, actual A, error is 3).

I think that if it works, you'll eventually get a population with the code table filled with at least one copy of each high affinity 8 bit string.

Comments? Is choosing 32 useful entries out of 256 too easy or too hard?

Date: 2009/07/06 12:44:46, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Louis @ July 06 2009,13:32)
Any minute this is going to end in Erdos numbers.

5

BTW, the BBS software did not allow a single character post.

Date: 2009/07/06 13:35:43, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (midwifetoad @ July 06 2009,14:07)
Quote
This table of affinities would be salted with entries that guarantee A-Z have some entry with high affinity.


I'd be curious to know if your concept of affinities has any similarity to my use of letter pairs.

In my limited experience, the output of a GA is limited only by the fitness scoring algorithm. I tried to build the simplest and stupidest scoring algorithm that could still produce interesting results.

My highest priority was to produce a fitness scorer that couldn't be construed as a target.

The affinities are my way to model the situation that tRNA molecules could evolve from molecules that accepted any of several amino acids before getting more specific. Right now there is still one tRNA that will accept two different AAs, but instead of evolving a more specific acceptor, the system fixes up errors after they occur.

We're aiming to do different things, so I don't see a conceptual overlap between your bigram and trigram tables and what I was conjecturing. I think what you are doing is using a Hidden Markov Model to evolve phoneme level utterances. I think Chomsky showed that human language is more than an HMM, but as you said, Behe doesn't think evolution can even do that much!

ETA - I take your point on the scoring. I thought of taking the data portion out of the genome, and just testing it against various strings, but I think going against a fixed target might be a simple first test of the idea.

Date: 2009/07/06 13:55:14, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Spores Spill Evolution's Secrets


Quote
Developmental "noise" -- the imprecision in molecular pathways that leads to minor slip-ups in development -- creates fodder for evolution. That's the conclusion of a paper published online yesterday (July 5) in Nature, which shows that a single mutation in bacterial spore formation that affect individuals in different ways generates morphological diversity that can then be genetically fine-tuned to maximize an organism's fitness.


I'm guessing Mendel's Accountant doesn't do partial penetrance.

Date: 2009/07/06 14:02:06, Link
Author: dvunkannon
KF on modeling

Quote
That is why when we humble mere engineers and applied scientists — as well as at least one Nobel Prize equivalent holder — look at the notion that functionally specific complex information in finely-tuned highly integrated systems originated by chance and blind mechanical forces, we know right away that someone has not done the serious homework required.


Who might this be referring to?

Date: 2009/07/06 16:27:21, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (midwifetoad @ July 06 2009,17:05)
Now if you were doing a straight Weasel program you could just count the number of letters that match your target. But I am not searching for a target. I am shaping a population to look and sound like words from a specific language.

Yes, your system would stump the level 0 critic because you don't have a target hard coded that looks exactly like a population member.

The level 1 critic would say that the bigram and trigram table is hard coded, and that your system is rewarding population members that have the same frequency distributions as the table. That is your target.

Date: 2009/07/06 17:13:16, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 06 2009,17:33)
 
Quote (keiths @ July 06 2009,16:31)
Joe G. gets scientifical:
   
Quote
As Meyer points out information doesn’t have any weight.

A blank disc or PROM weighs the same as a disc or PROM that is loaded.

A computer could run without instructions even though all the physical links are OK.

With living organisms the instructions come with the part- no added weight.

What I need is a way to test this.

For example if someone could make a ribosome from scratch without using a ribo or anything from a living organism as a template, then construct a mRNA the same way, nothing should happen. IOW the mRNA should not get translated.

But I don’t know if that is practical and I am still working on a test.

My plan was to contact the biologic institute to see what they think of both the premise and the testing.

BTW living organisms are full of electrical charges.

These charges could easily hold and transfer the data I am talking about.

God, that's beautiful. The only prayer of mine that ever gets answered: "Give us this day our daily tard..."

I'm tempting to set up a paypal so we can fund him. The progress reports would be worth it.

Not sure if Joe knows it has been done already. In 1970.
 
Quote
Nomura, M. & Erdmann, V. A. Reconstitution of 50S
ribosomal subunits from dissociated molecular
components. Nature 228, 744–748 (1970).

Date: 2009/07/06 21:59:19, Link
Author: dvunkannon
I'm getting 404 when I try to access this page.



OK, it was lame. And not even first on the page.

Date: 2009/07/07 10:42:48, Link
Author: dvunkannon
My Elvis/Jacko/Kissinger/Bertrand Russell number is 8! Not 8 factorial!!1!

Gnash your teeth in the outer darkness, irrelevant ones!

my cheezy poof/Dembski/Michael Dell number is -1 -dt

Date: 2009/07/07 12:16:56, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote
Sometimes the total count of "correct" letters will go backwards. All the more astonishing in retrospect. Dawkins' program can't do that.


Errr, no. That was what the whole latching kerfuffle was about!

Date: 2009/07/07 14:33:23, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (keiths @ July 07 2009,15:22)
Uptight is still struggling with the concept of "physically inert":
Quote
ID says that “meaning” has been incontrovertibly instantiated into physical reality by means of the physically inert instructions that organize inanimate matter into living tissue.

Physically inert instructions that aren't physically inert. That makes sense -- at UD.

All 'physically inert' really means if you push him on it is that one codon does not force the choice of the next codon in the DNA sequence.

Date: 2009/07/07 14:39:59, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Dr.GH @ July 07 2009,15:31)
I don't quite follow the point of the subthread on "Bacon numbers," or Noble numbers.

My next door neighbor is a film editor and director. He knows Kevin Bacon. That is a Bacon number of 1, or 2? When counting social links the directionality should count.

I (and about a dozen other people) had lunch with Sherry Rowland just after he recieved his 1995 Nobel Prize. He commented that the most shocking moment (following the award itself) was when he had to write out a huge check to the IRS. He said it was larger than his house had cost. (Note: he didn't pay for his lunch- someone joked, "Well then Sherry, we'll buy lunch." OWTTE). Is that a Noble of 1 or 0? I propose 1/2 because Rowland would not have remembered I was there even while I was there!

Sorry, Bacon-Nobel numbers follow Bose-Einstein statistics, so only integer values are allowed.

Date: 2009/07/07 16:43:30, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 07 2009,16:01)
Hi folks - looking for an excel template that will do fisher pry adoption / diffusion / substitution modelling. Cheers!

Fuck, dude, don't scare me like that! Here I was expecting HA HA THIS IS YOU! and all of a sudden its a logistic equation right between the eyes like stepping on a rake.

That said, all I could find with 30 seconds of Google was WHEC2006.xls, and not even that - just the PDF of the guy's paper and his email address.

Date: 2009/07/07 17:27:11, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Lowell @ July 07 2009,17:44)
Quote (keiths @ July 06 2009,21:01)
Granville Sewell's post is lingering like a pimple on a forehead:
 
Quote
I wish someone would add a new post, mine has been at the top for nearly two days, this one isn’t worth that much exposure.

Denyse, Bill, somebody…post something new and more interesting!

Granny's plea appears to have been deleted, and it's been more than two days since a new post has gone up.

I assume the Intelligent Design Community is hard at work somewhere trying to figure out how much CSI is in a fracterial blagellum?

I think one of us, if I may be so bold as to include myself in this august company, should volunteer to do a guest post at UD, in order to relieve Granville of his discomfort.

Date: 2009/07/07 22:46:01, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Yo, Keiths, King of Socks! Did you ever have a sock called Morpheus over at UD?

Date: 2009/07/09 12:35:20, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Nakashima channels Fred Hoyle, or something

Quote
I wonder what the odds are of a tornado blowing through the Field Museum in Chicago, picking up Neil Shubin, carrying him to Ellesmere Island and dropping him next to Tiktaalik’s skull sticking out of the ground. Let’s calculate the expected length of time for Shubin, taking a random walk from his office in the Field Museum across the surface of the Earth, stopping every three feet and looking, to find a fossil between 360 and 380 million years old lying on the ground in front of him. Compare 5 years (the amount of time it actually took to find Tiktaalik) to this number. That ratio is the “failure of a bad science” ratio.

Date: 2009/07/09 13:28:54, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (J-Dog @ July 09 2009,13:10)
Quote (deadman_932 @ July 09 2009,11:54)
"Hedder?" Is that like a header? "Well ground?" Oh, I see, that's like a joke. Except not really funny at all -- besides being  grammatically and orthographically tragic for someone that claims to be a "journalist" * (Hyphens exist for multiple reasons, Densey).

Long may you scribble, Densey! As unaware and incompetent as you are, well, you're a perfect match for UD.

And forget at your peril, and be prepared to repent at your leisure, that she is and will always be

a Bulwer-Lytton Lifetime Achievement Award Winner.

Newsroom Lingo to help you fill the combox.

My question - does she have the quart of scotch in the desk drawer that every old newsie has?*

*Even Russell Crowe has this in the "State of Play" movie.**

**I much preferred the BBC mini-series, and thought it very entertaining how everyone drank like a fish, in contrast to the American version.***

***Does everyone in Britain drink that much or just the newshounds?

Date: 2009/07/10 07:02:00, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Zachriel, can you post your code somewhere? It would help me understand it better to walk though it. Thanks!

Date: 2009/07/10 08:00:47, Link
Author: dvunkannon
KannotFocus

Quote
Now we know the why of a pattern of argument visible for months in this blog, and coming from DK as a representative of the Anti Evo agenda of talking points.


I think it will surprise DK that he is a representative of the Anti Evo agenda!

Date: 2009/07/10 10:51:40, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ July 10 2009,11:19)
Quote (Henry J @ July 10 2009,11:12)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,July 09 2009,19:55)
cover me boys i am going in

Cover you with what, exactly? :p

titties!!!!!

Boy titties aren't going go very far, maybe you should ask the distaff members for cover.

Date: 2009/07/10 14:27:40, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ July 10 2009,12:50)
Quote (Hermagoras @ July 10 2009,12:23)
 
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,July 10 2009,10:59)
?

You lost me Ras.  What was the point of that link?

just wondering what

 
Quote
Boy titties aren't going go very far, maybe you should ask the distaff members for cover.


are

Sorry, distaff means female, a least if you speak en-archaic.

I was attempting to suggest that 'Ras would get better tittie coverage from Maya, Kristine, Khan, Amanda, ERV, etc. than Arden, Louis, etc.

Date: 2009/07/10 22:56:09, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Kristine @ July 10 2009,16:30)
Quote (J-Dog @ July 10 2009,10:10)
 
Quote (Kristine @ July 09 2009,20:59)
Just saying - I quit my job, and I am in Chicagger for a convention.

I'm alive. :)

So, we can haz shimmies then?

Here.

I know I've been AWOL - that's the best I can offer right now. ;)

Man, o man! A conference of LIBRARIANS!!1! The halls overflowing with ladies in starched white shirts, tight skirts, Sarah Palin up-dos and glasses. Each night easily inebriated  packs of them descend on male strip joints, shouldering aside the gay clientele and bachlorette parties, to throw their white Playtex bras onto the stage.

Why does Chicago have all the luck?

Date: 2009/07/11 09:30:47, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Zachriel @ July 10 2009,22:23)
Some updates to Gregor's Bookkeeper. More readable subroutine structure. Also, fixed a minor bug for numO (average number of Offspring), which wasn't accepting fractional values.


You could move the Extinction test up to right after generating stats, right? After Phenotypic Fitness, you know there are no more population members.

It's trivial, and this does look very clean!

Date: 2009/07/14 04:32:42, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Nakashima gives away a Haeckel quote.

Quote
67

Nakashima

07/14/2009

4:08 am
While I was unable to find a quote from Huxley to support the position of Dr Meyer (or is it Deyes’?) from the OP, I have found this from Haeckel. It derives from his History of Creation, 1876, translated into English here.

Through the discovery of these organisms [Monera], which are of the utmost importance, the supposition of a spontaneous generation loses most of its difficulties. For as all trace of organization-all distinction of heterogeneous parts-is still wanting in them, and as all the vital phenomena are performed by one and the same homogeneous and formless matter, we can easily imagine their origin by spontaneous generation.

The above refers to what Haeckel called plasmogeny, the creation of cells from a fluid mixture of organic material. This he considered no great leap, compared to autogeny, the creation of the organic materials necessary for plasmogeny from purely inorganic materials. (see p. 415-416)

Having not read Signature of the Cell, I don’t know if Dr Meyer actually references these or similar materials. Perhaps someone who is already reading the book (Mr Joseph?) can confirm for us.


Sure to appear in a KannotFocus megamissive (repeatedly) in the near future. Recall that while KF used the Lewontin quote earlier, he had no idea of its provenance until Nakashima gave it to him.

Wikipedia has this on Haeckel:
Quote
Haeckel was a flamboyant figure. He sometimes took great (and non-scientific) leaps from available evidence. For example, at the time that Darwin first published On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection (1859), no remains of human ancestors had yet been found. Haeckel postulated that evidence of human evolution would be found in the Dutch East Indies (now Indonesia), and described these theoretical remains in great detail. He even named the as-of-yet unfound species, Pithecanthropus alalus, and charged his students to go find it. (Richard and Oskar Hertwig were two of Haeckel's many important students.)

One student did find the remains: a young Dutchman named Eugene Dubois went to the East Indies and dug up the remains of Java Man, the first human ancestral remains ever found. These remains originally carried Haeckel's Pithecanthropus label, though they were later reclassified as Homo erectus.


I wonder if DI will ever try to connect Haeckel's prediction with Shubin's find of Tiktaalik. It is not clear if Haeckel was lucky or right. Still, anything to tar Tiktaalik with the shame of ol' polygenist racist art forger Haeckel.

Date: 2009/07/16 06:35:51, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Does someone have handy the link to that paper that discusses the functional properties of randomly assembled proteins? I think it has been mentioned here within the last 2-3 months. Thanks!

Date: 2009/07/16 07:27:52, Link
Author: dvunkannon
KF is hoist on his own FCSI
Quote
102

Nakashima

07/16/2009

7:13 am
Mr KairosFocus,

For practical purposes, once an aspect of a system, process or object of interest has at least 500 – 1,000 bits or the equivalent of information storing capacity, and uses that capacity to specify a function that can be disrupted by moderate perturbations, then it manifests FSCI, thus CSI.

So if I write a GA system where the population members are competitors in an iterated prisoners dilemma with competitions running up to 1000 iteratioins, then you are satisfied that FSCI is being created by the GA? Each member is 1000 bits long, each bit stands for the action to take (cooperate=1, defect=0) in the current iteration. Fitness is the score of the individual at the end of an iterated competition with another member of the population.


Granted, that is a crappy way to write an IPD system, but it makes the case.

Date: 2009/07/16 09:25:00, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Zachriel @ July 16 2009,07:59)
Quote (dvunkannon @ July 16 2009,06:35)
Does someone have handy the link to that paper that discusses the functional properties of randomly assembled proteins? I think it has been mentioned here within the last 2-3 months. Thanks!

Is this what you're looking for?

Anthony D. Keefe & Jack W. Szostak, Functional proteins from a random-sequence library, Nature 2001
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6829/abs/410715a0.html

Yes, thank you! My Google-fu had failed me...

Date: 2009/07/16 11:42:41, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 16 2009,11:47)
Quote (dvunkannon @ July 16 2009,07:27)
KF is hoist on his own FCSI
 
Quote
102

Nakashima

07/16/2009

7:13 am
Mr KairosFocus,

For practical purposes, once an aspect of a system, process or object of interest has at least 500 – 1,000 bits or the equivalent of information storing capacity, and uses that capacity to specify a function that can be disrupted by moderate perturbations, then it manifests FSCI, thus CSI.

So if I write a GA system where the population members are competitors in an iterated prisoners dilemma with competitions running up to 1000 iteratioins, then you are satisfied that FSCI is being created by the GA? Each member is 1000 bits long, each bit stands for the action to take (cooperate=1, defect=0) in the current iteration. Fitness is the score of the individual at the end of an iterated competition with another member of the population.


Granted, that is a crappy way to write an IPD system, but it makes the case.

He came back with "yeah, but the program itself was written by a intelligent designer therefore ID!"

Pathetic.

Which reply was duly anticipated by Nakashima! Now he is pushed into agreeing with GilD. You can tell KF is out of his comfort zone because his follow-up reply is short. As soon as he figures out how to fit this question into his system, he'll be back to multipoint posts.

Date: 2009/07/17 07:34:02, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (dvunkannon @ July 16 2009,08:27)
KF is hoist on his own FCSI
Quote
102

Nakashima

07/16/2009

7:13 am
Mr KairosFocus,

For practical purposes, once an aspect of a system, process or object of interest has at least 500 – 1,000 bits or the equivalent of information storing capacity, and uses that capacity to specify a function that can be disrupted by moderate perturbations, then it manifests FSCI, thus CSI.

So if I write a GA system where the population members are competitors in an iterated prisoners dilemma with competitions running up to 1000 iteratioins, then you are satisfied that FSCI is being created by the GA? Each member is 1000 bits long, each bit stands for the action to take (cooperate=1, defect=0) in the current iteration. Fitness is the score of the individual at the end of an iterated competition with another member of the population.


Granted, that is a crappy way to write an IPD system, but it makes the case.

Just for giggles, I tried to think through what kind of solution this GA would find. Each iteration is actually independent, there is no use of memory. The population should have 50% of each of Cooperate and Defect at each locus. That should be enough to sweep towards Cooperate at every locus.

Date: 2009/07/17 13:50:04, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Anyone have a good reason for O'L's sudden bloggorhea? Was she behind (ahem) on her quota? I still find it hard to believe she gets paid to snark about random science.

I went and read some of the UD archive from April 2005 this week. Wanted to see how it all began. 2nd post, DDrr.. Dembski is quoting Wes Elsberry! 5th post, waving the ban hammer and making the last honest post about the moderation policy. Ah, the good old days!

Date: 2009/07/17 13:56:34, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Nakashima pointed out (on the recent Signature of the Cell thread by Deyes) that the quote of TH Huxley was inaccurate at best. From looking around at other sites where the book is being flogged, it seems that comparing himself favorably to Huxley is part of Meyer's standard patter.

But he is also helping drive home the point that evolution is not about abiogenesis.

Quote
Jeffrey: Well, let me kick you back to what I think is the fundamental question at the heart of your book. If you start at point A, where there’s no living thing on the face of the Earth, there’s no life on Earth, and point B is a place where the first life exist, did Darwin, though his theory, have an explanation for how you got from point A, where there’s no life, to point B, where there is the first life?

Meyer: Oh, he most definitely did not. He was quite emphatic about this, that he did not have an explanation for the origin of life. Neither did anyone else at the time. At one point, he said we may as well speculate about the origin of matter itself. He did offer some speculations. It fell to later scientists to propose evolutionary explanations for the origin of the first life, but 150 years after the publication of Origin of Species, that is this year, we have no satisfactory evolutionary account for how life first began.

Jeffrey: Darwin himself was humble about this--

Meyer: Yes, exactly.
From CNSNews.com

The entire interview is amusing, conflating Darwinism and Marxism, undermining the American ideal, etc.

Date: 2009/07/17 14:49:31, Link
Author: dvunkannon
I just found an early use of the phrase "intelligent design"

Quote
Who could look upon the adaptation of the eye to light without seeing in it the result of intelligent design?


From "The Story of the Living Machine", by Herbert William Conn, 1904

Does anyone keep a list of these? This one does not appear in the Wikipedia page section on origins of the term.

Date: 2009/07/17 15:19:39, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (midwifetoad @ July 17 2009,16:06)
WikiP is pretty much designed for folks who have something to add to be able to do so.

True, I just changed something on the Miller-Urey page today.

Since this isn't a first use, I don't think it significant enough to warrant adding there. But if somebody is a collector, I wanted to offer it up.

Date: 2009/07/18 08:04:22, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 18 2009,08:37)
KF appears to be on the back foot!
         
Quote
The highlights should show the core problem with using GA’s and their claimed inspiration in “evolution” to then seek to justify evolutionary materialism: CIRCULARITY, on multiple levels.

Nakashima     
Quote
Thank you for the Wiki quote. I think I have edited that page in the past, so it is good to know that someone finds it useful.

         
Quote
In short, before you can speak of differential reproductive success, you first have to get to a viable and reproducing organism, for first life and then for major novel body plans.

         
Quote
In that context, sure GA’s can move you around — by design BTW — within an island of function, but the issue is not there; it starts with: how do you get tot he shores of function in a very large non-functional space, without recourse to injection of active information?

         
Quote
In that context, FSCI would not be so much “created” by a genetic algorithm, as created by its intelligent designer.

Nakashima    
Quote
In repeating that the FSCI must have come from the programmer you are overstepping the conclusion of Dembski and Marks. The LCI paper simply concluded that the active information came from one of the inputs, without giving a method of determining which. If you have a solid way of differentiating between the active information input by the programmer and the active information input by the random number generator, you have solved a very interesting problem for ID.

         
Quote
PCs and the genetic algorithms we load into their active memories do not reason, plan or solve problems; they simply execute mechanical instructions mechanically, without thought or understanding.

Nakashima  
Quote
You chose to highlight the word ’stochastic’, you could also highlight the word ‘random’, and then you would see that the ‘mechanical’ perjoratitve is not apt.

         
Quote
And all of that applies to GA’s, whether such are used to study protein folding or antenna design. (Recall also that proteins are useful because a certain cluster of related information-rich, step by step assembled polymers will fold to mutual key-lock fitting shapes, and in so doing will fulfill key steps in the workings of life. To get to that cluster of nano-machines and their functional organisation puts us well beyond the threshold that the FSCI concept highlights.)

Nakashima
Quote
So we come round again to this islands of function idea. Let me ask you plainly again - does the fitness landscape have to have islands of function before the functional context generates FCSI? Is there a measure of landscape ruggedness for which you can say “Above this value for this metric, FSCI exists, below this number it is merely CSI.”

The usual blah - GAs don't' do anything because they, er, hill climbing, er, first functionality island, er, er, er, FSCI?
Gordon Mullings

But Nakashima is already beating him around the head again. KF's responses have been quite slow and tentative for him during this exchange.

Date: 2009/07/18 11:32:29, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (didymos @ July 18 2009,10:08)
Quote (deadman_932 @ July 18 2009,06:41)
Joe Gallien the Refrigetardman throws his diaper in the ring to slow Nakashima's assault on Kairosfocus:
 
Quote
"Nakashima-san,

Can you show us a random number generator arising via nature, operating freely?

That would help your case…" http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-326821


Um...yeah. it's called radioactive decay, Frigidaire-boy. Those events can be and are used for random number generation. I can think of lots of ways to do that.

I've informed him:
Quote

dbthomas

07/18/2009

8:57 am

Well, I can’t exactly show them to you, Joseph, but since I assume you accept the existence of atoms, two words: radioactive isotopes.

JG -RM, hoist on his own diaper. Nakashima is being charitable, and trying to clue KF into the next set of issues - selection is driven not by absolute phenotypic fitness, but by relative fitness.

Quote
126

Nakashima

07/18/2009

11:17 am
Mr Joseph,

random.org

Personally, I am not convinced true randomness is necessary. As in many things evolutionary, I’m pretty sure it is a relative measure that matters, not an absolute measure. A pseudo-RNG with a period longer than the age of the universe (for example) would serve just as well. Better in some sense, because experiments are repeatable, using the same seed.

This focus on relative applies to fitness. of course. There is no absolute fitness landscape that all population members experience equally in GA systems that focus on competition rather than targetted search. This another argument against “islands of function”. An absolutely low function can still be a strong relative function.

Date: 2009/07/18 16:37:30, Link
Author: dvunkannon
The current display of pastafarian emblems in the ad box at UD is just too funny a juxtaposition!

Date: 2009/07/18 19:19:00, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote
118

Nakashima

07/18/2009

7:01 pm
Mr Byers,

Marsupials are in fact some 97% the same as other creatures. The rest is minor details.

The 98% industry will be beating a path to your door.


How can Marsupial Byers be lured onto an O'Leary thread? TARD densities rarely seen outside the laboratory may result. The elusive D_ may be sighted, unbound to either the T, A, or R particles. Are TARDons fermions or bozons may finally be resolved.

Date: 2009/07/18 22:47:36, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote
4

Nakashima

07/18/2009

10:35 pm
I’ll throw my hat in the ring as well!

If given posting privileges, I promise to never write about global warming, or moderate comments on my threads.

but would you use the loudspeaker in the ceiling, Darwinist inuit skirt chaser? -ds

No, I wouldn’t.

haiku street theater with a pathetic level of detail, i’m not buying it.



Nakashima, I'm not sure UD is ready for this.

Date: 2009/07/18 23:22:46, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (didymos @ July 18 2009,23:51)
Quote (dvunkannon @ July 18 2009,20:47)
Quote
4

Nakashima

07/18/2009

10:35 pm
I’ll throw my hat in the ring as well!

If given posting privileges, I promise to never write about global warming, or moderate comments on my threads.

but would you use the loudspeaker in the ceiling, Darwinist inuit skirt chaser? -ds

No, I wouldn’t.

haiku street theater with a pathetic level of detail, i’m not buying it.



Nakashima, I'm not sure UD is ready for this.

Clivebaby, if he ever shows up again, is NOT going to be amused by that...


...which will be amusing.

If he promised to never quote either Lewis or Chesterton, that might raise CB's blood pressure.

Date: 2009/07/19 09:42:18, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Maya @ July 19 2009,10:13)
Perhaps Denyse's next post will cover this observed speciation event.  No doubt she'll add the observation that they're still just birds....

This may have been discussed at UD already. I brought it up here about a month ago on the Science Break thread, I think.

but they'er stil not dinosaurs!!1! -ds

Date: 2009/07/19 13:32:42, Link
Author: dvunkannon
But what is the reason that Dembski has supported O'Leary for so long? OE, Design of Life blog, now UD, suffering death by O'Leary kudzu. He has been her main paycheck for years, just passed her 3rd anniversary on UD.

Date: 2009/07/19 15:45:29, Link
Author: dvunkannon
As O'Leary dominates the Entries column, Nakashima dominates the Comments column.

Just a fisking of KF in multiple posts... :p

Date: 2009/07/19 17:55:25, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (keiths @ July 19 2009,18:30)
Quote (dvunkannon @ July 19 2009,11:32)
But what is the reason that Dembski has supported O'Leary for so long? OE, Design of Life blog, now UD, suffering death by O'Leary kudzu. He has been her main paycheck for years, just passed her 3rd anniversary on UD.

Don't forget that Barry is in charge of UD now:
Quote
13 November 2008

Change at UD

William Dembski

As of tomorrow (Friday, November 14th), Barry Arrington assumes the leadership of UD. After more than three years at the helm, I’m finally stepping down. I expect I’ll still be posting here occasionally, but my energies will go more and more into technical ID research. Robert Marks and I continue to crank away at papers and have finally cracked the peer-review barrier in the information sciences with a paper on conservation of information (stay tuned at www.EvoInfo.org for a formal announcement).

Barry has organized UD as a non-profit corporation and plans to take UD in some new directions that will increase its readership, sense of community, and impact. Take it away Barry!

Has he posted anything, entry or comment, in 3 months? Absentee landlord.

In any case, he doesn't write the checks. DO'L is paid by DI or whoever wants her to keep the blog farm turning over.

Date: 2009/07/19 22:03:00, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (didymos @ July 19 2009,22:00)
Ah, I see.  Revelation is actually about a mass extinction event:
 
Quote

bornagain77

07/19/2009

8:23 pm

The next “scheduled renovation” is going to make all the rest pale in comparison;;

in Revelation 21 the new heaven and the new earth have come, God the Father then brings heaven to earth in the New Jerusalem where He dwells with His own for eternity.


I guess now we know what the dinosaurs have been up to lately.

They've rung down the curtain and joined the choir invisible?

That is an ex-dinosaur! -ds

Date: 2009/07/19 22:43:06, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Everybody send your sock over there to vote for Nakashima for posting privileges. His campaign bus is heading for New Hampshire and he needs your support!

ETA to ad beter speling

Date: 2009/07/20 12:58:46, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote
People Destroying America From the Grave


Communist Zombies!!1! Brezhnev Lives!! Lenin Controls World Goverment From Inside Glass Coffin!!

That's right folks. Flouridation and other Communist plots can attack your precious bodily fluids even after they've been replaced with formaldehyde. Didn't we warn you that Socialism was a 'grave' threat to America? We weren't kidding!!

You've given generously to the cause of preserving America. You're a Life Member of our Society. BUT WHAT ABOUT AFTER LIFE???

That's right! As your brain decays in the earth, you might start to feel less urgency about interacial dating, perhaps amnesty for illegal immigrants isn't such a bad thing.

Don't give in at this crucial moment! You could be having such thoughts for eternity.

How to protect yourself? I knew you were asking that question!

We are introducing a new membership level in our Society. Beyond Life Member... Afterlife Member!

That's right! A simple bequest in your will can keep your Membership in our Society in full force, even after you die! (A mere 10% of your gross assets, think of it as your final tithe.)

You will remain at the top of our Membership List. You will retain your Membership Number, which will never be reissued. And you will still receive our Newsletter, The Banner, sent every month to an address you have the Freedom to choose - even 1600 Pennsylvania Ave!

And the best benefit of all - a personalized Society Flag with our motto "Over My Dead Body" that can be draped over the casket after your mortal remains have been lowered into earth.

Don't become a Communist Zombie!! Make your contribution and sign up today!!

Respectfully,

Your Society Leadership

Date: 2009/07/20 17:10:26, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 20 2009,17:38)
"It is all very simple really, so simple in fact, that children will have no trouble grasping it" They also 'grasp' that THEY disappear when they close their eyes...

I am reminded of the Tom Lehrer lyric from New Math,

It's so simple, so very simple, that only a child can do it!

Date: 2009/07/20 18:44:37, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Peter Henderson @ July 20 2009,18:21)
Was expelled really the turkey everyone on the Panda's Thumb has made it out to be ? Not according to Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed

 
Quote
Expelled opened in 1,052 theaters, more than any other documentary before it, and grossed over $2,900,000 in its first weekend, the third biggest opening for a documentary. As of May 13, 2008 it had earned over $7 million, making it the twelfth-highest-grossing documentary film in the United States in nominal dollars, from 1982 to that date. In July, the movie was re-released allowing groups of 300 to book private screenings in theaters.


That doesn't look like an absolute bumber to me. Guess I can't use that argument any more on the YEC discussion forums. Who gets the profits ? Is it the Discovery Institute ?

Just to print a thousand copies of the film is serious money. I'd be suprised if they made any money at all on the first run in theaters. Probably started to be profitable with DVD sales. The church basement bookings are peanuts.

Date: 2009/07/22 18:28:16, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Someone should remark on the coincidence between the number of fine tuning parameters and the number of OT prophecies fulfilled by Jesus. Anyone who can't see the connection, send me $10 and I will pray for you. If you still don't see it after a week, send another $10.

eta for teh spel bad

Date: 2009/07/23 10:18:17, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Nakashima proposes a bold experiment

Quote
It would be useful to look at the genes for the wiring of the brain of the prey to see how they have evolved and compare to the genes of the anglerfish lure. I wonder if it is possible to use molecular clocks to estimate the age of these adaptations? It seems to me that these authors have made a large number of ID predictions, that the genes for all of these different adaptations are of the same age, across a wide variety of species.


But I doubt the Vedic Institute of Budapest has the necessary equipment. Perhaps the Biologic Institute can loan them some? Or perhaps the Biology Section of the Volcano Island Research Instutue hidden in Puget Sound.

Date: 2009/07/23 21:53:10, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Nakashima whips it out.

Quote
246

Nakashima

07/23/2009

12:45 pm
PopSize = 1000
IndSize = 1000
MaxTime = 1000
mutationRate = 0.05
allocate Pop[PopSize, IndSize], Fitness[PopSize]
for i = 1, PopSize
for j = 1, IndSize
Pop[i, j] = rnd(0, 1)
next j
Fitness[i] = evaluate(Pop[i, *])
next i

allocate NewInd[1, IndSize]
for t = 1, MaxTime * PopSize
for j = 1, IndSize
p1 = rnd(1, PopSize)
p2 = rdn(1, PopSize)
if Fitness[p1] > Fitness[p2]
then newBit = Pop[p1, j]
else newBit = Pop[p2, j]
if rnd(0,1) < mutationRate
then newBit = not(newBit)
NewInd[1, j] = newBit
next j
p3 = rnd(1, PopSize)
Pop[ p3, *] = NewInd[1, *]
Fitness[p3] = evaluate(Pop[p3, *])
next t

evaluate( Ind )
{

}


Not the best code in the world, but ok for lunch time.

Quote
252

Nakashima

07/23/2009

9:39 pm
Mr Jerry,

I did not know that God was writing comments on this site. Did He also write the code that Nakashima gave us.

While I think you are expressing it somewhat jokingly, this question of where to assign credit (or blame) for FSCI is key. Do we give credit to the first cause or to the last cause? If the first cause, then I understand naming God as the author of the FSCI. If the last cause, then the GA itself is the author of the FSCI, not of itself, but of the Pop data array inside it. (Note that the bits in Pop come from the random function or copied from other places in Pop. The ultimate source of every bit in Pop is random.


I will be interested to see how the UD crowd react to that last observation.

Date: 2009/07/24 14:07:46, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (didymos @ July 24 2009,14:40)
Quote (hooligans @ July 24 2009,10:40)
Second, he requires students to create "At least 10 posts defending aspects of the Christian worldview totaling at least 3,000
words on “hostile” websites — 10 percent positive. "

Oh, that's nice:  "Go troll materialist blogs if you want an A.  Hmm, lemme see.  OK, for example: Panda's Thumb, Pharyngula, Richard Dawkins.net...did I already mention Richard Dawkins.net?  OK, maybe ATBC at antievolution.org.  Oh, and Richard Dawkins.net. That's a good one.  Also, Richard Dawkins.net.  And of course, Richard Dawkins.net......I hate that guy.  CURSE YOU RICHARD DAWKINS!!!!!111!!!!!!"

So at the beginning of every semester, these sites should register a sudden influx of never before seen names. I wonder if that is actually discernable. Enrollment might be too low to see it above the noise.

Date: 2009/07/24 17:56:34, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (didymos @ July 24 2009,14:40)
Quote (hooligans @ July 24 2009,10:40)
Second, he requires students to create "At least 10 posts defending aspects of the Christian worldview totaling at least 3,000
words on “hostile” websites — 10 percent positive. "

Oh, that's nice:  "Go troll materialist blogs if you want an A.  Hmm, lemme see.  OK, for example: Panda's Thumb, Pharyngula, Richard Dawkins.net...did I already mention Richard Dawkins.net?  OK, maybe ATBC at antievolution.org.  Oh, and Richard Dawkins.net. That's a good one.  Also, Richard Dawkins.net.  And of course, Richard Dawkins.net......I hate that guy.  CURSE YOU RICHARD DAWKINS!!!!!111!!!!!!"

On second thought, is this even legal? Does BJU force you to witness on street corners? if I was just taking the class to learn ID, I have to defend the Xian worldview on the web?

Date: 2009/07/26 06:01:59, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Happy Birthday!

Date: 2009/07/26 21:25:24, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (deadman_932 @ July 25 2009,00:45)
Quote (dvunkannon @ July 20 2009,12:58)
Quote
People Destroying America From the Grave

Communist Zombies!!1! Brezhnev Lives!! Lenin Controls World Goverment From Inside Glass Coffin!!

[snippedliekafourskin]
Don't become a Communist Zombie!! Make your contribution and sign up today!!

Respectfully, Your Society Leadership

Becuz no oen else sed it: THIS IS FUNNEH.

That is all.

Thanks, deadman! But why am I not surprised a zombie post gets acomment from you? :)

Date: 2009/07/28 14:12:57, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (keiths @ July 28 2009,14:53)
The tards are still trying to justify the poor design of the recurrent laryngeal nerve. Gil enlightens us:
Quote
Concerning pontifications about bad or suboptimal design: I can’t count the number of times I’ve modified another programmer’s code (and even my own code that I had not visited in a long while) and thought, “That’s a dumb way to do it. There’s a much simpler and more efficient approach.” I then modify the code and watch the program go down in flames.

Upon further study and reflection I discover that there is a not-immediately-obvious or even counterintuitive reason why the original approach was the only one that would work.

Shorter Gil: "I'm bad at understanding systems; therefore, so is everyone else."
Quote
So when Darwinists make claims about bad or suboptimal design in biology I tend to be skeptical. It is only with a complete and detailed understanding of how a complex, functionally integrated system works that such claims can be made with assurance. I’d be willing to bet that if the RLN were redesigned according to Darwinist specifications, some really bad things would happen and it would become apparent why it is the way it is.

Nice logic there, Champ.  If something appears well-designed, you assume that it's well-designed and give credit to the designer.  If something appears poorly designed, you assume that it's well-designed and give credit to the designer. Last I checked, Gil, science had something to do with paying attention to the evidence.

Also, I'm waiting for Corny to come by and slap Gil down for making religious assumptions about what the designer would or would not do.

But does Corny hold that position provisionally?

Date: 2009/07/29 10:40:44, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 29 2009,11:25)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,July 29 2009,07:43)
Quote (Hermagoras @ July 28 2009,23:40)
By the way: AtBC regulars can Friend me on Facebook and discover I've made a FB Friend from UD.  No kidding.

ETA: http://www.facebook.com/Hermagoras

no way

Unless it's Dave Scot, I'm not interested.

It's FrillDodgem! Good to see someone trying to bridge the divide.

Date: 2009/07/29 11:29:09, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (JohnW @ July 29 2009,11:51)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,July 28 2009,17:23)
it is time to ask "is JoeG really Dave Tard".

Dunno.  But Dave Wisker is Louis:
 
Quote
94

Dave Wisker

07/28/2009

3:29 pm
Mr Nakashima,

 
Quote
The finches remain isolated even on the same island. The Africans and Irish do not remain isolated when put on the same island.


That’s not quite true. In the case I quoted above, the three species of birds do hybridize (albeit rarely) when they come into contact, though probably less often than Africans and Irish do when they come into contact. This is to be expected when closely related populations begin to diverge: somebody living in New England and travelling to Africa would have no problem producing fertile offspring with Africans. However, should that same person attempt to produce fertile offspring with artichokes or sheep anywhere, the results would be as expected considering the time since the divergence of those lineages.

So, getting all hot and bothered about species and varieties in early stages of divergence is a waste of time and a diversion from the issues being discussed.

African or European?

In this context, must be African...

sheep roll downhill, Darwinist!!1! Welcome to Wales!!! I'm not interbrreding wiht any inuit sheepI dont care how short its skirt is - dt

Date: 2009/07/29 14:45:02, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (didymos @ July 29 2009,15:30)
Gordon does a shorter Gordon:  
Quote

sea of non-function!

Incredible that Gordon has now changed his Lewontin quote from the correct NYRB to the incorrect NYT. I guess he doesn't believe Nakashima. Monotonic increase in non-function.

Date: 2009/07/29 23:34:13, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Ptaylor @ July 30 2009,00:14)
Gil is back to posting again (I thought he had retreated to commenting only, or have I got that wrong?). He continues on the counter-intuity theme, really adding nothing new to the discussion. (Although did you know that Darwin simply thought up the most counter-intuitive, illogical reason he could think of for the existence of all life forms, ignoring all evidence? That's how he did it.)

To his credit, though, he keeps to a rather tidy 256 words, unlike the first commenter, batshitinsane77, who unsurprisingly vomits out three times that number.

Quote
2

GilDodgen

07/29/2009

10:13 pm
The universe is a four-dimensional expanding hypersphere, analogous in three dimensions to the surface of an expanding balloon. The surface of the balloon is finite but boundless at any point during the expansion. All points on the surface are moving away from each other, and every point could be considered to be the center of the surface, if that’s where you live.


Will Mapoo dare contradict FrillDodgem on his own thread?

Date: 2009/07/30 00:30:32, Link
Author: dvunkannon
I see the list of Authors has reappeared on the UD sidebar. (Must be a full moon) When will Nakashima be allowed to join this glorious company?

Date: 2009/07/30 10:31:27, Link
Author: dvunkannon
String Theory Does Something Useful

Explaining some aspect of high temperature superconductivity -
Quote
Because of Zaanen's interest in string theory, he and string theoreticist Koenraad Schalm soon became acquainted after Schalm's arrival in Leiden. Zaanen had an unsolved problem and Schalm was an expert in the field of string theory. Their common interest brought them together, and they decided to work jointly on the research. They used the aspect of string theory known as AdS/CFT correspondence. This allows situations in a large relativistic world to be translated into a description at minuscule quantum physics level. This correspondence bridges the gap between these two different worlds. By applying the correspondence to the situation where a black hole vibrates when an electron falls into it, they arrived at the description of electrons that move in and out of a quantum-critical state.


Sorry BA^77, not teleportation...

Date: 2009/08/01 14:42:05, Link
Author: dvunkannon
I saw Nilsson and Pelger come up again on UD. Is there really no eye evolution computer simulation on the web?

Date: 2009/08/03 10:59:40, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Does anyone have access to this Science article?

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/316/5830/1452

It looks like an interesting evo-devo study that would answer some of KF's nattering about megabits of morphological FSCI.

(I know, it's just plants. "It's only a plant!!1!" should go on the same list as "Then why are there still monkeys!!1!")

Date: 2009/08/03 21:50:26, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 03 2009,21:33)
Quote
CeilingCat, posted 8/02/09 11:08 PM

[...]

It makes a really BIG difference how those chemicals are arranged.  Think of it this way - a lump of coal and the Hope Diamond are both made of pure carbon.  Do you think it takes Jesus to realize that the Hope Diamond is somehow worth more than an equal weight of coal?

[...]

Remember, you're a diamond.

Ah, but remember that in this above-ground environment, diamond is an unstable substance! Wait a few million years (plus or minus a few) and that ring will have only a lump of charcoal in it! :p

Henry

Diamond is that unstable?? I thought diamonds dug out of the ground were formed more than several million years ago, why didn't they transmogrify back to coal while still in the ground?

Date: 2009/08/03 22:16:48, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Aug. 03 2009,22:52)
Dvunkannon your religious premises are showing.  Sniff

Its twoo, its twoo!

(a shout out for all you Madeline Kahn fans out there!)

Date: 2009/08/03 23:24:59, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Bait
Quote
224

bornagain77

08/03/2009

9:51 pm
Nak you can also answer the question of “why is it so important for you to deny God? Of what benefit is there in it for you? Do you think living a lie will give you more money or something?

evanescence – lies
[URL=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxHP9-fEuRk


Switch
Quote
226

Nakashima

08/03/2009

11:07 pm
Mr Bornagain77,

I was deeply religious for about 25 years of my life. I accepted Jesus into my heart in 1975. (Should I change my name to bornagain75?) I have no desire to deny God. It would be deeply satisfying and comforting to find the evidence that would let me glorify God. I haven’t seen it yet. I certainly have not seen it in the faux sciences of American Christianity, from Mary Baker Eddy to Henry Morris to William Dembski. As Alice B. Toklas famously said of Oakland, “There is no there, there.”

I personally do not see an affirmation and glorification of God in theologians making puerile Flash animations, school board members lying under oath, astronomers failing to do astronomy, molecular biologists failing to do molecular biology, or mathematicians failing to math, except in Jello.

Who is properly fulfilling the verse, “It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, but the glory of kings to search it out.”? Neil Shubin. Francis Collins. Lynn Margulis.

But then, who’s talking about God, anyway? I don’t take His Name in vain by raising it on this blog. I’m here to have a good time, talking about ID, FSCI, FCSI and macroevolution. I’m not troubled by the religious origins or otherwise of evolution – I only believe in the change of allele frequencies over time, not evolution!

So chill out pilgrim. I won’t apologise for not fitting in your categories, just leave you with this wisdom – “Your Princess is in another castle!”


Just in case the server hiccups.

Date: 2009/08/03 23:38:43, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Aug. 04 2009,00:31)
wow dvunk that is some good stuff.  too bad that B^A is too damn stupid to grasp the point.  he'll say "well clearly you need jesus.  http://www.youtube.com/ignorantshit"

Glad you liked it, it's all for the onlookers, as KF would say. BA^77 is just gonna see the Debbil quoting Scripture and get the vapors.

And it has the added benefit of being true!

Date: 2009/08/04 10:24:53, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 04 2009,09:43)
It seems like just yesterday that ID proponentsists were insisting that it had nothing to do with religion.

Now we have a full blown inquisition going, and no one is raising the hammer to slow it down.

I guess they could only hold their breath for so long.

Inquisition? Nakashima seems to be sitting in the Comfy Chair, while BlahBlah^77 grills his Ebil Twin Skippy!

What mod would even want to step in at this point? FrillDodgem, the thread owner? CB, the worshipper at the altar of CSL and GKC? BArrogant, the absentee landlord? DDrr.. Dembski, creator of the Vise Strategy?

Keeping ID "on message" went out with Scooter.

Date: 2009/08/04 12:05:08, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 04 2009,12:12)
Quote (dvunkannon @ Aug. 03 2009,22:24)
Quote

[...]
I only believe in the change of allele frequencies over time, not evolution!
[...]

The who whatting how with huh?

Its a poke at Cornelius Hunter, who didn't seem to realize that evolution _is_ change in allele frequencies over time. Check my sig!

Date: 2009/08/04 16:25:12, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Aug. 04 2009,16:29)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 04 2009,15:54)
In fairness, this is not far from what Chomsky argued. Syntax, and the brain structures required to learn syntax in the absence of explicit training, could not have evolved incrementally.

That's right. The striking (and untenable) paradox of Chomsky’s position was that, although he believed that the underlying structure of human language is innate, he did not accept that it was a product of natural selection. Instead, he asserted that the human mind possesses an emergent, irreducible essence, and argued that few if any other genetic configurations could support this essence.

"In studying the evolution of mind, we cannot guess to what extent there are physically possible alternatives to, say, transformational generative grammar, for an organism meeting certain other physical conditions characteristic of humans. Conceivably, there are none—or very few—in which case talk about the evolution of the language capacity is beside the point.…When we study human language, we are approaching what some might call the “human essence,” the distinctive qualities of mind that are, so far as we know, unique to man and that are inseparable from any critical phase of human existence, personal or social."

(From his 1972 book Language and Mind, pg. 78 ).

It was the simultaneous postulate that syntax and transformational grammar were innate, yet not the product of natural selection, that is untenable. Viewing the syntactical conventions governing the use of heiroglyphs as of cultural origin is roughly as challenging to Darwinism as the infield fly rule.

The infield fly rule is a great example of counter inuitive evolution!

Date: 2009/08/05 11:29:29, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Anemone
Quote
10

bornagain77

08/05/2009

8:24 am
Nak-(I ain’t no materialist)-ashima,

You called your “evil materialistic twin” Skippy, would that make your name Skinny, as in the Skinny and Skippy twins?

http://www.ussschenectadylst11.....ance-1.gif

In case you don’t know, The picture represents your pathetic arguments against what the evidence actually is.


Clown
Quote
17

Nakashima

08/05/2009

10:42 am
Mr Bornagain77,

Your comment is awaiting moderation.


Grouper
Quote
21

bornagain77

08/05/2009

10:54 am
Hey Nak,
I’m so hurt,,,you don’t love me any more…Well, even though you won’t help me understand evolution anymore, maybe you can help this poor guy out,,,He is asking for someone of your expertise to help him understand evolution, maybe you can find it in your heart to help him since you so freely spread your BS, OH I mean wisdom, on this site.

Is evolution Horse S**t?
http://video.google.com/videop.....=firefox-a


Wrasse
Quote
22

Nakashima

08/05/2009

11:07 am
Mr BA77,

Your comment is awaiting moderation.


How long will the UD mods tolerate this? Is Blahblah^77 in danger of an anyeurism?

Date: 2009/08/06 00:03:55, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 05 2009,19:12)
Quote
I thought that I had been pretty clear about that.

As I say, I'm slow. The list of old articles joggled a couple of brain cells, and that made it a majority.

Moving on, I found this interesting:

 
Quote
Nakashima

08/05/2009

7:08 am
Mr Joseph,

But anyway life begets life- what does that tell you?

That ‘life’ is no longer the definite, binary category people once thought it was.

Notice how much Joe had to say in response.

Date: 2009/08/06 15:34:29, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 06 2009,16:22)
Wouldn't Front Loading counteract Genetic Entropy?

Enquiring minds want to know.

I would have expected Front Loading to be killed by Genetic Entropy, kind of like Godzilla vs Mothra.

Date: 2009/08/06 16:00:37, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (khan @ Aug. 06 2009,14:26)
I'm back, more or less.

BTW, are you Khan on UD right now?

Date: 2009/08/06 17:26:22, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (carlsonjok @ Aug. 06 2009,16:57)
Quote (dvunkannon @ Aug. 06 2009,15:34)
 
Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 06 2009,16:22)
Wouldn't Front Loading counteract Genetic Entropy?

Enquiring minds want to know.

I would have expected Front Loading to be killed by Genetic Entropy, kind of like Godzilla vs Mothra.

I disagree.  God The Disembodied Telic Designer Entity is omniscient.  So he would have front-loaded The Fall genetic entropy into Adam and Eve the original genome.

Somewhere in the flow of BlahBlah^77 gobbledeygook, I thought some meme to the effect that, genetic entropy was just the process of mutated, attenuated strains reverting back to wild type. Which is quite funny, since that means that what God created was the "mutated" strain... but now I can't find the reference.

Date: 2009/08/06 21:56:06, Link
Author: dvunkannon
BlahBlah^77 hasn't figured out how to be moderate yet.
 
Quote
191

Nakashima

08/06/2009

7:55 pm
Mr BA^77,

Your comment is awaiting moderation.


Quote
192

bornagain77

08/06/2009

8:20 pm
NaK,
Seems to me You never really defend your position,,you just try to cling to whatever little morsel of deception you can get away with and then claim you have made a comprehensive rebuttal…. I don’t know why you say you want to talk about science since all you really want to do is maintain your dogmatic atheism no matter what deception you have to say or solid evidence you have to ignore or obfuscation of smoke you have to blow,,, as I said before why should I even waste my time with you when you can’t even be honest with yourself? Maybe one day this will all change,,, and I hope for your sake it does but for now you are fooling nobody except yourself here on UD.


Some hellacious amount of projection going on, there.

Date: 2009/08/07 12:52:57, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Lou FCD @ June 06 2009,09:24)
Quote
Attorney Shawn Perez of Las Vegas, who worked on Hovind's Supreme Court filing, told WND the writ of certiorari, or petition, makes two arguments. One is that the structuring law does not apply, because the Hovinds never deposited or withdrew more than $10,000 on any one day. The 45 single bank transactions should be charged as one count, not as 45 separate violations of the law, the brief argues. Each transaction was charged as a criminal count, yet none of them, by themselves, constituted a violation of the law, it explains.

The other argument in the Supreme Court filing is that under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the IRS must explain on a 1040 form what it plans to do with the answers it receives and indicate whether the response is voluntary or mandatory.

The chance of the Supreme Court accepting any case is slim, but Perez said he hopes the structuring argument will get the court's attention, because the justices took a hard look at money laundering in the past year.

"His case is really tough because he didn't present a defense (at trial)," Perez said. "You don't leave much room for argument on appeal."

Perez said it's possible Hovind will find out this month if his case has been accepted. But, regardless of the outcome, Hovind's situation won't change anytime soon, because the earliest the appeal could be heard would be 2010.


My emphasis.

Dang, now I'm reading this thread.

There is a PRA declaration for the Form 1040. It says the IRS will use the answers to help determine the tax you owe. Shawn Perez, attorney FAIL.

Date: 2009/08/07 12:59:41, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Lou FCD @ June 06 2009,09:32)
How bizarre:

 
Quote

snip...

Lindsey Springer, the founder of an IRS watchdog group who has advised Hovind,  argues Hovind merely insists that the federal government adhere to the Constitution and its own laws, which protect religion and religious entities.


How bizarre, how bizarre.

Is this Scooter's Mom? Sister? Evil Twin? Alter Ego?

get your own blow-up sex toy. she's got vibrating, lifelike privates and mones when i press a button on the remote. i made all the payments and she's all mine!!1! -dt

Date: 2009/08/07 13:02:22, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (keiths @ Aug. 07 2009,13:25)
Quote (Barrett Brown @ Aug. 06 2009,19:31)
Howdy-

Thought you guys might enjoy this article I just wrote for The Huffington Post on the subject of Uncommon Descent and its general wackiness. Most of the stuff described therein probably won't be new to you since you're the world's greatest experts on Dave Springer, but perhaps you'll get a kick out it nonetheless. Here it is.

Regards,

Barrett Brown

Dave is a tard's tard.

Has anyone seen ol' Scooter in the blogosphere lately?

People  asked "Where's StephenB?" and he started posting again. There is a name for this kind of magic.

Date: 2009/08/07 13:10:24, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Speaking of magic, I just realized that DO'L posted all those articles a while ago so that she could go on vacation and still meet her numbers for the summer.

Date: 2009/08/11 21:58:15, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote
Since we’re in the sitting down and talking things out mood, would you mind providing examples of how naturalistic cosmology is only surviving “on a hope and a prayer”?


Oh noes!!1! Slew is falling for Joel's "absurd but helpfully distractive" gambit!

Date: 2009/08/11 23:10:59, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (sparc @ Aug. 11 2009,23:58)
Quote (RDK @ Aug. 11 2009,22:56)
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-329744

 
Quote
8
GilDodgen
08/11/2009
10:30 pm

Michael Behe and I have something in common


Your ass and your mouth were switched at birth?

This is normal for Deuterostomia though earlier during development.

What is the Dodgenator 3000's verdict on this post?

Date: 2009/08/11 23:14:11, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (RDK @ Aug. 11 2009,23:24)
Quote
20
Clive Hayden
08/11/2009
10:00 pm

Tajimas D,

 
Quote
I think it’s more than a little hypocritical for him to maintain a website that disallows criticism, while at the same time requiring his students to post criticism elsewhere.


How many times do I have to say it? Do you dissenters just not get it? Dr. Dembski also said that the new moderation policy provided for a “kinder gentler” treatment of dissenting opinions. His words, his choice. Here you are dissenting, and saying that it’s tantamount to you dissenting on a site that doesn’t allow dissent. You’re making a criticism on a website that you say doesn’t allow criticism and calling Dr. Dembski a hypocrite for it. You don’t make any sense. And for the hypocrite comment, you can credit me, and me alone, for moderating you. You’re lucky I don’t ban you outright on principle.


Sometimes I wonder if Clivebaby thinks his posts over before he sends them screaming through the inter-tubes and into my brain via my optical cords, making me weep for humanity.

Quote
Oh noes!!1! Slew is falling for Joel's "absurd but helpfully distractive" gambit!


Oops.  I'll tell him not to.   ;)

I've recently achieved full bannination over at Uncommonly Small Dick, so I've had to use other resources to access the site un-moderated.

Be sure to have your bannination recorded on the Blogczar thread. I was watching it fall off the first page here at AtBC, waiting for the current meltdown at UD to start causing casualties.

Date: 2009/08/13 07:10:18, Link
Author: dvunkannon
CB isn't DDrr.. D. As a thelogian of some renown, there is no way Fresh Willy would lower hisself to quoting the likes of Lewis and Chesterton, even for camouflage.

More to the point, using a sock is completely antithetical to Dollar Bill's MO, which is ITS ALL ABOUT ME!

Do you remember the show Sunday in the Park With George? The song "Putting It Together"?
Quote
...so that you can be on exhibition...

Billy Sweater would never correct himself.

Someday, Isaac Newton will be known as the William Dembski of Calculus, just you wait and see!

Date: 2009/08/13 07:56:59, Link
Author: dvunkannon
ScottAndrews
Quote
A thing is neither true nor false because of what it might or might not lead to.


Someone remind Scott to post this thought on the next Darwin = Hitler thread.

Date: 2009/08/13 08:08:11, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Aug. 13 2009,08:56)
 
Quote (dvunkannon @ Aug. 13 2009,08:10)
CB isn't DDrr.. D. As a thelogian of some renown, there is no way Fresh Willy would lower hisself to quoting the likes of Lewis and Chesterton, even for camouflage.

More to the point, using a sock is completely antithetical to Dollar Bill's MO, which is ITS ALL ABOUT ME!

Do you remember the show Sunday in the Park With George? The song "Putting It Together"?
   
Quote
...so that you can be on exhibition...

Billy Sweater would never correct himself.

Someday, Isaac Newton will be known as the William Dembski of Calculus, just you wait and see!

i dunno.  i suspect that many of the 'mods' over there through the years have been the same person.  same smarmy voice.  that voice, i think, is more important to the speaker than the identity we associate with the voice.  just as many many many socks have been birthed from a small cabal of puppeteers.

UD is all about a "debate"* between like 10 people on their side and about 10 on this side.

i think dembski's ego would adapt perfectly to sock puppetry.  we know he has done it in the past wrt Jones flash voices and editing the reviews of his book on amazon.  why not?

*this does brute violence to the definition of 'debate' but what else can you say about it?

OK, so I was wrong about Chesterton...

I sound like Uncle Billy and proud of it - his DNA is in my vains! only metaphoricly, he told me when i woke up that nothing happended to be ashamed of, just what one Marine would do for his brother in need. (but i always thought that was more of a navy thing??) semper fi, dr D I'm always there for you -dt

Date: 2009/08/14 10:22:33, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Zachriel @ Aug. 14 2009,09:33)
Quote
kairosfocus: (One laced with a demonising ad hominem and set ablaze to cloud, confuse, poison and polarise the atmosphere.)

Indeed, smoke can polarize light (often peaking at 90° for noxious substances). It's rather surprising kairosfocus knew that. Must be his extensive experience with strawman soaked in ad hominem oil then ignited, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

It may be his familiarity with that amateur scientist guy that both Discover magazine and the Discovery Institute like. His work on detecting air pollution might have used polarization, not sure. Memory fails, can't google it right now.

ETA - apologies for taking you seriously!

Date: 2009/08/14 12:03:16, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Zachriel @ Aug. 14 2009,12:46)
Quote (Zachriel @ Aug. 14 2009,07:32)
Quote
bornagain77: Nak,
Please respect my wishes for you to refrain from any conversation I am in.

Nakashima! Don't acquiesce to that request. Bornagain77 is more than capable of simply ignoring your comments, but you can't let him define the terms of the debate.
...

Oh. I see. You knew that already. Okay. Carry on.

Quote
bornagain77: Nak,
If I felt you were willing to learn, I would not mind, but as you have repeatedly demonstrated, to myself and others, you will never concede ANY point when refuted, thus your supposed “contributions” are useless to any meaningful dialog I may be is since you have made it clear you are actually trying to impede any meaningful progress. If you continue to refuse to obey my request to you to refrain from conversations I am in, I will no longer contribute on UD.

We might call this the Little Blogczar Syndrome.

What is wrong with these people? Are they little children who threaten to take their ball home if they don't get their way?

Nakashima is within an inch of breaking his toy. Please, don't make BraveSirRobin^77 leave! Who else will the provide the YouTube links??

typical Inuit skirtchaser reponse. I found YouTube the other day all by myself. sick cheezy poof videos up there, i downloaded them all for only 59.99 one time payment - dt

Date: 2009/08/14 17:30:20, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Anyone in the DC area on next Thursday Aug 20?

The week after that I will be in the Czech Republic, visiting Brno, Olomouc, and perhaps Hyn?ice - all associated with Gregor Mendel's life and work. If you can't meet me, I'll try to bring back pictures. I'd love to bring Prof Steve Steve with me if anyone knows how to make that happen.

Date: 2009/08/14 20:38:44, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (MichaelJ @ Aug. 14 2009,21:20)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Aug. 14 2009,10:36)
Quote
7 –> The following Sunday, the tomb is open and empty, and the former occupant, over the following forty days, appears to, eats and converses with his friends, family and followers, including making breakfast and having a fairly public meeting with over 500.

8 –> These 500 become the core of a culture-transforming movement that was unstoppable by even fire and sword.

How do you know the resurrection happened?
There were 500 witnesses to Jesus rising from the dead.
What evidence is there for the 500 witnesses?
It is in the Bible.
How do we know that the Bible is true?
It is the word of God.
How do we know it is the word of God?
There were 500 witnesses to Jesus rising from the dead.
WTF

Same argument is used by Orthodox Jews, but with 600,000 adult males witnessing the giving of the Torah on Mt Sinai, with extra goodness like "you could never get 600,000 Jews to agree about anything, therefore it must be true!"

Date: 2009/08/15 08:07:49, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Lou FCD @ May 15 2009,20:48)
Thanks all. That's one of my favorite pieces, so I'm glad y'all enjoyed it.

Left you a comment over there. Congratulations!

Date: 2009/08/15 11:54:57, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (utidjian @ Aug. 15 2009,10:12)
Quote (dvunkannon @ Aug. 14 2009,20:38)
 
Quote (MichaelJ @ Aug. 14 2009,21:20)
   
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Aug. 14 2009,10:36)
   
Quote
7 –> The following Sunday, the tomb is open and empty, and the former occupant, over the following forty days, appears to, eats and converses with his friends, family and followers, including making breakfast and having a fairly public meeting with over 500.

8 –> These 500 become the core of a culture-transforming movement that was unstoppable by even fire and sword.

How do you know the resurrection happened?
There were 500 witnesses to Jesus rising from the dead.
What evidence is there for the 500 witnesses?
It is in the Bible.
How do we know that the Bible is true?
It is the word of God.
How do we know it is the word of God?
There were 500 witnesses to Jesus rising from the dead.
WTF

Same argument is used by Orthodox Jews, but with 600,000 adult males witnessing the giving of the Torah on Mt Sinai, with extra goodness like "you could never get 600,000 Jews to agree about anything, therefore it must be true!"

I have used a similar argument against Apollo Moon Mission deniers:

It is extremely unlikely that, after all these years, not a single scientist, engineer, or technician of the tens of thousands that were involved in the project would not have come forward by now and denied that it really happened.

Main difference between the resurrection and the torah thing and the Apollo Mission being that many of the witnesses are still alive today. That and a tremendous amount of hard data and evidence.

Whatever the difficulties, Jules Verne's From Earth to the Moon, published in 1865 is more believable than the bible.

-DU-

I have a neighbor with a number tatooed on his arm by the Nazis when he was a child. I cannot imagine the cognitive dissonance of the Holocaust deniers when they encounter a survivor.

Date: 2009/08/15 14:31:15, Link
Author: dvunkannon
ok, I hurt my head listening to John Mark Reynolds for an hour. Math proves God, If you read Gary Habermas you will believe, so if you don't believe you must be wrong. gah

Date: 2009/08/17 00:18:28, Link
Author: dvunkannon
DATCG
Quote
Missed this bit of News!

Biologic Institute:

New Talent, New Places

Gosh and I thought they said ID was squished. Hmmmm, more talent joins in the pursuit of Design challenges.

Fantastics, Congrats to all of you at UD and Discovery!

No, you’re not “big” yet, but you’re attracting some of the brightest! WTG guys.


Nakashima
Quote
30

Nakashima

08/17/2009

12:03 am
I’ve heard of Colin Reeves in the GA field, though I don’t know what he’s published in the field since 2000.


So Reeves is following the path of mediocrity? Did he accept Jesus into his heart in 1999?

Date: 2009/08/19 12:47:04, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Bob O'H @ Aug. 19 2009,12:32)
Quote (olegt @ Aug. 19 2009,11:09)
I don't think it's worth raising an issue with the editors.  There's a better way.

IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. A. publishes comments and author's replies.  See this paper, for example.  Someone knowledgeable might want to fisk DrDrD and Gloppy in print.

The problem is that they don't really say much, which (IIRC) is what Mark Chu-Carroll said earlier.

Of course, they do confuse two definitions of information:
Quote
Computers, despite their speed in performing queries, are thus, in the absence of active information, inadequate for resolving even moderately sized search problems. Accordingly, attempts to characterize evolutionary algorithms as creators of novel information are inappropriate.

I'm sure Wes is shocked by this.

DDrr.. Dembski should warn these guys about the inadequacy of evolutionary algorithms. Especially since they appear in the same issue as his article!

Quote
A Multiobjective Evolutionary Programming Algorithm and Its Applications to Power Generation Expansion Planning

Ceciliano Meza, J. L.; Yildirim, M. B.; Masud, A. S. M.
Page(s): 1086-1096
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TSMCA.2009.2025868
AbstractPlus  | Full Text: PDF (524 KB)
Rights and Permissions  




 Evolutionary Sampling and Software Quality Modeling of High-Assurance Systems

Drown, D. J.; Khoshgoftaar, T. M.; Seliya, N
Page(s): 1097-1107
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TSMCA.2009.2020804
AbstractPlus  | Full Text: PDF (217 KB)
Rights and Permissions  

Date: 2009/08/21 01:17:27, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Aug. 20 2009,12:29)
Gil "has a thought"
   
Quote
I’ve had a thought somewhat along the lines of the OP. Much of what has been proposed as junk DNA involves redundant or repetitive nucleotide sequences. Computer programs often use repetitive or iterative code (for example, for(), do(), and while() loops), the number of iterations of which are either specified or controlled by other code.

Er, and now what Gil? I think you forgot the next paragraph where you note how you'd go about testing that, what any potential results would indicate and all that other fancy stuff generally falling under "work" rather then "armchair scientist".

And anyway, in a computer program you can have a loop that runs 1000 times and you don't need 1000 loops in the source code. You just use a counter. So if junk DNA has lots of repetitive section then it's exactly unlike a computer program in that regard. So WTF Gil, did you think about that one for all of a second?

Linky

I think the idea Frill was groping towards is loop unrolling, as is done in some optimizatons.

Date: 2009/08/22 08:33:35, Link
Author: dvunkannon
This same issue was pointed to the people responsible for a Monash U. web page on Weasel, and they corrected thenselves. Dembski is obstinate on the issue for some obscure psychlogical reason.

Date: 2009/09/07 22:13:47, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Hi all! I'm back from my vacation in the Czech Republic and have wasted my jetlagged Labor Day catching up with all the hilarity of UD.

CZ was great, but the part I really wanted to share with y'all was my 'pilgrimage' to Brno to see the Gregor Mendel Museum. I will try to post some pics soon.

Very nice small exhibit, recently redone. I took photos of the original plot of land where Mendel worked on his pea plants.

An interesting point that was brought up in the exhibit was Mendel's awareness of Darwin's work. Mendel actually travelled to England in 1865, though I doubt he could have ever met Darwin. Mendel did have a copy of OoS, apparently he underlined passages he found important. I am considering writing to the Museum to see if they have more specific information on which passages those might be. Besides OoS, he had several of Darwin's later works as well, that related to his interests in plant husbandry.

All pretty interesting for a guy who went on to become the Abbot of the Augustinian monks in Brno.

(Nakashima came back with me, though it was hard to drag him away from the Czech supermodels, and vice versa. He'll be back in the tardmines of UD soon enough!)

Date: 2009/09/09 16:37:29, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Here's a little something related to genetic algorithms that I was thinking about during my recent vacation. I decided to write it down and share it with y'all in the hope getting some feedback on the idea. Now that I've got the idea sketched out, I'll implement it in the little GA I've been building.

Thanks in advance for any comments.

Quote
The Valley of the Demes
An Island Model GA with Asymmetric Topology, Parameters, and Migration Policy

Overview

The Valley Model ("Valley of the Demes") consists of several changes to the standard Island Model for deme-structured GAs. The biological inspiration for the Valley Model is the typical alpine valley. The fertile central valley is connected to a branching network of side valleys in which conditions are harsher and more challenging.
While deme-structured GAs offer the opportunity to take advantage of multiple CPUs, there is also some evidence that the separation into sub-populations itself helps to maintain divesity and slow premature convergence. The Valley Model attempts to take advantage of, and to encourage, this diversity in a variety of ways that make sense from a general EA point of view, and are still consistent with a specific ecological metaphor.

Topology
The demes are connected in the topology of a truncated Bethe lattice. The central deme has three connections to demes in the next ring outwards. Each of these demes has two demes connected to it in the next most outward ring, and so on until the last ring. The total number of rings is a model parameter.
The number of demes in each ring is 1, 3, 6, 12, 24,... and the total number of demes is 1, 4, 10, 22, 46,...
In the valley metaphor, the side valleys are connected downwards to the central plain, but not to neighboring side valleys.

Deme Sizing
The central deme has an initial (and average, if varying) carrying capacity of half the total population. Each ring outward holds half of the remaining population. For example, a model with four rings would allocate the population carrying capacities between the rings as 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/8. However, because the number of demes is growing in each ring, the per deme carrying capacities would be 1/2, 1/12, 1/48, 1/96. Obviously, it would not make sense to run this four ring model with a total population less than 192 if all spaces are intended to be occupied, and the smallest deme has a carrying capacity of two.
In the valley metaphor, the carrying capacity of each deme is reduced by altitude, less space and poorer resources.

Deme Parameters
While crossover rates are expected to be constant across demes, the mutation rate is higher in each ring outward from the center.
In the valley metaphor, this could be attributed to more cosmic rays at higher altitudes but the major reason for raising the mutation rate is to give the model a chance to generate diversity.

Migration Policy
At the end of each 'generation', the population of a deme must be reduced to its current carrying capacity. (Carrying capacity can be parametric in time, for each deme independently.) In a typical GA, losers of some selection process (or the entire old generation) die. In the Valley Model, these poor performers are instead exported to demes one ring outwards. Only in the last ring of demes do losers die.
(The above assumes that migration takes place every generation. If migration only occurs every few generations, as in many Island Models, over capacity populations in the central demes would have to cull individuals.)
Except for the central deme, demes may also attempt to reduce their population to the carrying capacity level by sending the best of population inwards, replacing some individual in the receiving deme.
While this inflow to the center is a 'best replaces worst', the outward migration is not, so the overall effect should not raise selection pressures. Also, the outward flow is based on population carrying capacity and population growth, while the inflow is based on the topology. If the generation size was small, close to a Steady State GA, these flows would balance.
In the valley metaphor, poor performers are pushed out of the fertile territory and forced to move higher upslope by overcrowding. The only hope to move back towards the lower ground is to take someone else's place.

Initialization
To take advantage of founder effects, the model can be initialized so that only the central deme contains population members at time 0. In this way, several generations will pass before any population member is actually removed from the model.
In the valley metaphor, this initialization choice parallels the colonization of the valley for the first time by population members from elsewhere.

Summary
The Valley Model is intended to explore areas of GA model design in which model asymmetries help to preserve diversity in the population. The resulting diversity may support discovery of multiple solutions (niching) or simply avoid premature convergence, thereby improving the solution quality or speed to solution metrics.
The specific choice of asymmetries in the Valley Model is inspired by the ecologies and dynamics of real world mountain valleys.

Date: 2009/09/10 11:51:48, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (sledgehammer @ Sep. 04 2009,00:00)
Origins:  The Zinc Link?
 
Quote
This work puts forward an evolutionary scenario that satisfies the known constraints by proposing that life on Earth emerged, powered by UV-rich solar radiation, at photosynthetically active porous edifices made of precipitated zinc sulfide (ZnS) similar to those found around modern deep-sea hydrothermal vents. Under the high pressure of the primeval, carbon dioxide-dominated atmosphere ZnS could precipitate at the surface of the first continents, within reach of solar light. It is suggested that the ZnS surfaces (1) used the solar radiation to drive carbon dioxide reduction, yielding the building blocks for the first biopolymers, (2) served as templates for the synthesis of longer biopolymers from simpler building blocks, and (3) prevented the first biopolymers from photo-dissociation, by absorbing from them the excess radiation. In addition, the UV light may have favoured the selective enrichment of photostable, RNA-like polymers. Falsification tests of this hypothesis are described in the accompanying article (A.Y. Mulkidjanian, M.Y. Galperin, Biology Direct 2009, 4:27).

Abstr. Part 2
and PDFs too!
and PDF two

I just finished reading the first article yesterday. I think they did a great job of bringing together multiple streams of evidence to support their hypothesis, as well as bridging the RNA-world and metabolism first divide.

Definitely something to wave in front of GERM of TIKI the next time he goes on about the always linked improbabilities of OOL. It looks like you don't need plate tectonics to get started, though tides might help.

Date: 2009/09/10 17:23:37, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Zachriel @ Sep. 10 2009,17:01)
Quote
niwrad: John von Neumann, an IDer ante litteram

Hungarian mathematician John von Neumann (1903 – 1957) ...

Von Neumann quite clearly understood and accepted the Theory of Evolution.

Quote
niwrad: Moreover we have the concept of “autotrophic” replicator. An autotrophic replicator is not a replicator that needs an external provider of basic parts, rather it can self-reproduce finding the necessary materials by itself in the wild. Biological cells are even autotrophic replicators.

The "necessary materials" for many autotrophs being just air, water and a few dissolved minerals.

Not sure what nirwad's first language is, but it isn't English.

Date: 2009/09/10 17:32:55, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Are we keeping track of pro-ID commenters that Clive,baby has subjected to moderation? I noticed Mapou recently complaining, and I thought BA^77 might be as well.

It was also amusing to see a recent comment wondering why the Timaeus/Allan MacNeil debate had never happened, apparently the poster was unaware that Timaeus had been banned by Scooter for being unable to talk about anything but religion.

Date: 2009/09/10 17:52:38, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (sledgehammer @ Sep. 10 2009,17:20)
Quote (dvunkannon @ Sep. 10 2009,09:51)
   
Quote (sledgehammer @ Sep. 04 2009,00:00)
Origins:  The Zinc Link?
       
Quote
This work puts forward an evolutionary scenario that satisfies the known constraints by proposing that life on Earth emerged, powered by UV-rich solar radiation, at photosynthetically active porous edifices made of precipitated zinc sulfide (ZnS) similar to those found around modern deep-sea hydrothermal vents. Under the high pressure of the primeval, carbon dioxide-dominated atmosphere ZnS could precipitate at the surface of the first continents, within reach of solar light. It is suggested that the ZnS surfaces (1) used the solar radiation to drive carbon dioxide reduction, yielding the building blocks for the first biopolymers, (2) served as templates for the synthesis of longer biopolymers from simpler building blocks, and (3) prevented the first biopolymers from photo-dissociation, by absorbing from them the excess radiation. In addition, the UV light may have favoured the selective enrichment of photostable, RNA-like polymers. Falsification tests of this hypothesis are described in the accompanying article (A.Y. Mulkidjanian, M.Y. Galperin, Biology Direct 2009, 4:27).

Abstr. Part 2
and PDFs too!
and PDF two

I just finished reading the first article yesterday. I think they did a great job of bringing together multiple streams of evidence to support their hypothesis, as well as bridging the RNA-world and metabolism first divide.

Definitely something to wave in front of GERM of TIKI the next time he goes on about the always linked improbabilities of OOL. It looks like you don't need plate tectonics to get started, though tides might help.

Except for the extent of plate tectonics being resposible for undersea vents?
Also, for part 2 abstract and PDF, change the ref number inthe URL's from "26" to "27"
i.e
Abstr. Part 2
and PDF two

My bad.

While the article explains the hydrothermal precipitation of ZnS with reference to what we see today at the mid ocean ridges caused by plate tectonics, it also makes clear (deep in the article) that the huge ZnS outflows such as the Pilbara Craton of the early Earth took place at the continental surface as the result of volcanic hot spots and high atmospheric pressure working together - hydrothermal does not imply deep ocean in this case.

Plate tectonics would still be important later in sequestering carbon, but just to get life started, they are argunig not necessary.

Date: 2009/09/11 12:20:25, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (sparc @ Sep. 11 2009,12:16)
I must strictly disagree here: KF is such a pompous dick that he is absolutely sure that he is right. That Dembski happens to share some of his views is just an accident. And it is still not clear if Dembski even cares about FSCI.

It is still not clear if Dembski even cares about irreducible complexity.

To the good doubleplusdoctor, it is all about the Sweater.

Date: 2009/09/15 10:52:19, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 15 2009,10:05)
Quote (Bob O'H @ Sep. 15 2009,01:30)
Steve Fuller takes aim at his foot...
 
Quote
To Nakashima: You’re missing the point. Of course, the atheist scientists who make claims about what God could or could not do are not publishing in peer review journals — because the relevant peer review journals would be in theology, not biology. And these scientists couldn’t care less whether they pass peer review in theology because they don’t believe the subject really exists. This is why I say that it’s up to theologians to insist on peer review for such claims and not let them simply free float in the public domain without any professional scrutiny.

As my mum would say, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.  If he wants to insist on peer review of scientists talking theology, then he should insist on peer review of theologians talking about science.

Plus its not like there's any objective measure for religion past interpretations of 'holy writings'. The various schisms and divides in must religions show how futile 'peer review' would be.

Peer review in theology reminds me of the classic Gary Larson Far Side cartoon "You must be this tall to attack the city"

Date: 2009/09/17 13:20:57, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Nakashima explains animal husbandry to PaV
   
Quote
The point is that Great Danes and Chihuahuas are a greater ratio of body size and pelvis to pelvis distance than the ratios of upright stance and straddle stance in ancient reptiles. Even if the male has an upright stance and has to adopt a stance as wide as a Republican senator in an airport bathroom in order to mate, I don’t see this as an insurmountable (no pun intended) obstacle.


Though in the case of the Republican Senator, the stance did not improve his chances of reproductive success.

Date: 2009/10/02 01:47:37, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (tsig @ Oct. 01 2009,23:44)
Quote (Raevmo @ Sep. 30 2009,06:36)
Denyse rambles
 
Quote
(= “God will just LOVE you if you blow yourself up in order to murder and maim others”? Yeah really. And if your parents think that is okay, please find a new set of parents. In all believable theistic traditions, only God chooses martyrs; it is NOT a matter for private judgment. Private judgement [sic] is too easily corrupted by local or personal issues.)

In unbelievable theistic traditions on the other hand...

How does Denyse know that God did not choose suicide bombers? Is that her private judgment?

We could pray that D'O become a martyr.

Wait I get it she is the suicide bomber of literary.

Do believable theistic traditions allow you to kill other people if you don't plan on killing yourself, like in the Crusades?

Date: 2009/10/03 01:57:24, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Turncoat @ Oct. 02 2009,15:11)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 02 2009,10:15)
 
Quote (Turncoat @ Oct. 02 2009,02:23)
The inaugural post of Bounded Science: No Free Lunch for Intelligent Design, "Never Look a Gift Weasel in the Mouth," needs an infusion of wit. Come on over.

Nice. Do you, Wes and DvK correspond?

Not on this. DiEb has a nice series of posts at DiEblog.

Tom and Wes do this stuff as academic professionals. I'm just a tinkerer who likes to use it and play with it on the side.

Date: 2009/10/04 04:26:47, Link
Author: dvunkannon
MeganC's post on O'Leary's latest contest post seems to have been excised, which doesn't stop O'Leary from answering it.

In other news, the loudspeaker in the ceiling has been turned on again by idnet.com.au

Date: 2009/10/04 05:18:47, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (sledgehammer @ Oct. 04 2009,01:52)
Quote (sparc @ Oct. 03 2009,21:52)
It must be former NSF employees applying for a new job:            
Quote
Half of males who apply to serve as a missionary for the Southern Baptist Convention's international mission agency are turned down, according to a Baptist pastor. The primary reason is the use of internet porn.

from the Christian Post


from the Christian Post (http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070403/trustee-porn-viewing-charismatic-prayer-treated-equally-in-baptist-missionary-screening/index.html)

WTF is this "Private Prayer Language" or "Charismatic Prayer" that is as bad as porn according to the SBC?  Is this a euphemism for "speaking is tongues", and why is it so bad?  I was under the impression that this was considered a form of devotion by a lot of Baptists.
   
Quote
According to the AP ("Seminary passes resolution against speaking in tongues", 10/19/2006), the trustees at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary recently voted 36-1 that "Southwestern will not knowingly endorse in any way, advertise, or commend the conclusions of the contemporary charismatic movement including 'private prayer language.'"

They're all wierd by my reckoning, but pornographic? I don't get it, but then, IANAB.

If you just listen to the soundtrack, charismatic porn and charismatic prayer may be hard to distinguish.

Date: 2009/10/04 12:54:52, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Joe the G
Quote
That retired official should be forced to reimburse the taxpayers money.

Next the NSF needs a good network admin who can block access to porn sites.


Nakashima
Quote
Nakashima and Mr Joseph are in complete agreement!


Sig worthy!

Date: 2009/10/04 13:42:14, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Nakashima, in the latest Barrogant thread
Quote
Mr Arrington, you’ll have my response right after you post Diffaxial’s.


RBill, saddle that pony one more time!

Date: 2009/10/04 19:01:10, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Nakashima, saved just in case.
Quote
Mr Arrington,

The interest in the responses is not in the expected, it is in the unexpected. It isn't just teh ebil materialists that think you have overshot.

But following Mrs O'Leary, lets shift the discourse slightly. Is there moral squalor in odious false dichotomy? If a trial lawyer asks a witness "Have you stopped beating your wife? Just answer the question!" is there any element of moral squalor in the approach? In the American advocacy system of pursuing justice, who is allowed to object to that kind of question? Is the witness allowed to object? Does the American Bar Association have a position on this kind of questioning?

Date: 2009/10/08 00:15:39, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Nakashima finds niwrad refreshingly different.
Quote
Mr Niwrad,

Thank you for answering clearly. I appreciate your definiteness when so many equivocate.


Still a TARD though.

Date: 2009/10/08 08:13:52, Link
Author: dvunkannon
I just have had a post gone missing on AtBC. I saw my name as last poster on the list, so it must be there somewhere. Now there have been several posts since.

Is there a spam filter that buckets really short messages that are perhaps only links? I forget if I added some text beyond the link.

If so, can we filter the filter to allow such messages if they only reference UD?

Date: 2009/10/08 08:29:56, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (J-Dog @ Oct. 08 2009,08:35)
Quote (VentureFree @ Oct. 08 2009,07:00)
Stoopid and possibly off topic question from a noob. Assuming that some kind of calculation can actually be done, how does "The Bible Code" (hereafter referred to as TBC) fare when it comes to Specified Complexity? Intuitively it would seem that it is both complex and specified and so must necessarily be considered designed. Do you supposed Dembski believes that TBC is legit? Or can it be claimed that the chances of finding coincidental specification (i.e. meaningful words) is high enough to not be considered officially complex, assuming that complexity = low probability?

In a similar vein, what other objects and/or concepts can you think of which are clearly not designed, but which are likely to have a high level of Specified Complexity (speaking intuitively of course, since it's not clear how, or even if, an actual calculation could actually be done).

Welcome noob - what got you here BTW? - ( we are always curious!)

Click on the links, read and enjoy, as Dembski falls for the Boble Code Scam.  He has also attended a "faith-healer" scam recently, so the poor guy really has gone over the edge.  Dembski & Bible Code Links

IIRC, the whole Bible Code craze was started by an article published in a respectable, peer reviewed statistics journal. It compared the probability of finding Hebrew words at various repeats (and backwards) in the Hebrew Bible with the same for Russian words in the original of War and Peace, and some other similar long texts. It concluded that there was a statistically significant difference in the texts (not the underlying language).

I've read this paper. It is not so much smuggling ID in as trying to assert a religious position as calmly as possible. I think it was done by Orthodox Jewish scientists (CS, Stat, math types) in Israel. At least one otherwise respectable rabbi had been pursuing this idea for years by hand. But then, manipulating the holy and God given text of the Torah is an ancient Rabbinic tradition!

Date: 2009/10/08 11:25:53, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (midwifetoad @ Oct. 08 2009,09:47)
Quote
It concluded that there was a statistically significant difference in the texts

Considering that Hebrew has no vowels, I'd expect there to be some difference. Unless I've misread something, it means that many Hebrew words are disambiguated by context.

You are correct, but if they found "b...g...n" at a certain repeat, I don't think they double counted that as finding both "begun" and "began". They may even have thrown in a disemvoweled War and Peace against a disemvoweled Russian dictionary. I remember they tested the Russian text of the Bible against the Russian dictionary. (They did not try the Koran against an Arabic dictionary!)

Sorry I can't Google a citation at the moment. It would have been from the mid-90s. I used to have a paper copy, but I think I chucked it, or worse, my ex has it.

Date: 2009/10/08 11:37:38, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (sparc @ Oct. 08 2009,10:28)
Since all his posts are so similar I may be wrong but IIRC Cornie's "Segmental Duplications and Evolution" was followed by comments yesterday.

Comments on UD or his own blog? I only saw comments on his blog, at least 15.

BTW, didn't Clive,baby's post on assisted suicide disappear and reappear yesterday? GrannyTard's comment is just awful. Nakashima feels his gorge rising, but DDrr.. Dembski tells him to keep it down.

She must have pictures. Really nasty pictures.

Her "contributions" (TARDroppings) to other threads has risen. If anything, these missives are even less coherent than her own OPs. Mostly because they are longer. Her OP is usually just a cut and paste job, but CornyTard seems to have invaded that niche.

Date: 2009/10/08 20:30:14, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Oct. 08 2009,15:50)
Holy shit.

191
John A. Davison
10/05/2006
6:57 pm

Who is left?

Not Scooter. Schadenfreude, baby.

Barry "Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!" Arrington might think about that.

Date: 2009/10/09 08:01:00, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Amadan @ Oct. 09 2009,06:47)
I've no doubt it's intended to complement Carter's prize as a comment on Bush/Cheney & co.  Sad, really. I sympathise with the sentiment, but I don't think Obama did anything like what you'd expect of someone who really deserves the prize. It would be simpler to institute the anti-Nobels.

I think Obama should turn it down. Put it in a time delay capsule or something. He knows he doesn't deserve it yet. Sad to see such overt political messaging from the Nobel committee.

Date: 2009/10/09 17:48:00, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (MichaelJ @ Oct. 09 2009,17:50)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 10 2009,06:51)
New socks will emerge. This thread makes Barry look so unhinged I suspect a 404 / server burp is on the way. Any sort of reasoned dialogue with them makes them look assclowns, and it needs to happen for that reason.

I think that they are oblivious to how stupid they look. Stephen has had the same discussion before and it made no difference then and it will make no difference now.

I agree. Conversing with StephenB is like watching Galvani talk to a frog's leg. The twitches are entirely predictable after a while.

Date: 2009/10/09 19:29:38, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Reaping the Whirlwind, StuartHarris opines
Quote
Cultures that continue polygamy over time have a problem on their hands: what to do with all the volatile single young men? Get them involved in a religious or political movement is the common solution. Islamic jihad is a good example.


I thought he was going to mention BYU.

Date: 2009/10/10 16:12:18, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Turncoat @ Oct. 10 2009,15:12)
DiEb and I want to get serious about identifying errors in the IEEE SMC-A article of Dembski and Marks. Do you folks feel that the discussion deserves its own thread?

I'd prefer for that discussion to happen here. Special purpose threads are hard to find (at least for me). I prefer general threads that pick up topics as necessary. Viz. the discussion of Mendel's Accountant and previous Weasel discussions on this thread.

Date: 2009/10/10 22:17:17, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Turncoat @ Oct. 10 2009,16:42)
Quote (dvunkannon @ Sep. 09 2009,16:37)
Here's a little something related to genetic algorithms that I was thinking about during my recent vacation. I decided to write it down and share it with y'all in the hope getting some feedback on the idea. Now that I've got the idea sketched out, I'll implement it in the little GA I've been building.

Thanks in advance for any comments.

Something few people understand about the NFL theorems is that they level algorithms in terms of how well they do with n evaluations of the fitness function, and not how well they do with t units of running time. If you do not have prior knowledge of a problem instance that leads you to prefer some algorithm over others, or you choose to ignore that knowledge, then select the algorithm that runs the fastest (i.e., completes the greatest number of fitness evaluations in available running time).

Taken to the extreme, that says just run "Generate and Test" and give up on this fancy selecting, sorting, etc. NFL is NFL.

However, I think we agree that most human interesting problems are in a class where some level of GA can help if we don't already know a closed form solution. I realize there is a view that demes are just to allocate hardware appropriately, but I've also seen research that avoiding panmixis is a benefit irrespective of hardware. YMMV.

Date: 2009/10/11 07:45:27, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (BillB @ Oct. 11 2009,07:23)
before they get deleted:  
Quote
189
delmot
10/11/2009
5:31 am

I think these threads are embarrassing and insulting. Not to atheists, most of whom I’m pretty sure are secure and confident in their knowledge of morality, but to christians, who apparently cannot figure themselves what is right and wrong but need to be told by an authority figure; and who also apparently cannot figure out how to use the internet discover what some non-religious theories of morality might be. Hint: wikipedia is pretty good at that kind of thing.

and:  
Quote
190
delmot
10/11/2009
5:33 am

Genuine question: what would you do if God asked you to sacrifice your firstborn child?

that, I suspect, is one of those questions you are not allowed to ask.

Easy, delete the question and ban the questioner!

Just wait for Barrogant to come back from church, and see.

Date: 2009/10/11 17:43:43, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (didymos @ Oct. 11 2009,17:22)
In a comment in the Gordonian mode (complete with idiosyncratic bolding, numbered points and sub-points, and notes), Vjtorley wraps up with:  
Quote

I really do believe that Einstein is no greater, better, more valuable or more important than a so-called “cretin” or “moron.” I suspect that Darwinists do not share this belief. As far as I can tell, they are intellectual snobs. They appear to regard intellectually impaired people (at least, some of them) as morally inferior and less valuable. Come on, ‘fess up. You do, don’t you, Darwinists?
So criticize me if you like, Mr. Nakashima, but don’t saw off the ethical branch you’re sitting on.


No, Vj, I don't.  Well, unless they're a UD regular, like, for instance, you.  Asshole.

Nakashima may have found one of those points on which the normally calm VJT goes off the rails.

Date: 2009/10/12 16:50:00, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Perhaps AussieID will take up Nakashima's advice:
Quote
If you wander over to that other site, the antipodes of this one, which dare not speak its name, and ask how many commited evolutionists hold that Darwin should be revered, or his doctrine treated as sounder than any since, you will hear cricket chirping in response.


or crickets

or flatulence

Come on down, AussieID!

Date: 2009/10/13 10:44:41, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Zachriel @ Oct. 13 2009,10:36)
Quote
niwrad: In a sense, the evolutionist "Sun argument" means that CSI can be paid by simple energy. But energy cannot create CSI. For absurd, whether energy provided CSI, for example, software houses could think of not to pay expensive computer programmers, rather they would buy power plants; publishers wouldn’t pay writers, they would buy power supplies instead, and so on.

Funny thing about that. Computer programmers ingest other organisms that get their energy, directly or indirectly, from the Sun. Yes, even Cheetos® {mostly} come from Solar energy.

Quote
Enriched Corn Meal (Corn Meal, Ferrous Sulfate, Niacin, Thiamin Monoitrate, Riboflavin, and Frolic Acid), Vegetable Oil (Contains one or more of the following: corn, soybean, or sunflower oil), Whey, Salt, Cheddar Cheese, (Cultured Milk, Salt, Enzymes). Partially Hydrogenated Soybean Oil, Maltodextrin, Disodium Phosphate, Sour Cream (Cultured Cream, Nonfat Milk), Artificial Flavor, Monosodium Glutmate, Lactic Acid, Artificial Colors (Including Yellow 6), and Citric Acid. Contains Milk Ingredients.

(Yellow 6 is a synthetic derived from coal tar. Soylent Green is derived from organisms that get their energy from the Sun.)

Does the package actually say "Frolic Acid"? That and MSG is a dangerous combination, but would explain a lot.

Date: 2009/10/14 07:03:17, Link
Author: dvunkannon
I think it is interesting to see UDers such as niwrad and DLH acknowledge the Stryer and Bunn papers on evolution and SLOT.

Here's my prediction: These papers are so short and simple that they are very difficult to dispute. Instead, they will be absorbed into the creationist Borg almost whole. Remember how plate tectonics and evolution were fiercely resisted, and then suddenly the argument got switched around that they happened at fantastically high rates during and after the Flood?

The same thing will happen here. Bunn concludes that evolution had to take at least 10^7 seconds for SLOT to be safe, less than a year! With a little shaving of an order of magnitude here and there, AiG will get that down to six days. Voila! Now they will argue that their theory is equally well suppported by this argument, therefore the argument is worthless to choose between theories. Not that anyone ever used SLOT to criticize YEC, of course!

Date: 2009/10/15 10:30:37, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Oct. 15 2009,10:04)
i that we had determined that niwrad was likely the eye-taliban Giuseppe Sermonti.  he is definitely not english as first language.  he is also definitely a tard.

For a while I thought that niwrad was gpuccio, but I think gpuccio's English was better. I wonder where gpuccio went?

He's definitely ESL, but I haven't figured out the first language from the mistakes in the second. I've eliminated Asian because he doesn't make single/plural mistakes.

Date: 2009/10/15 17:46:45, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (olegt @ Oct. 15 2009,17:44)
niwrad needs to crack a textbook on thermodynamics.  Pronto.  
Quote
Not true. Thermodynamics does speak a lot about “an intelligent source of organization”. What is “Maxwell’s demon” (a fundamental concept in thermodynamics) but “an intelligent source of organization”? Bill Dembski wrote: “It is CSI that enables Maxwell’s demon to outsmart a thermodynamic system tending toward thermal equilibrium” (”Intelligent Design”, 6.1). So also from this viewpoint thermodynamics perfectly agrees with ID theory. When thermodynamics says that Maxwell’s demon is the only way to systematically decrease entropy in a system it states exactly the same thing of ID theory when says that intelligence is the only source of CSI.


Let me count the errors.  

1.  Maxwell's demon is not a fundamental concept of thermodynamics.*  Like Dawkins's weasel, it's just a toy model used to make a point.  I taught gradual statistical physics last spring and I did not even mention the demon.  

2.  Leó Szilárd showed that any decrease of entropy the demon produces in the system will be more than offset by an increase in demon's own entropy.  So the total amount of entropy increases.  

3.  Intelligent beings that we observe (i.e. humans) produce so much entropy through perspiration alone that it will dwarf any amount of information (measured in the same units) that they can physically produce.  One kcal of heat  at room temperature is equivalent to 1.5 trillion trillion (that's 1.5 x 1024) bits of entropy.  

*It was introduced in statistical physics, actually, but that's a minor point.

So you're saying that invention is much more than 99% perspiration? :)

Date: 2009/10/16 07:36:01, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 16 2009,04:09)
I predict that this becomes a post at UD soon.
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/3d-genome.html    
Quote
"It's very suggestive as to how basic cellular processes are taking place, in terms of information storage and retrieval,"

Expect "Information", "Storage" and "Retrieval" to be bolded, but no actual explanation of how this relates to ID other then "ooh, isn't the designer clever?"
   
Quote
The work, reported in this week's issue of Science, may also explain how cells control which stretches of DNA are transcribed and which remain silent. Furthermore, the new technique could allow researchers to study how gene expression changes as cells develop or become cancerous, says Thomas Tullius, professor of chemistry at Boston University, who was not part of the research team.

"It's a whole new view of the chromosome and its place in the cell, and it's a view we've never had before," says Tullius, who studies the structure of DNA.

Done there, been that

Date: 2009/10/17 16:07:00, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (keiths @ Oct. 17 2009,16:27)
Quote (didymos @ Oct. 17 2009,06:17)
   
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Oct. 17 2009,05:53)
David Coopedge is a Tard:
Quote
A yellow banana is evidence that all ravens are black. Why? Because “all ravens are black” is logically equivalent to “all non-black things are non-ravens.”

*Slaps forehead.*

You just flunked basic philosophy of science, Coppedge.

ETA: WTF is it with creationists and bananas anyway?

I agree that Coppedge is a tard, but on this particular issue (the famous raven paradox of Carl Hempel) his position is defensible.

Imagine that you find yourself transported to a universe that contains five objects (besides yourself).  Apart from their number, you know nothing about the objects a priori.

The first object you encounter is a black raven.  The second is a red apple.  The third is a black raven.  Every raven you've seen so far is black, so you hypothesize that all ravens in this universe are black.

Is your hypothesis correct?  Well, there are only two objects left in this universe that you haven't already examined.  If either one of them is a non-black raven, then your hypothesis is wrong.

You encounter object #4. I suspect we all agree that if object #4 is a black raven, then the hypothesis is strengthened.  However, if object #4 turns out to be a yellow banana, then the hypothesis is also strengthened.  Why?  Because before we examined object #4, there were two objects -- object #4 and object #5 -- that could have turned out to be non-black ravens, thus disconfirming our hypothesis.  After we see that object #4 is a banana, there is only one object left -- object #5 -- that might be a non-black raven.  It is now less likely that our hypothesis is wrong.  In other words, the hypothesis is strengthened.

Why does our intuition recoil from this conclusion?  It's because in our universe, there are many more non-ravens than ravens.  Encountering a black raven therefore strengthens the hypothesis far more than encountering a non-black non-raven, such as a yellow banana. Nevertheless, our hypothesis is strengthened in both cases.

Not sure I agree, mainly because I'm uncomfortable with the kind of casual probabilistic language getting rubbed up against logical statements.

If I translate this kind of logical statement into set theory and helpful Venn diagrams and such, I know U, the universe of discourse, from the beginning. I don't discover U gradually.

Futher, it seems to buy into a certain definition of probability. I didn't give this too much thought, so feel free to disagree.

Date: 2009/10/18 14:39:39, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Reg @ Oct. 18 2009,13:57)
Oh my, O'Leary's mathematics thread. What a mess...

Denyse O'Leary, on 17th October, not a creationist:
   
Quote
Even though I am not a creationist by any reasonable definition, I sometimes get pegged as the local gap tooth creationist moron. ...


Denyse O'Leary, later the same day, all of creation is the work of God:
   
Quote
Peter, well, the Cambrian explosion was doubtless the work of God, in my view, but I would say that of all creation. ...

But not a creationist by any reasonable definition. Right.

But she's very clear on something:
   
Quote
Guys, I am no mathematician and don’t use well-defined terms, as I don’t know any.

You got that right, sister.

BTW, it appears that she was interviewed because she happens to live in a building with an unlucky address, 14 Latimer Ave. Not for being a gap toothed moron.

The background story is that Aurora, a town north of Toronto, will allow people (mostly of East Asian descent) who object to '4' (sounds like the word for death in some Asian languages) in their addresses to change those addresses if there is sufficient gap in the house numbering to keep it sequential.

I was hoping to catch a glimpse of her amazing dialect of English being misspoken in real time, but alas her efforts seem to have fallen on the cutting room floor.

Is there video of Dense-speak on the web?

Date: 2009/10/18 14:42:06, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (keiths @ Oct. 18 2009,14:30)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Oct. 18 2009,08:17)
Knowing that any draw of a red marble (cracked or not) increases the probability that our cracked-blue hypothesis is correct to an equal degree, and having time to kill, we proceed to draw only red marbles... With every removal our excitement grows, as with each (per the logic above) it is becoming more likely that all blue marbles are cracked.

Another wild night at Reciprocating Bill's place.

It's the Cheetohs laced with Frolic Acid and MSG...

Date: 2009/10/19 12:55:13, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (rossum @ Oct. 19 2009,13:37)
Quote (sparc @ Oct. 19 2009,11:39)
Um, not information as we know it, Jim.

<mode=Trekkie Nerd>Make that: "It's information Jim, but not as we know it."</mode>

rossum

Damn it, Jim! I'm a doctor, not a logician!

Date: 2009/10/19 13:41:00, Link
Author: dvunkannon
The incredibly voluble Nakashima, in one of far too many posts on UD recently
Quote
How do I distinguish between ordered and organized, in nature? Is there an effective procedure that always decides correctly between them? Even just gets it right 95% of the time?


I would love love love someone to prove that distinguishing between ordered and organized (ie the whole ID enterprise) is equivalent to the Halting Problem, and therefore never ever going to happen. What say y'all?

At Dell we never had a halting problem, there's a switch on the side of the box!!1! i kill myself only an darwinst inuit skirtchaser would have trouble figuring taht out - dt

Date: 2009/10/20 10:34:40, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 20 2009,10:35)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 20 2009,00:44)
Flamboyant icon! Got that right, homo.

You sweet-talker, you.

RichardTaHuge - puts the boy in flamboyant

Date: 2009/10/20 14:06:50, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 20 2009,11:44)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 18 2009,20:26)
POEPLES WHO ARE HOMOS AND LIBRULS AND ARE FIRST AGAINST THE WALL COME TEH DESIGN REVOLUTIONS:

1) TARDEN CHATTERBOX
2) HORSE BOTHERER
3) PLEBMAN
4) *New entry* KIEFS.
5) P.DIDDYMOUSE

DvK - You want on this list?

I know what you're thinking. "Can he count to six or only five?" Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself. But being as I'm an autodictater Polymaths, the most powerful force in teh universe (except for gravity), and would blow your mind clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?

Six, if you use the banana. I'd better be careful. But RichardTaHuge counting to six will violate SLOT, so I'm safe.

Guess I'm lucky! RichardTaHuge, I bow to your superior flamBOYancy!

Date: 2009/10/20 14:55:19, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 20 2009,15:35)
Praise teh designer it's not spelled "flameboyant"

Praise teh designer it's not spelled "flamebolaboyanteDelicto"

Date: 2009/10/21 15:27:29, Link
Author: dvunkannon
What BA^77 said:
 
Quote
Wake Me O Lord

Wake me O Lord from this sleep of mine
To the living wonders of creation that are so fine
With a “Oh, that’s nice” I shall not content
NO, only when You speak shall my heart be spent
Others may suffice their cravings of Awe
With an “Oh Well” shrug of the wonders they saw
But I know You are in each piece of reality
Yes, in the wind, the stars, and even the sea
So this vow to You I make
No rest in me my heart will take
Till Your face and hands again I see
In the many waters of reality
For the truth be known to You indeed
That if I see You not with my heart and head
I’m not really born again, but instead am dead


What Nakashima heard:  
Quote
Blah blah blah blah
Blah blah blah blah
Blah blah blah blah
Blah blah blah blah
Blah blah Jeebus blah
Blah blah blah blah
Blah blah blah blah
Blah blah blah blah


All Science So Far

Date: 2009/10/22 16:37:34, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 22 2009,16:52)
He's still working out how to hold a pen properly.

A pen is perfectly designed to be held in the hand, that is how you know it is not a raven.

Date: 2009/10/22 16:42:20, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Absolutist, piling onto the high-frickin-larious beer thread:
Quote
And why is it that dying brain cells never kill your beliefs that keep you from rationally reasoning and scientifically theorizing about women and beer?


and the ETA

Quote
I meant to ask why is it that dying brain cells never kill your beliefs or keep you from rationally reasoning and scientifically theorizing about women and beer?”


Frankly Absolutist, "beliefs that keep you from rationally reasoning" is both funnier and more accurate.

Date: 2009/10/27 07:14:32, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (dnmlthr @ Oct. 27 2009,08:06)
Have a good one, don't do anything I would do.

I'm in Prague with my newly affianced Czech supermodel, the champagne and hotel reservation are waiting so it is quite possible that I will not take your advice!

Date: 2009/10/29 12:13:14, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Thank you all!

I hope to post a suitable, fully clothed and bejewelled picture of said supermodel in the near future.

Date: 2009/11/01 12:23:00, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Back in the US, sober but jet lagged...



The recently affianced supermodel and her little ruby and diamond companion.

Date: 2009/11/01 15:24:39, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (khan @ Nov. 01 2009,16:10)
Quote
you are about the most rabid atheist


There are degrees of being rabid?

Seversky  - rabid enough to attack Jebus pandering
Nakashima - rabid enough to ignore Jebus pandering

Date: 2009/11/01 18:29:36, Link
Author: dvunkannon
http://tinyurl.com/yby7sqq

Murata Seiko - the practical benefits of a unicycling robot remain unclear...

Hitachi Wooo gesture controlled TV - what Tom Cruise was using in Minority Report

Nissan collision avoidance for cars - uses the same algorithm as a school of fish... sounds safe, unless the 18 wheeler behind you is using the same algorithm as a leopard seal...

Yamaha's Mimi - a singing robotic receptionist dressed like a Final Fantasy cosplay... what your home needs...

Date: 2009/11/02 13:44:49, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (deadman_932 @ Nov. 02 2009,11:45)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 02 2009,10:29)
Congrats DvK!


My eagle eye spots cubic zirconia...

Pfft. Those are on your glittering , bespangled Euro-Speedo-codpiece, you perve.

The supermodel trophy-wife-to-be is very attractive, prettier than arden, even.

Alas, she's no Densey = HAWT!!1!

Her English as a second language (or fifth, after Czech, Slovak, Russian and Polish) is better than D'Oh!Leary's English as a first language.

(And her version of "Darling, we must get Moose and Squirrel!" is to die for.)

Date: 2009/11/02 14:40:35, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Mark Frank @ Nov. 02 2009,12:59)
Quote
StephenB:


 
Quote
—-Seversky: [concerning atheists proclivity to abuse sexuality] “As for the rest, it’s none of your damn business.”
Yes it is. Many atheists are not content to simply pervert their own nature. They seek to remake the world in their own image and likeness. Sexual pervert and biologist Alfred Kinsey changed the entire moral landscape by visiting his own sexual dysfunction on the culture with his bogus science. Atheist anthropologist Margaret Mead, adulterer, cooked the books in cultural analysis to create the impression that adultery was far more widespread than it was. Currently, the homosexual lobby is doing exactly the same thing—imposing their morality on the marriage contract itself.



What a tortured soul.


I sometimes forget that these guys are nuts. But then StephenB makes it blindingly obvious.

How could you ever forget that BatShit^77 was nuts? That's like forgetting whether you are holding a banana or a raven.

Date: 2009/11/02 23:30:47, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (dheddle @ Nov. 02 2009,16:25)
Quote (FrankH @ Nov. 02 2009,15:15)
 
Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 02 2009,15:09)
   
Quote
And, not that I am especially happy about agreeing with FL, and not that I even know that I am because I will not be bothered to go back and read the previous posts, but just for a point of argument, the New Testament does not, at all, condone slavery.
Hmm.  Now to move on.  :)

Of course Floyd but please note, the NT does not Condemn Slavery either.

Yes it does. The second greatest commandment for the Christian, and the first when it comes to how humans are to behave toward one another, is to love our neighbor as ourself. Slavery is manifestly incompatible with Jesus' primary instruction for human relations.

And yet, Paul seems to let slavery slide past. How do you read Philemon? (Ans. Very quickly!)

Date: 2009/11/05 06:27:46, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Nick Matzke's blog entry on PT about Steve Fuller has led me to learn a bit more about Dr Steve.

I'm now listening to a long video of nim that was linked from his Wikipedia page.

Near the beginning he claims that one of the groundings of Nazi hatred of Jews was that they were 'maladapted to their environment' for not being located where they were evolved to live. Is that true??

He eventually gets around to saying evo-psych is a rebranding of sociobiology "but the science has improved, too". I didn't know he believed in a ground truth such as science?

He's really clueless about the origins of a desire to know, and how that is explained in evolutionary terms.

"Materialists never did science." What an idiot. Darwinism leads to downsizing science - no LHC because no immediate benefit.

Date: 2009/11/05 17:16:14, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Reg @ Nov. 05 2009,17:13)
Quote
Does a bug believe that it's an insect?

That would depend on the bug's completely non-materialistic neuroscience while materialistic neuroscience has so far given us nothing. Except the ability to mitigate and repair brain trauma and some degenerative disease. Coffee! Coffee!!! Coffee!!!!

Seriously; why does Denyse O'Leary yell "Coffee" at the start of so many of her posts?

Don't get me wrong; I like coffee and celebrate its inclusion in our diets, if only because hacking down thousands of acres of native flora to plant imported coffee monocultures is such a clear increase in biodiversity. I just don't understand why Mrs O'Leary yells "coffee!" so often. Is it some kind of Canadian custom of which I have been unaware?

She has explained that Coffee!!1! in the title of a post is a signal not to take it too seriously.

As if that somehow differentiated it from all her other posts.

Consider it an alternative form of tagging a post "gap toothed creationist humor".

Date: 2009/11/06 11:12:05, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Nakashima continues to dangle boreagain77 by his ankle.
Quote
Mr BA^77,

I disagree, this is wonderful research. There is no typo. It just doesn’t say what you wished it would say. Do you understand the difference between the photon and the state of the photon? Have you examined the illustration and counted the objects?

This message is brought to you by the number three.


And by the letters T, A, R, and D!

Date: 2009/11/06 11:21:36, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote
It reading of improve would it Reverse Polish Notation was-translated into if perhaps.


Efinately-Day!

Date: 2009/11/06 12:04:03, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 06 2009,12:58)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 06 2009,12:30)
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 06 2009,12:16)
 
Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 06 2009,10:02)
It's a 1995 model HP 48G from when I went to college at Marshall.

Explicit stacks instead of parenthesis? That's what I'd prefer; that lets the user tell the calculator what to do (as well as letting you see intermediate results automatically), instead of the reverse. But the less expensive "modern" ones are all parenthesis-based, afaik.

Henry

Yep, see the image above.

Oh man, now I've got to go program something in Forth. I haven't duped or swapped in ages.

I haven't duped and swapped since hacking my Apple LaserWriter to write PostScript. Good times!

Date: 2009/11/06 15:09:55, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Dr.GH @ Nov. 06 2009,15:42)
Arguments could be data, data could become arguments. Lovely.

Dogs and cats, living together! You Darwinist Inuit skirtchasers are all alike. God created the CODE, DATA, STACK, and the HEAP as separate kinds!!1! -dt

Date: 2009/11/06 15:18:03, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Many of the engineers Ken Ham met at a Bible study are creationists? Whooda thunk it?  Natural selection overpowered by self selection.

Date: 2009/11/07 09:06:51, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Nakashima goes for a Poe Award
Quote
If you start teaching about physics, chemistry and the “founder effect” in biology, what is going to happen? That’s right, gun-toting polygamous sects set up in remote parts of the countryside! That, my friend, is not cost-free to the state.

Date: 2009/11/07 13:23:00, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Nov. 07 2009,11:11)
Quote (dvunkannon @ Nov. 07 2009,09:06)
Nakashima goes for a Poe Award
   
Quote
If you start teaching about physics, chemistry and the “founder effect” in biology, what is going to happen? That’s right, gun-toting polygamous sects set up in remote parts of the countryside! That, my friend, is not cost-free to the state.

Here are 20 Euro, earmarked for "Doctors Without Borders", that say Nakashima will be banninated by the end of the month.

He is losing his temper at an amazing rate.


I hate to take the money of an innocent girl, but it is for a good cause... now don't go provoking him unecessarily...

BTW, Nakashima and God's iPod are among the few UD commenters to have been revived from bannnination.

BTBTW, is anyone in Brussels that wants to meet on Monday afternoon? Anyone? Bueller?

Date: 2009/11/07 18:56:57, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (J-Dog @ Nov. 07 2009,18:19)
Nak has lasted way longer than I thought he would - especially because he asks questions they can't or don't want to answer.  

Puppets have died for a lot less.

Lots of socks have been unfailingly polite and still got banned. I think a big part of Nakashima's success to date is based on two things:

1 - he did get banned but Barry caved to public pressure and reinstated him. Once burned, twice shy on the ban stick, it seems.

2 - he picks his arguments.  Nakashima rarely mixes it up with StephenB, Clive, Barry, etc on social Darwinism, Nazis, Columbine. or atheism. His main targets are KF, niwrad, and of course BA^77. DO'HLeary and PaulN are targets of opportunity. He avoids a Dembski thread until Dembski has become bored with it.

The recent snark/Poe is breaking rule 2, but only at the expense of Densey, and he has said far worse about her in the past.

Date: 2009/11/11 05:02:03, Link
Author: dvunkannon
A list of human competitive results from genetic programming

An interesting list of things that it used to be necessary for an intelligent designer to do.

Date: 2009/11/13 01:54:08, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Nakashima may have finally ground down BA^77 on the subject of quantum teleportation. Batsh^tInsane77's last comment was "I stand by my claim." and a return to posting multiple excerpts from random scientists, creationists and YouTube videos. Nakashima replied, but Batty did not deign to reply.

It will be interesting to see how long it takes before BA^77 makes the teleportation claim again on UD.

Date: 2009/11/13 03:19:04, Link
Author: dvunkannon
From the Dennis Sewell article:
Quote
Much of the evidence remains sealed under a court order issued to minimise the risk of copycat killings, but from those documents that are in the public domain, it is clear that Eric Harris fantasised about putting everyone into a violent computer game that only the fittest could survive. And, like Darwin himself, he noted how vaccination might be interfering with nature’s weeding process. In his rantings Harris said he wished there were no vaccines, or even warning labels on dangerous goods, “and let natural selection take its course. All the fat, ugly, retarded, crippled dumbass, stupid f***heads in the world would die… Maybe then the human race can actually be proud of itself”.

As the attorney for the families of six of the students killed at Columbine, the Denver lawyer Barry Arrington has come across more in a similar vein. “I read through every single page of Eric Harris’s journals; I listened to all of the audio tapes and watched the videotapes… It became evident to me that Harris consciously saw his actions as logically arising from what he had learnt about evolution. Darwinism served as his personal intellectual rationale for what he did. There cannot be the slightest doubt that Harris was a worshipper of Darwin and saw himself as acting on Darwinian principles.”


If the Columbine evidence is under seal, how can Barrogant make claims about what is in it?

Date: 2009/11/13 04:36:32, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Happy Birthday, not too late I hope!

Date: 2009/11/13 08:52:21, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (SLP @ Nov. 13 2009,08:56)
Poor Derwood - banned for showing BA77 how much of a dumbass he is...

Linky?

Date: 2009/11/15 16:16:35, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Nov. 15 2009,14:26)
Well, I registered and asked a polite and harmless-bordering-on-naive question. That was two hours ago. Is this normal treatment for newbies at UD?

One sock never got off the ground, but for another the trick to slipping off the mod leash was to post an oblique comment on an O'Leary thread as the first post. She's usually desperate for comments, so she'll let you through, and then Bob as they say is your uncle.

Date: 2009/11/16 06:18:16, Link
Author: dvunkannon
As a reward for knocking BA^77 around the head on quantum teleportation, Nakashima is now being given the silent treatment by the batboy! Oh noes!!1!

ETA Damn, not that lucky after all

Date: 2009/11/17 07:36:14, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Nakashima offers to be the coding partner of BA^77 for a bit of extreme programming.

Quote
Mr BA^77,

Whereas, evolution has no rigorous mathematical foundation with which we can rigorously analyze it in any computer simulation:

Let me introduce you to the field of population genetics, perhaps you haven’t heard of it before. Price’s Theorem? John Holland’s Schema Theorem?

But come, let us reason together. I gave you a definiton of evolution as an abstract process that might happen in many contexts, not just the biological world. I put it all in one sentence for you. Is there any part of that sentence, a phrase, or even a single word, that you disagree is not appropriate to define evolution? I am asking you, Mr BA^77, for some intellectual effort, not a cut and paste of a quotemine. Any single word you would change?

Because the next step we’ll take together is to turn our agreed definition into code and run it. Are you up for that? Can you program? Can you read code? Tell me what language you are best with, we’ll work in that.

Once our code is ready, we’ll run it. You’ll trust evidence that you created, right?


How will BA^77 respond to this challenge? He only seems to program in YouTube.

Date: 2009/11/17 12:16:54, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Batsh^itInsane77 yuks it up
Quote
What is funny Dave, is that here you are trying desperately to sell me on this jerry rigged test to save Darwinism


Don't tell jerry he saved Darwinism, he's been working for years to kill it!

Date: 2009/11/17 15:23:05, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (Reg @ Nov. 17 2009,16:06)
Quote (deadman_932 @ Nov. 17 2009,14:53)
 
Quote (Reg @ Nov. 17 2009,13:51)
bornagain77 talks population genetics:
         
Quote
This video gives a overview of the effects of mutations (Kimura’s distribution):

Evolution vs Genetic Entropy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmbRbyv2PA0

"Kimura’s distribution" is mentioned from 1:30 into video (a presentation by AiG's Andy McIntosh in the UK). What looks like the same slide is explained here by someone who saw one of McIntosh's presentations. McIntosh (the AiG guy) claims that it's well-known to all biologists and shows favorable mutations are greatly outnumbered by harmful ones and favorable mutations are never phenotypically expressed.

I am not a biologist but suspect misunderstanding or misrepresentation is in play. Insight from real biologists welcome.

BatShitInsane77 is citing McIntosh, who is using John John Sanford's misrepresentation of Kimura's 1983 "The Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution" (Cambridge U. Press), who in turn was trying to improve Fisher, Maynard Smith, etc...

Gah. ...

Sanford's asertions about distributions and effects of detrimental/neutral/beneficial mutations have been discussed a lot in threads here and elsewhere, and it's a pretty complex topic. Suffice it to say that Sanford hasn't been able to back his assumptions ... I can only say look at the materials that Talk Origins , Wiki, Panda's Thumb and this forum have to offer first.

Thanks for the intro and pointers.

Pretty sad that besides AiG, the biggest reference to the Kimura distribution is one piece of research on mitochondrial RNA heteroplasmy. According to Google, that is.

Date: 2009/11/17 22:25:25, Link
Author: dvunkannon
The slow motion train wreck of Batsh^itInsane77 is something truly awe inspiring. Yesterday he fell for a story about brine shrimp being detected in the South Atlantic via real-time use of satellite lasers. Last week he was pummeled on quantum teleportation. What kind of a glutton for punishment is this guy? Is there a Lolcat that can explain the phenomenon?

Date: 2009/11/18 05:01:22, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 18 2009,05:40)
Quote (dvunkannon @ Nov. 17 2009,22:25)
The slow motion train wreck of Batsh^itInsane77 is something truly awe inspiring. Yesterday he fell for a story about brine shrimp being detected in the South Atlantic via real-time use of satellite lasers. Last week he was pummeled on quantum teleportation. What kind of a glutton for punishment is this guy? Is there a Lolcat that can explain the phenomenon?



Added in edit: Whenever I look at BA^77's responses to Nakashima, I get the strong impression that he is trying to evangelize, not talk science.  The occasional Pascal's-wager-like sentence may be a give away.

Nakashima has said that to his "face" point blank, and gotten the smarmy silence that means yes.

Date: 2009/11/18 09:08:47, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Quote (J-Dog @ Nov. 18 2009,09:38)
ptaylor: "Frostyboy has outed himself as having an IQ of 138. He's a jenius! Since his admission he has been quite happy to pontificate to his mental underlings on the pros and cons of being a brainiac. "

RB : "I'm sorry Frostie. No way you have an IQ of 138. Not with this dimwitted, disorganized prose:
   I'm just not getting a high IQ vibe off that. "

(Not to mention that most of what you state about IQ, and the characteristics of persons with high IQs, is incorrect.)[/quote]
Remind you of another "ID Genius" we used to know and love?

 
Quote
1. I’M CONSIDERABLY BETTER THAN YOU.

MY LIFESTYLE MUST MAKE YOU NANCY BOY LIBERALS SICK. I’VE ACHIEVED SO MUCH BECAUSE I’M SO SMART. NO LACK OF UNIVERSTITY WILL KEEP THIS AUTODICTOR DOWN. MY MIND (IQ 150++, CERTIFIED BY WRITTEN COMPONENT OF MY DRIVING TEST) WORKS SO FAST THAT LESSER MINDS (YOURS) CAN’T CONCEPTUALIZE HOW FAST MY MIND IS.

That must have been some driving test!

Was this in fact the autodidact commander of the FCM or some other north of 150 member of the ID roster? I'm too young in the tard to recognize the quote.

Date: 2009/11/18 20:35:07, Link
Author: dvunkannon
Is this the end for Nakashima??

Quote
STOP THE PRESSES!!!1!ELEVEN

I, Nakashima, have just been convinced of the non-material reality of FSM. You are going to Hull. I will pray for you, but without much hope for your immaterial portion of the divine sauce.


or will Kattarina have to pay out twenty Euros?