AE BB DB Explorer


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


form_srcid: franky172

form_srcid: franky172

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is 54.156.92.243

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

form_author:

form_srcid: franky172

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 'franky172%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC

DB_err:

DB_result: Resource id #6

Date: 2007/01/18 13:50:19, Link
Author: franky172
Hello,

It appears as though I have been banned from UD for my posts here:  http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1968#comment-86064

One post of mine in responce to DaveScot, that I posted prior to the one that got me kicked out, but has yet to appear is below.  I spent some time on it, so didn't want it to dissapear without making at least one appearance in cyberspace....


<i>But they’re not undeterministic in relation to fitness. They’re never or almost never positive fitness changes.</i>

I think that those are two contradictory statements.  Say that 1*10^-10% of all mutations are beneficial, and 1-1*10^-10% of mutations are negative.  This is still a random distribution, and the mutations are therefore random.

<i>That wasn’t what I claimed. What I claimed was that orthodox evolution predicts that environmental factors such as these will produce a random distribution of mutations by location in the genome.</i>
Technically, even in location in the genome certain areas are more likely than others to have mutations.  So I think that these aren't "random" according to your definition.

<i>In fact what has been found to happen is that environmental stresses such as these are not randomly distributed but occur at at a higher rate in genes where change is needed. [...] In this case evolution isn’t driven by random mutations but is rather driven by directed mutations.</i>

I didn't see that in the Scripps paper.  I saw that the net mutation rate was effected - and that the evolution would be slowed, but not fully stopped -

<blockquote>The evolution of clinically significant resistance requires the stepwise accumulation of several mutations [1]. [...] The “second step” mutation rate was 1.9 (± 0.21) × 10-4 mutants/viable cell/d in the control strain and 5.5 (± 4.9) × 10-7 mutants/viable cell/d in the lexA(S119A) strain (Figure S3). Assuming that the first and second step mutations are independent, the LexA mutant strain evolves resistance to 650 ng/ml ciprofloxacin in vitro with a rate that is approximately 104-fold lower than the control strain. Because clinical resistance typically requires three to five independent mutations [1], the data imply that in the absence of efficient LexA cleavage, E. coli would evolve clinical resistance at least 106-fold slower.</blockquote>

So it seems to me that even without the increased mutation rate from the LexA the same mutation still occurs.

Date: 2007/01/19 08:25:10, Link
Author: franky172
<b>Patrick</b> Has chosen to respond to my post here: http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1968.

Since I've been banned from the thread for explaining how biologists use the word "random", I'm forced to reply here.

<b>Patrick</b>
<i>As in, there are no intermediates? If so, thanks for making my point for me.</i>

Yes.  This is what I've stated elsewhere re: the sparsity of the english language as a the number of letters in a word gets large.  What exactly do you believe that this shows?

I'll repeat my previous question: Do we agree that the results indicate a 10^6 fold performance increase for blind darwininian search over exhaustive searches?

Date: 2007/02/15 08:08:15, Link
Author: franky172
I made thew following reply 2 times in this thread (http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/2065), and made one inquiry as to why it is not appearing; but I have yet to see it.

According to this article (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=940DE7D6163AF930A35752C0A96E948260), there are about 3 mass murders in the US per month.  So the odds of any 2 happening on a specified day are:

(3,2) 1/30*1/30*29/30 or about 0.32 %

The odds of any two happening on any day are:

(2,1) 1/30*29/30, or about 6%.

That's assuming my rusty combinatorics are still correct...

Date: 2007/02/15 15:53:10, Link
Author: franky172
Quote (steve_h @ Feb. 15 2007,15:30)
Quote (franky172 @ Feb. 15 2007,15:08)
So the odds of any 2 happening on a specified day are:

(3,2) 1/30*1/30*29/30 or about 0.32 %

The odds of any two happening on any day are:

(2,1) 1/30*29/30, or about 6%.

That's assuming my rusty combinatorics are still correct...

I get a different result (9.8%) for the second calculation by using 1 - odds of all happening on different days.  However, my combinatorics never reached the dizzying height of 'rusty', so I could be wrong.

A quick simulation showed that your result is correct.

The odds of any two happening on the same day are approximately:
1-1*29/30*28/30 = 0.0978

or, also excluding the case when three happen on the same day:
1-1*29/30*28/30-1/30*1/30 = 0.0967

which is also:
(3,2)*1/30*29/30   (because there are three ways to acheive this, any one mass murder could be the 29/30)

<b>not</b>
(2,1)*1/30*29/30  

which I originally had.  Thanks!

Date: 2007/02/15 18:16:06, Link
Author: franky172
Quote (ofro @ Feb. 15 2007,18:08)
Quote (franky172 @ Feb. 15 2007,08:08)
I made thew following reply 2 times in this thread (http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/2065), and made one inquiry as to why it is not appearing; but I have yet to see it.

Which is better:  to get blocked right away or to get insulted after having been delayed for several hours (http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/2065#comment-91366">insulted?

You know what they say; to be blocked is human, to be insulted, divine...

Date: 2007/03/23 07:46:00, Link
Author: franky172
First, it appears as though I have been "secretly banned" from UD.  My password no longer matches my username.  I can tell that my UD password is being typed correctly because I had FireFox remember it.  Still, my former login: franky172 no longer works with that or any of my other website passwords.  At first I guessed this was some sort of internal glitch on UD, but then I found this (from a link on ATBC, UDDT):

DaveScot:
https://www2.blogger.com/comment....4468144
 
Quote
Ah, the old passwords don't match trick. As Maxwell Smart would say, "That's the oldest trick in the book".


Of course I could be wrong, FireFox might have forgotten my password, and I may have forgotten it too.  If so I'm sorry.

In any case, Denyse O'Leary appears to be deeply mistaken about materialistic theories of the mind, and she seems to want to make this as clear as possible.  First she links to a survey paper that supposedly shows how dualist theories of the mind work.  Unfortunately the paper has no actual reference to dualism, or any sort of mind process apart from the material brain.  The point of the article appears to be "the brain can re-map iteslf", which Denyse takes to mean "the mind exists as a separate entity from the brain".  Well, OK.  But Denyse appears to not understand that a) her conclusion is not supported by the data and b) there are no scientific tests that we can perform that would confirm or disconfirm her hypothesis.  i.e. Her hypothesis is a science stopper (without further qualification, if she said "mind is separate from brain and can communicate across vast distances via ESP" we might have something to work with).

 
Quote
But if neuroscience can get along quite well using a non-materialist paradigm, as Mario demonstrates, then science is not applied materialism. And THAT has momentous consequences. can get along quite well using a non-materialist paradigm, as Mario demonstrates, then science is not applied materialism. And THAT has momentous consequences.

First of all, Mario has not shown that neuroscience can "get along" with a non-materialist paradigm - all of his results were generated with "materialist" techniques and his results are commensurate with existing neuroscientific theories.  Further, Denyse appears to think that science ends with the publication of a paper.  But the goals of science are further inquiry - what questions does Mario ask that lead to further "non-materialist" investigations?  As far as I can tell, the answer is "none".

Plus:
 
Quote
And what they can’t explain, they can deny or rule out of order (psi, for example).

Well, evidently Denyse has evidence that psychic abilities exist!  Where might this be? (wait, let me guess - I have to buy the book!).

Date: 2007/03/23 10:17:37, Link
Author: franky172
Joseph at UD (http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/ken-miller-a-wasted-life/#comment-102149) continues to not understand what science is:

Quote
And in the end science is about reality. That is science is the search for the truth, ie the reality (behind the existence of that we are investigating), via our never ending quest for knowledge. And you cannot define science to arbitrarily pick-n-choose reality.


I would disagree.  I think most people who study phil-science are "instrumentalists" - i.e. they hold that science is about useful theories that make accurate predictions and model the world around us - not necessaruly theories that are accurate models of underlying "truth".  For example, "science" as commonly defined is incapable of discerning the difference between common notiions of "reality" from the "brian in a jar" hypothesis, and as such can not be a pure search for underlhying truth.  Based on the intrumentalist understanding of "science" then, we see that methodological naturalism is the only tenable set of rules by which to formulate theories that are predictive and useful.

Please note that this distinction does not derive from an arbitrary "choice of reality", but is instead a set of strict limits on science.  Ones that ID does not seem to adhere to.

Date: 2007/03/23 11:48:25, Link
Author: franky172
Quote
Dr. Peter Venkman has been doing research in the area that Denyse is focused in on.

Yeah PSI might work, but I didn't know you were going to give me electric shocks!

Date: 2007/03/28 09:46:28, Link
Author: franky172
(sorry for length!)

Denyse's Arson Investigation Confusion Continues:

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

Evidently not convinced that ID is dying quickly enough on it's own, Denyse presents an argument from analogy: Fire marshall's routinely conclude "design" (technically, "arson") from investigating the evidence, and that's really all that ID does, so if you think that fire marshalls should be allowed to make design inferences, it follows that you should allow for scientists (re: IDers) to infer design, too.

(Note this is not the first time Denyse has made these arguments, she made similar claims here: http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-denied and they were rather succinctly debunked here: http://litcandle.blogspot.com/2007....u.html) where RLC observes that in order to make the "design inference" the fire marshall does, it is absolutely imperative that he have some knowledge of the suspected arsonists means, motives, and abilities.  We will continue in RLC's vein.)

Of course, Denyse does not notices these objections, and goes on:

If the FMO concludes that the fire is arson, far from losing the ability to find out anything more, it is in a position to focus on key details (Where was the fire started? What accelerant and how much? What was the pattern and timing of spread?).

This is an interesting facet of ID that RLC touched on, but is rarely made so clear - Denyse seems to believe that the fire marshall is in a position to conclude that the fire was arson without considering relevant information like "Where was the fire started? What accelerant and how much? What was the pattern and timing of spread?" - but if this information can only be considered after the determination of intelligent design was made, what information, pray tell, was used to make the design conclusion in the first place?  Without the relevant information: means, mode, motive, the FMO has no evidence available to determine arson in the first place.  Note that this is more than a rhetorical trick - the discontinuity here underlies all of ID: ID assumes that we can make conclusions regarding design in nature lacking any knowledge regarding the abilities, motives, and means of the purported designer; but in doing so the argument falls flat.  (Again RLC makes similar points here: http://litcandle.blogspot.com/2007....u.html)  

It's also worth noting that scientists routinely infer design when the means, mode, and motive of the purported designers are well established, so the IDers claims that science rules out design a priori is patently false.

(This defense will work better if her client has looked and acted, throughout the proceedings, like a large rodent crammed into a dress suit, and appears truly unable to grasp the moral significance of the accusations against him.)

At this point Denyse apparently wades into the moral and ethical underpinnings of the ID conclusion - we might ask Denyse why being created by aliens allows us to grasp the moral significance of our actions.  I am sure ID will propose an answer.

Should scientists refuse to consider design a possibility because they are “objective”?
I've never heard an argument that suggested that scientists can't consider ID a possibility because they are "objective" - it's not clear what that means.  I and others have suggested that ID is not a valid scientific theory because it makes no testable claims - precisely because it refuses to speculate on the means, modes, and motives of the designer.

Well, how about this: Suppose the FMO gets a call from a leading local politician announcing that he wants the arson investigation called off because the FMO has no business assuming that someone might have wanted that building torched?

If the FMO thinks it has reasonable grounds for pursuing its present line of inquiries, should it meekly accept that argument? Should we assume that the politician obstructing the investigation is “objective”? Or rather that he is trying to defend somebody or something? In the same way, materialists attempting to suppress ID-friendly scientists are hardly “objective” in the matter.


But now the argument takes a turn for the worse; Denyse accuses people who think that methodological naturalism is a good way to do science of "trying to defend someone or something" (i.e. arsonists, and probably rapists too); but the "thing" being defended is no arsonist - it is the very underpinnings of science.  Of course by Denyse's analogy, those who think that methodological naturalism is a sound premise of science are actually hiding arsonits in their basements.


EDIT: fixed typos, and stupid HTML

Date: 2007/03/28 11:08:46, Link
Author: franky172
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....you-can

So the moral of the story is that while evolutionary biologists are publishing work in Nature, IDers are complaining that they're all jerks.

Date: 2007/03/29 09:53:30, Link
Author: franky172
Let's see what's got the IDers' goat this morning.  First they claim that Leakey is a deceitful paleontologist who committed fraud (see: http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....05454).  Here's an article that explains what happened:

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-03/nyu-med032307.php

In short, in 1972 when Leakey found a skull that is between humans and apes, he reconstructed it by hand using the best knowledge available at the time.  A new reconstruction using computers has changed the way the skull looks.  "Wow.  This must be the final confirmation of ID that we have been looking for!" you might say.  Well, you would be wrong; the skull is still intermediary between apes and humans - and besides, we constantly hear that <b>ID is compatible with common descent</b> so why is this intermediary skull so troubling to ID proponents?  And why do ID proponents seem to have such trouble with dating methods?

What else could the IDers be discussing today.  Well, theres the usual discussion of eugneics, and also a claim that Giraffe's could not have evolved.  ID research is really flourishing these days.

Date: 2007/03/29 12:47:53, Link
Author: franky172
Quote (Dr.GH @ Mar. 29 2007,11:12)
Quote (franky172 @ Mar. 29 2007,08:53)
Let's see what's got the IDers' goat this morning.  First they claim that Leakey is a deceitful paleontologist who committed fraud (see: http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....05454).  Here's an article that explains what happened:

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-03/nyu-med032307.php

In short, in 1972 when Leakey found a skull that is between humans and apes, he reconstructed it by hand using the best knowledge available at the time.  A new reconstruction using computers has changed the way the skull looks.  "Wow.  This must be the final confirmation of ID that we have been looking for!" you might say.  Well, you would be wrong; the skull is still intermediary between apes and humans - and besides, we constantly hear that <b>ID is compatible with common descent</b> so why is this intermediary skull so troubling to ID proponents?  And why do ID proponents seem to have such trouble with dating methods?

What else could the IDers be discussing today.  Well, theres the usual discussion of eugneics, and also a claim that Giraffe's could not have evolved.  ID research is really flourishing these days.

This new "reconstruction" is a dentistry conference POSTER, and is not based on work with the actual fossil as far as I can tell.

Nice catch.

Here's the conference website where the hot ID research is taking place:
http://www.iadrthessaloniki2007.gr/

Date: 2007/03/29 15:49:53, Link
Author: franky172
Quote
He didn’t distribute “creationist literature”


This I love.

I guess "In the beginning God someone made everything in 6 days.  Then God that same someone rested.  Then there was a great flood and God someone told Noah someone else to put two of every animal on Noah's Ark a boat."

isn't creationist literature either.

Date: 2007/03/29 16:35:08, Link
Author: franky172
Borne has officially jumped the shark.  

He is now claiming that yes, since he doesn't like what he sees as the moral implications of Evolution, evolution must in fact be false:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-105751

Date: 2007/03/30 11:40:36, Link
Author: franky172
Denyse suggests that http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....rprised scientists doubt the common descent hypothesis.  In support of this claim she cites two quotes from two different papers by Gordon and Doolittle.

I can't access the one paper from Dr. Gordon she cites, but the other paper by Dr. Doolittle has been discussed http://www.uncommondescent.com/educati....t-92415 here.  In short, according to my reading, the paper does not suggest that common ancestry is false - it proposes that the concept of "ancestry" must be broadened to include activities like HGT which may break the "tree" aspects of the tree of life; this is not, I think, what Denyse is implying the paper says.

But what difference does that make when you want to include YECs in your big tent?

Date: 2007/04/02 09:28:33, Link
Author: franky172
Dembski on Davis:

Quote
(Davis says) ... [ID] tries to displace [scientific materialism] by setting up a new science, which is really just a disguised form of religion.


In response, Dembski says:
Quote
[...] but has ID identified fundamental conceptual flaws and evidential lacunae in the conventional materialistic understanding of biological origins and is its appeal to intelligence conceptually sound and empirically supported?


Ignoring, for a moment, the fact that ID has not identified "fundamental conceptual flaws" (IC and CSI?  Please), and "evidential lacunae" (did someone buy a thesaurus recently?)  - note that Dembski never bothers to critique the point that as Davis has pointed out - even if ID were "conceptually sound and empirically supported", ID is not science (note: last thursdayism is "conceptually sound and empirically supported", but is not science).

Date: 2007/04/04 07:51:05, Link
Author: franky172
Quote (Zachriel @ April 03 2007,19:58)
DaveScot blogs, Another Icon of Evolution Bites the Dust - Antibiotic Resistance. And I thought IDers had no problem with microevolution. In any case, to support his assertion, DaveScot cites Alekshun & Levy. This Alekshun & Levy:

Quote (Alekshun @ Levy)
clinical improvements and widespread use and misuse of antibiotics have pushed evolution, allowing normally non-pathogenic strains to become infectious disease threats to human health.


These are the quotes from Alekshun & Levy's latest journal article that DaveScot indicated were pertinent.

Quote (Alekshun @ Levy)
Although classically attributed to chromosomal mutations, resistance is most commonly associated with extrachromosomal elements acquired from other bacteria in the environment

Most, not all. The classic Lederberg lab experiment, repeated daily in universities around the world, starts with clonal bacteria, and demonstrates that occasional genetic mutations result in antibiotic resistance, and that such mutations occur whether the bacteria are exposed to antibiotics or not. That is, the mutations are random with respect to the environment. It's also known that bacteria exchange genes through lateral transfer. The success of these bacteria is predictably dependent on environmental selection.

Quote (Alekshun @ Levy)
The means that microbes use to evade antibiotics certainly predate and outnumber the therapeutic interventions themselves.

That's expected as most antibiotics are naturally occurring products, often found in moulds. None of this changes the fact that evolution is at work, as Alekshun & Levy point out, and that bacterial evolution is of critical importance to modern medicine.

DaveScot      
Quote
Experiments were purported to have “proven” that antibiotic resistance evolves de novo. Talkorigins makes this claim in multiple places. Therein lies the dead icon.

Antibiotic resistance can be achieved by horizontal acquisition of resistance genes, by recombination, or by even a single nucleotide substitution.

Never mind the long list of examples of beneficial mutations observed in cloned lines that can be found here:

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html

Is this a problem for ID, Dave?

Date: 2007/04/04 07:55:13, Link
Author: franky172
Dave writes:
Quote
Experiments were purported to have “proven” that antibiotic resistance evolves de novo. Talkorigins makes this claim in multiple places. Therein lies the dead icon.


Great_ape points out that antibiotic resistance is generated de novo all the time.

Dave moves the goal posts:
Quote
Actually I do agree that de novo mutations can arise to give bacteria resistance to antibiotics.


Stunning.

Date: 2007/04/05 11:11:11, Link
Author: franky172
Pixie writes:

Quote
as the planet turns whole continents cool down, losing entropy.


Joseph opines:

Quote
IOW you start off talking about “non-intelligent systems”, there isn’t any data that would demonstrate this planet is such a system and yet you appear to be using it as an example to support your claim.


So... according to Joseph, the *earth* is an intelligent system.  Not the people on the earth, mind you, the earth itself is intelligent *because it is cooling down*?

Date: 2007/04/05 11:56:06, Link
Author: franky172
delete duplicate

Date: 2007/04/05 21:44:48, Link
Author: franky172
Wells' newest monologue is posted on UD here:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/evoluti....tantrum

Somehow Wells manages to mis-quote Meyers.

He writes:
Quote
In case you think this is just a dry scientific dispute, Myers also wrote: “Wells is… [an] unctuous rodent who earns the contempt of every man who meets him.


Meyers wrote:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyng....ent.php

Quote
If you're familiar with Wells and with Deadwood, you know what I mean. You'll just have to imagine that I am Al Swearingen, the brutal bar-owner who uses obscenities as if they were lyric poetry, while Wells is E.B. Farnum, the unctuous rodent who earns the contempt of every man who meets him.


i.e. "imagine Wells is a well known character who's a real jerk, and I'm a well known character who swears, and you can imagine what I'd say"  vs. "Wells is a [...] real jerk".

Nice.

Date: 2007/04/23 10:29:32, Link
Author: franky172
http://www.uncommondescent.com/philoso....mission

Dr. Dembski is upset with the ASA's choice to concern itself with young earth creationism.  He opines:

Quote
If the problem with young-earth creationism is that it is off by a few orders of magnitude about the age of the earth and universe,


But Dr. Dembski has already missed the point.  The problem with young earth creationism is not that it is off in it's estimation of the age of the earth.  The problem with YEC is that it propogates apologetics in the name of science, and that it makes conclusions not based on the scientific evidence available to it, but based on what it's proponents consider proper biblical readings.  Succinctly, the problem with YEC is not that it is wrong, the problem is that YEC is not even wrong precisely because it lacks an underpinning of methodological naturalism.

Quote
the problem with scientific materialism is that is off by infinite orders of magnitude about what is ultimately the nature of nature.


Methodological naturalism is a tool that forms the underpinnings of scientific inquiry - it is not a philosophical position on the nature of the universe.  I do not know why Dr. Dembski finds this so difficult to understand.

Date: 2007/04/26 20:57:39, Link
Author: franky172
Quote (Zachriel @ April 26 2007,19:14)
DaveScot  
Quote
Another icon of evolution, the world famous fossil “Lucy” was found to not be in the modern human lineage at all.

The article states that Australopithecus afarensis should “be placed as the beginning of the branch that evolved in parallel to ours.” Close cousins, in other words. Evolved.

(Not everyone agrees with the researchers' conclusions, while many cladists think that the determination of exact descent will often be problematic, especially in rapidly diverging lineages. In this view, everything is best considered as a cousin.)

DaveScot            
Quote
The interesting part of this is that this is extremely newsworthy but because it casts a very unflattering light on so many scientists who, uncritically it seems, placed Lucy in the modern human line of descent,...

The lead author of the study, Yoel Rak, has collaborated with the discoverer of the fossils, Donald Johanson, many times, including on a recent Oxford University Press publication, The Skull of Australopithecus afarensis.

DaveScot            
Quote
you won’t find it widely reported except in the Darwin-denier blogs and websites. This strategy is common when embarrassing mistakes are found in widely accepted evolutionary dogma.



That's why the embarrassed researchers hid it on the cover of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

No no no.  Don't you see - by allowing disagreement amongst scientists and permitting debate regarding the true placement of Lucy in life on earth's history the scientists are really leaning towards ID.  Yeah.  That's the ticket.

Date: 2007/05/07 11:42:40, Link
Author: franky172
"We discuss lots of things at UD."

But not the age of the earth.  That is irrelevant :)

Date: 2007/05/08 13:28:24, Link
Author: franky172
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatc....sty.php

Sal is now attempting to get out of his lie over at Ed Brayton's blog....

Date: 2007/05/10 08:47:01, Link
Author: franky172
http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/survival-of-the-rarest/

PaV has made the discovery that organisms themselves can change the evolutionary fitness landscape.  Mind blowing.

He opines:
Quote
 I know there are population geneticists out there, so, if you can, how would you explain NS being able to virtually decide that it is “best” to conserve both forms, rather than to single out one of the two forms?


But he misses the point - NS in this case doesn't "decide" anything.  The fitness landscape is changed by the presence and/or absence of certain phenotypes.  As one increases in density the other becomes more fit.

Quote
Or, does this mean that there really is no such thing as “fixation” and “extinction”, thus rendering neo-Darwinism null and void?

But this question misses the whole point - in certain circumstances the effect of natural selection and population phenotypes on the fitness landscape may be oscillatory - i.e. in the fruit flies the presence of one phenotype increases the fitness of the other and vice versa.  In many other instances this will not be the case - the presence of faster antelope does not improve the fitness of slower ones.

Date: 2007/05/11 09:52:52, Link
Author: franky172
Per PaV's comments here:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/survival-of-the-rarest/

I ran some experiments with GAs and cyclical fitness functions as well as instances where the population itself effects the fitness functions.

A website illustrating the effects of cyclical fitness functions on GA populations and the possibility of the population itself producing a cyclical progression in a genetic algorithm can be found here:

http://www.duke.edu/~pat7/public/htm/oscillatingGA.html

these are still preliminary.  i'd like to hear comments or questions, but i'll be out of touch for a few days.  enjoy...

Date: 2007/05/17 11:30:36, Link
Author: franky172
For posterity:

Date: 2007/05/21 10:52:36, Link
Author: franky172
Dembski writes:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....al-gore

<blokquote>He bemoans Bush’s intolerance of terrorism and Bush’s willingness to use torture to bring terrorists to heel, and yet is ready to be intolerant of anyone who violates his “rule of reason.”</blockquote>

Has Dembski lost his mind?  Anyone who is intolerant of anything is now a hypocrite if they disagree with the United States employing torture?  Evidently, the fact that I don't tolerate racism in my office, for example, means that I should support the use of torture to "bring terrorists to heel"?

Date: 2007/05/24 09:34:54, Link
Author: franky172
DaveScot forgets that ID explicitly excludes inquiring as to the motivations and intents of the designer, in fact ID explicitly states that the intent and motivations of the designer are immaterial to the question of design.  He makes analogy to forensic sciences:

Quote
Just imagine how useful it would be in criminal investigations if intent could be determined by a mathematical formula


But forensic sciences only work because we know a significant amount about the motivations and intents of the actors under consideration.

Plus, I'm not the first to notice this, but are IDists now admitting that CSI is a subjective measure?  Wasn't the whole point of the design inference that there was no subjective aspect to the "explanatory filter"?!

Date: 2007/05/25 09:14:07, Link
Author: franky172
Besides Dembski being evidently unable to perform a simple Google search (per Reciprocating Bill's post above), I had no idea that the design revolution would happen so quitely!

You see, it seems that when someone says that biological organs are "devices" they are actually design theorists!  Now I'm a design theorist: eyes are devices for seeing!  Lungs are devices for breathing!

It's amazing that I didn't have to even calculate the (subjective) CSI of these objects to make these determinations!  No evolution/darwinist would ever think that eyes were "for something"!  

The revolution will, evidently, be far too quiet to be televised.

Date: 2007/05/29 09:14:53, Link
Author: franky172
KairosFocus and Phevans are going at it over on the "Sewell's law" (snicker) thread.

KairosFocus would like to argue points that aren't being discussed.  A new prince tard?

Date: 2007/05/29 10:16:10, Link
Author: franky172
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 29 2007,09:27)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ May 29 2007,09:25)
 
Quote (franky172 @ May 29 2007,09:14)
KairosFocus and Phevans are going at it over on the "Sewell's law" (snicker) thread.

KairosFocus would like to argue points that aren't being discussed.  A new prince tard?

Boringagain77 adds    
Quote
The overall functionality of the yeast is decreased in its normal environment, thus when the stress is removed from the mutant yeast, the original yeast will be favored by selection over the mutant yeast.
Clearly you have not demonstrated a gain in information since you have not “built a better overall yeast” that will be favored by selection.


Um, what if you don't remove the stress from the mutant yeast? Does that disprove ID? Don't enviroments ever change? erm....

he (it?) adds    
Quote
Gene duplication, polyploidy, insertions, etc. do not help — they represent an increase in amount of DNA, but not an increase in the amount of functional genetic information—these create nothing new.

Um, would this be the complex specified information that you  cannot quantify? And DS admits you cannot? errrr....

Does the copied gene give redundancy? If so that is a new function, with new information...

Obviously KairosFocus and BornAgain are ignorant of the large number of beneficial mutations that have been observed.

That's OK. We're all ignorant about some things, I just choose not to spout off about those things I am ignorant of.

Date: 2007/05/31 08:33:52, Link
Author: franky172
In response to this:

Quote
What evidence could possibly show that something is not a process of “front loading” but is in fact a random mutation? Answer: nothing.


DaveScot writes

Quote
If you are willing to say that rm+ns is pseudo-science which can never be shown to be true, even in principle, then I guess you’re right that nothing can falsify design.


Now, of all things to say this strikes me as absolutely hair-brained.  Phevans has no where stated that the creative power of random mutations and natural selection are pseudo-science.  We can determine the statistical likelihood of any particular genetic modification (we find that they are random) and we find that they occasionally aid in the survival of creatures and are then selected for.  It is ID proponents who wish to argue that the mutations we observe are non-random.  This is their hypothesis and will require evidence for us to believe - namely we will need enough information to reject the (well-established) null-hypothesis.  

Dave continues:
Quote
ID has nothing to prove. We aleady know that intelligent agency can alter the course of evolution through purposeful changes to genomic information i.e. genetic engineering.


The question for ID has never been whether or not people can modify genetic information, the question has always been if RM+NS are sufficient (along with other evolutionary mechanisms) to generate information and complexity in the genome - they are.  And when this evidence is presented, it is the ID proponents who must fall back on "front-loading" - an untestable and content-less hypothesis (re: anything that works was front loaded, anything that doesn't was evidence the RM+NS never add information to the genome).

We might also notice that KairosFocus now admits that RM+NS can increase the information content of genomes.  Does the rest of the ID crowd admit the same?

Date: 2007/06/08 11:30:12, Link
Author: franky172
DaveScot
summarizes ID:

ID proponent: We have a mathematical proof that evolution can't produce features X,Y, and Z.  This proves intelligent design is the only way to generate these features, and totally removes the need for subjective measures of how amazingly complicated life is to conclude ID.

Scientist: Never mind the obvious logical flaw in your argument, your math is wrong, inapplicable to the problem, and usually both.

ID proponent: No it isn't.  It's a mathematical proof.  Therefore it's right.

Scientist: But it's wrong.  You failed to account for A,B, and C, and this says 2+2 = 5.  That's just wrong.

ID proponent:  Oh.  But look how amazingly complicated life is!  Therefore ID.  Q.E.D.

EDIT: it appears as though DaveScot has changed the initial text on the linked post, originally I believe the first line read something like "Chu-Carroll's argument against Behe focusses on the point that Behe doesn't consider dynamic fitness landscapes...".  At least that's a paraphrase of my impression of the original post...  I think it's somewhat accurate, but correct me if I'm wrong.

Date: 2007/06/12 08:44:17, Link
Author: franky172
Matthew Tan can't believe that the UDers are being so uncommonly dense as to believe the validity of radiometric, ice-core, varve, tree-ring, and other atheistic / materialisitic dating techniques.

edit: typo

Date: 2007/06/15 08:44:02, Link
Author: franky172
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 15 2007,02:55)
Dumbski has a go, he thinks he's hard enough.    
Quote
But the evidence for attaining via sequential mutations the types of systems Behe considers is nil. The Darwinists have no step-by-step detailed testable scenarios for evolutionary processes attaining such systems. Stepwise mutational pathways to such systems for now exist only in Coyne’s imagination and that of his fellow Darwinists


On the plus side, how you look is now fair game.


what a pathetic attempt. More street theatre Dr Dr Dr Dembski?

Davescot chimes in too:    
Quote
Coyne and his chance worshipping peers are stuck between a rock and a hard place. The rock is gradualism and the hard place is Haldane’s Dilemma. As gradualism gets more gradual Haldane’s Dilemma gets more difficult to overcome - there’s a limit to the number of mutations that can become fixed. As gradualism gets less gradual then the improbability of simultaneous beneficial mutations becomes more difficult to overcome. A truly classic example of being stuck between a rock and a hard place!


Dover DS? Dover. Rock and hard place indeed. And anyway, his entire comment is about "chance worshippers". What I want to know is at what point the designer decided to intervene and create some "simultaneous beneficial mutations" because at this point we've got zero IDea of what the IDiots are proposing if "simultaneous beneficial mutations" are impossible under naturalistic circumstances.
Link, if you can take high level tard anyways.

I like this:

Quote
But the evidence for attaining via sequential mutations the types of systems Behe considers is nil. The Darwinists have no step-by-step detailed testable scenarios for evolutionary processes attaining such systems. Stepwise mutational pathways to such systems for now exist only in Coyne’s imagination and that of his fellow Darwinists.


Wasn't their just a paper published (PNAS?) that analyzed all the pathways to a genome that had several mutations and found 20 paths by which all the mutations were beneficial?

Does anyone know what I'm talking about?

Date: 2007/06/20 20:38:15, Link
Author: franky172
Apologies if someone has already discussed this; I was out of town and am just catching up on things.  That said, I'd appreciate comments if anyone disagrees with my analysis - like I said, I'm don't claim to be an expert.

In a discussion about the information content of the genome, I think that DaveScot has subtly misunderstood some fundamentals of electrical engineering and information theory.  I am not an expert in these fields, so I might be wrong, so I'm not trying to be snooty here, but I think I am correct, and would appreciate comments.

Let's start at the beginning:
Quote
This is a very simple calculation. DNA is encoded in base-4 (4 possible bases ACTG at each locus corresponds to digits 0123). Converting from one number base to another is basic arithmetic learned in pre-algebra which IIRC was 7th grade for me but I was in an accelerated math program so it might be 8th grade for most students.

OK.  Maybe we should have started in the middle:

Quote
Proteins (coding genes) are encoded in base-64 (20 amino acids plus start/stop codes and much redundancy) in triplets of base-4 numerals called codons.

This is all well and good as far as I know.

Quote
This paradigm is not entirely accurate though as frameshifts are often used to encode additional functional proteins using the same sequence and sometimes reading a sequence in reverse (frameshifted or not) yields yet another different biologically active protein.  Similar things are done in electronic engineering with regard to multiple methods of data encoding. The nucleic acid sequence can be likened to what’s called a carrier wave.


Here is where things get weird.  I believe that DaveScot is attempting to make the claim that the string of base-64 symbols may be multiply encoded with "messages" and that this will increase the amount of "information" in the genome past the 6 gig their calculations show.  Let me be explicit here, I believe DaveScot is making the following claim:

(1) "The genome should be understood to be a string of discrete symbols pulled from an alphabet of given size.  In general understanding this amounts to 6 or so gig of data.  However there may be other *interlaid messages* in this stream of symbols that increase the true amount of information content of the genome past 6 gig."  This interpretation of the following argument agrees with his "the gene can be read backwards comment" above, as well as his interpretation of the code as a "carrier wave", and the subsequent discussion of modulation techniques.

If this is the case (which I believe it is), then DaveScot has subtly confused two very fundamental concepts: "information content" and "channel capacity".  Now, DaveScot is of course correct in that multiple streams of information can be encoded upon either analog or digital streams of symbols, but he is incorrect in stating that the net information content of a digital stream can exceed the number of symbols transmitted.  Dave has confused "coding theory" which is a study of the maximum amount of information that can be transmitted over a noisy channel and "information content" which is the maximum amount of information present in any particular stream of symbols (by the way, if you think that your PhD dissertation was good, Shannon's limit (coding theory) and indeed all of information theory was laid out in Shannon's fucking Master's Thesis).  Based on information theory it doesn't matter how many secret messages you put into a stream of symbols - the maximum amount of information in a digital stream is \log{N_{symbols-sent}} with the log to the base of the number of possible symbols.  Therefore the maximal amount of information encoded in the genome is indeed about 6 gig (or meg, or whatever they decided).

Now note this: I am not entirely sure that my understanding of DaveScot's claim is correct; perhaps he is making the following *different claim*:

(2) "The message in the genome that is encoded in discrete symbols amounts to 6 gig of data, however there may be other *independent streams of information* present in the genome that are not expressed in GATC etc.  i.e. the rate of turning of the strands of DNA may contain other information"

This is a fundamentally different claim - it's the equivalent of me writing a message on a piece of paper where the inter-line spacing varies and contains information.  In this case, you can count the number of letters on the paper and still not know the true potential information content of the medium.  However, this interpretation does not fit well with DaveScot's mention of the "nucleic acid sequence can be likened to [...] a carrier wave", which to me implies that the information is encoded in the discrete language of the acids, as well as his interpretation of "reading forwards and backwards" or "at different speeds".

Quote
I suspect there are modulation methods on the DNA carrier that are yet to be discovered.

But as far as the information content of the genome goes (if we understand it to be a digital code), this doesn't matter - the measure of maximal information present in any digital stream is defined as the log of the number of symbols sent.  Period.  It is true that we can simultaneously encode multiple streams of data - different error correction codes do exactly that (or shifted versions of the same message, see: turbo codes, etc).  But these codes are incapable of encoding more information per transmitted symbol than the log-base-N_{possible symbols} (I am assuming that we are discussing typical measures of information here, and not some measure that is entirely subjective).

Quote
As the stream of grease emerges it folds. By varying the rate or speed at which the grease comes out it folds differently. The codons are not all translated at the same speed thus even though the same acid is translated from as many as 6 different codons they each have the potential of producing a different fold due to different processing speeds.


This is excellent and interesting and exciting information, but it does not alter the fact that 6 binary (or whatever base) digits contain exactly 6 bits of information - by definition.  That I can poor water over my staircase at different speeds and get different results doesn't change the amount of information that my stairs have (of course, this is still assuming we are dealing with standard information definitions).  In the same way, the fact that I can encoDe A Very sEcret meSsage in a COncaTenation of symbols does not change the fact that the maximum amount of information in a string of letters, for a random example is \log_{26}{Message length}.

Edit: fixed URL, formatting

Date: 2007/06/21 13:00:01, Link
Author: franky172
Quote (J-Dog @ June 21 2007,12:37)
Dembski hisself can still wield a mean Bannanator Button ™, and  Another One Bites The Dust...

Alas poor Pixie, we knew him well...

The Pixie
06/21/2007

9:39 am
Tribune, there is some ambiguity in both those cases; we do not know for certain why Gonzales failed to get tenure (maybe Iowa State did want anyone associated with anti-science, rather than someone who criticised evolution). Micheal Behe, Granville Sewell and Michael Denton still hold university positions despite their criticisms of evolution.

Larry, why do you think it is the teacher? Do teachers often have to write lines on the blackboard in your experience?

A general comment: Why should we suppose from this cartoon that there is a “Church of the Living Darwin”? Is a rejection of any and all criticism a distinguishing feature of religion?


followed by  this:

8

William Dembski

06/21/2007

11:32 am
Pixie is no longer with us.

Take Home Lesson:  Don't mess with Dr. Dr. Dembski's Cartoons!  

(And was the good DR. reading our earlier thread where we decided that IDCers have NO sense of humor?  Yeah.  Good one Bill.  This will show us all about your sense of humor!)


http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwini....-125570

I will not criticize Bill Dembski.
I will not criticize Bill Dembski.
I will not criticize Bill Dembski.
I will not criticize Bill Dembski.
I will not criticize Bill Dembski.

Date: 2007/06/21 14:03:42, Link
Author: franky172
Quote (J-Dog @ June 21 2007,13:27)
Quote (franky172 @ June 21 2007,13:00)
http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwini....-125570


I will not criticize Bill Dembski.
I will not criticize Bill Dembski.
I will not criticize Bill Dembski.
I will not criticize Bill Dembski.
I will not criticize Bill Dembski.

Franky 172 - So, I have to ask why not?[/quote]
see The Church of the Living Dembski and the bannination of one Pixie

Date: 2007/06/23 11:14:32, Link
Author: franky172
It's a shame the over funded gestapo of Darwinism can't afford to pay people $200 an hour.  

Of course, if you can't beat the theory of evolution using things like evidence and facts, you can always make fun of what a non-profit organization pays.  That will sway people to your side.

Date: 2007/06/23 14:28:46, Link
Author: franky172
Quote (stevestory @ June 23 2007,13:04)
Matt Taibbi says:

 
Quote
A lot of it, surely, has to do with the relentless abuse liberalism takes in the right-wing media, on Fox and afternoon radio, and amid the Townhall.com network of newspaper invective-hurlers. The same dynamic that makes the junior high school kid fear the word “fag” surely has many of us frightened of the word “liberal.” Mike Savage says liberalism is a mental disorder, Sean Hannity equates liberals with terrorists, Ann Coulter says that “liberals love America like O.J. loved Nicole.”


and Reason magazine's Julian Sanchez says:

 
Quote
Not to put too fine a point on it, but what sort of liberal gives a fuck about the opinions of Savage, Coulter, Hannity, or anyone who regards them as anything other than a punchline? Intelligent conservatives regard these people as embarrassing sideshow freaks; why on earth would anyone on the left take their hostility as anything but a badge of honor?


Keep that in mind next time the UD folks are bragging about being Coulter's chief science advisors.

EDIT: link

Just as a side note - I went to high school with that very Julian Sanchez...  small world

Date: 2007/06/25 09:08:43, Link
Author: franky172
Quote (Richardthughes @ June 25 2007,01:03)
Denyse quotes Bill O'Reilly!

 
Quote


O’Reilly, Bill dismisses the current pop chart atheists:

the atheists will never get it. The universe and the earth is so complex, so incredibly detailed, that to believe an accidental evolutionary occurrence could have exclusively led to the nature/mankind situation we have now, is some stretch of the imagination. I mean, call me crazy, but the sun always comes up, while man oversleeps all the time.
So bless you, Richard Dawkins, and all the other non-believers. As long as they don’t attack people of faith, I have no problem with them. As my eighth-grade teacher Sister Martin once said: “Faith is a gift.”

But not everybody gets to open the box.




http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-126102

Wow, the circle is complete.


IF UD MADE THE NEW TRANSFORMERS MOVIE:



There'd be one called "Jesustimus" Prime, too.

Denyse also quotes Mike Adams, who proceeds to quote some  unnamed biology professor who says that he believes evolution is a valid theory because he wants to have sex.  And his is considered journalism these days?

Quote
My understanding of (and disrespect for) the underpinnings of modern feminism was actually fostered by a biologist who once made a very candid remark about the foundation of his support of Darwinism. When asked about the lack of evidence supporting Darwinism – the fossil record, etc. – he confessed there was a very human reason for his faith in evolutionary theory despite the lack of scientific evidence. He confessed that if Darwinism were not true, he wouldn’t be able to sleep around.


Watch this:

Quote
My friend said that he talked to a prominent intelligent design advocate and he made a very candid remark about the foundation of his support of ID. When asked about the lack of evidence supporting ID – the fossil record, etc. – he confessed there was a very human reason for his faith in ID theory despite the lack of scientific evidence. He confessed that if ID were not true, he wouldn’t be able to kill babies with glee.


So there you have it, ID proponents believe in ID because they want to kill babies with glee.

Wow.  Making up stories about un-named sources and the bullshit they say is so easy, even a f*cking retard could do it.

Date: 2007/06/26 15:47:06, Link
Author: franky172
I heart Rob

Date: 2007/06/28 07:57:03, Link
Author: franky172
Mung comes out with guns blazing; refusing to read any of the links in a thread and saying he won't believe that Lerle is a Holocaust denier.  

Amazing.

Quote
Tourists could visit the original gas chambers in Auschwitz. Subsequently an American villain stole a sample of rock, which did not show elevated values of Iron cyanide, and it because known the gas chambers were reconstructions. The original gas chambers being reconstructions compellingly proves that we were deceived also over Auschwitz.

Date: 2007/06/28 13:18:22, Link
Author: franky172
Oh good god.  Now Sal agrees that HIV might not cause AIDS.

Date: 2007/06/28 14:58:13, Link
Author: franky172
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 28 2007,13:36)
Quote (franky172 @ June 28 2007,13:18)
Oh good god.  Now Sal agrees that HIV might not cause AIDS.

Seriously, once a bunch of undereducated people get together to defy what all them scientists say -- to basically sever their ties with empericism -- the genie's out of the bottle. Absolutely anything is fair game after that. If one can deny that 'macroevolution' ever happens, and deny that the earth is more than 6,000 years old, HIV denial is a very minor mental leap indeed.

This is fine, tho. Let UD slide into full blown Jesus freak crackpottery. More marginalization for them and more laffs for us.

You are absolutely correct; the destruction of so-called "materialistic science" that lead to Darwinism is no different than removing the materialistic science that led to "germ theory" - I therefore deny that the flu virus causes the flu.

Date: 2007/06/29 08:35:55, Link
Author: franky172
Literature Bluffing
Who really cites papers that don't agree with their points?  
Recently the IDers over at UD have taken to accusing others (re: scientists) of citing sources that do not support their point.  They refer to the perceived practice of citing several papers that do not make the point the author intends "literature bluffing", in reference to the "bluff" that one might not bother to read the papers cited.

But who really attempts to cite papers that disagree with their theories as if the papers said something they did not?  Back in February, before my password to UD changed mysteriously, I was involved in a discussion with Patrick and Joseph over at UD that began with a discussion of science and ended with Patrick citing two papers that he claimed proved detrimental to theory of common descent,
here and here.

So I, not being a biologist, sat down and examined the papers and was shocked, shocked to discover that the papers did not refute the tree of life, common ancestry, or any other evolutionary theories.  One of the papers described the problems of HGT in prokaryotes and the issues this presents for software that is designed to find "trees" in prokaryotic lineages; the other described that branching in the tree of life may take place in "spurts" and this can complicate molecular dating, as well as fossilization evidence.  

It's worth noting that both of those papers were at one time on the prominent side-bar of the UD banner.  I presume they were placed their based solely on the titles of the papers and without regard to what the technical papers actually said.  At this point I would ask: who is really performing literature bluffing?

More.

Date: 2007/06/29 11:56:43, Link
Author: franky172
Quote (Hermagoras @ June 29 2007,10:52)
Apparently I have a residual effect, post-banning, that produces passages such as this:
 
Quote
My claim is that these facts certainly do speak for themselves, and they say that Darwinian claims about the creative power of random mutation and natural selection are bogus.

Meanwhile, my head explodes.  
I was trying to make a pretty simple point, which Gil demonstrates elegantly when he writes "these facts certainly do speak for themselves, and they say" --- STOP RIGHT THERE!  Read that again.  

The facts speak for themelves / and they say

The point should be apparent, right.  Right?

The man I am about to introduce needs no introduction...

Date: 2007/06/29 12:18:38, Link
Author: franky172
Sal:

Quote
I was really hoping the Darwinist blog sphere would go into a tizzy and accuse me of quote mining. I mean, when I quoted Darwin as saying, “I beat a puppy, I believe, simply from enjoying the sense of power,” in no wise was I being totally serious (even though Darwin did say those words). Those guys are so humor challenged.


Yeah.  Wow.  That's f*cking hilarious.

Date: 2007/06/30 12:09:14, Link
Author: franky172
Quote (Hermagoras @ June 30 2007,10:23)
Scordova:
   
Quote
It is evident by the fact that Richard Dawkins, Jerry Coyne, Ken Miller, Sean Carroll, and Michael Ruse have written book reviews of Michael Behe’s book, The Edge of Evolution, that the best evolutionary biologists think about intelligent design.

Wha?
Scordova then quotes "a peer-reviewed article by 3 scientists from MIT in the journal of Molecular Systems Biology" (actually, it's just Molecular Systems Biology) which begins:      
Quote
The debate between intelligent design and evolution in education may still rage in school boards and classrooms, but intelligent design is making headway in the laboratory.

As soon as they kick out the writing teacher, the leaders of UD show an uncanny ability to read.  For lo, the article in question goes on, in the very next sentence:      
Quote
In this case, though, the designer turned out to be just some clever scientist. A recent paper in Nature (Yoshikuni et al, 2006) presented the iterative evolution of highly specific catalysts from a promiscuous wild-type enzyme via what the authors refer to as designed divergent evolution.

And it ends:      
Quote
So, scientists everywhere may soon begin their own intelligent designs… and so far, it looks like the best designs are the simplest. At the protein level, at least, it looks like irreducible complexity is out and a rather reducible simplicity is in. Intelligent design, however, may be here to stay.

Question: is scordova really this incapable of understanding tone in writing?

Don't worry.  Sal just wants to see the "Darwinists" get up in a tizzy about his quote mining.

Because quote mining is just another form of street theater.

Date: 2007/07/01 22:40:13, Link
Author: franky172
Quote (Zachriel @ July 01 2007,21:53)
While Jehu still hasn't read the article he cites, there is a minor panic on another thread concerning Behe's claims on the blood clotting cascade.

dougcampo            
Quote
Seriously though. Could someone more qualified please answer Orion’s question?

Someone? Anyone? The blood clotting cascade is not irreducibly complex even though Behe has claimed it as a prime example.
   
Quote
Kenneth Miller: Let's look at the clotting pathway, this is the way in which blood clots, you call this the Rube Goldberg in the blood, great stuff, and the clotting pathway is extremely complex. It produces a clot around the red blood cell, and what you wrote is, in your book is that none of the cascade proteins, these proteins, are used for anything except controlling the formation of clots, that's very clear. Yet, in the absence of any of the components blood does not clot and the system fails.

Now here's the, the hard part for me. Remember you said, in the absence of any of the components, blood does not clot and the system fails. One of those components that you've talked about is called factor 12 or Hagemann factor, and you'd think, if we take it away, the system should fail, so there shouldn't be any living organisms that are missing Hagemann factor, but it turns out, uh, lo and behold, that there are some organisms that are missing Hagemann factor, I've crossed them off up there, and those organisms turn out to be, dolphins and porpoises, they don't have, um, I assume that statement therefore is incorrect and has to be changed?

Michael Behe: Well, first of all let me express my condolences for the dolphins. Umm... <laughter>

Behe has since shifted his claim slowly over time without admitting he has done so.

I love this:

Quote
orion: I’ve read this before and have been unable to find an adequate response. Could someone help me out please.

GilDodgen: Some perspective is needed here. The forest is not being seen for the trees. [...] But eventually we’re talking about highly sophisticated information-processing machinery, a complex factory the likes of which human engineers have not even conceived of, coordinated on countless levels of hierarchical subintegration.


No really, I love it; we can do this all day:

ID proponent: I have developed a mathematical proof that evolution cannot account for traits A, B and C and ID therefore is true, and I don't have to resort to subjective statements about how amazing life is to prove it!

Scientist: Well, ignoring the basic logical fallacy in your argument, the "proof" you have provided is no such thing.

ID proponent: But I have used mathematics!  Therefore my proof is true.

Scientist: But you failed to account for X, Y, and Z, didn't include analysis of E, and this here says that 2+2=5.  That's just wrong.  Plus, here's some evidence that A,B, and C evolved from a simpler ancestor.

ID proponent: Some perspective is needed here. The forest is not being seen for the trees. Look how amazing life is!

/sorry for partial repeat...

Date: 2007/07/02 12:46:04, Link
Author: franky172
Quote (jeannot @ July 02 2007,12:38)
Quote (Hermagoras @ July 02 2007,09:16)
I can only respond in the voice of Inigo Montoya: "You keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means."

These words are from Wesley, actually (not Elsberry).  ;)

No way. :)

Date: 2007/07/03 08:39:49, Link
Author: franky172
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 03 2007,06:39)
Quote
An eloquent but bogus non-review by Dawkins
scorned'ova

...Dawkins is a master of rhetoric. Only he could take a clear example of intelligently designed evolution (dog breeding) and offer it as a convincing “proof” of Darwinian evolution.

Holy dipshit.  If Sal had some grasp of what Behe is trying to do in TEOE, he would understand Dawkins' review generally, and this point specifically. But he doesn't, so he doesn't, and off he goes after the supposed insufficiency of natural selection.

I wonder if he thinks wild geese were designed.

He doesn't even have to understand TEOE; Dawkins makes Behe's point crystal clear twice:

Quote
The crucial passage in “The Edge of Evolution” is this: “By far the most critical aspect of Darwin’s multifaceted theory is the role of random mutation. Almost all of what is novel and important in Darwinian thought is concentrated in this third concept.”


And, more to the point:

Quote
If mutation, rather than selection, really limited evolutionary change, this should be true for artificial no less than natural selection.


i.e. Behe's problem is not with natural selection (which Sal evidently wants to discuss in length); it's with random mutations.

Date: 2007/07/05 15:17:35, Link
Author: franky172
Sal doesn't understand that it is Behe's fault that no one understands his argument because although he seems to suggest at some points that the two mutations are not required, his mathematical formalism suggests they are.

IDists will remember this kind of ad-hoc "I accounted for something then didn't account for it" in Dembski's calculations of the probability of evolving a falgellum.

Date: 2007/07/05 18:28:35, Link
Author: franky172
I guess this is how Dembski does science

Date: 2007/07/09 09:23:58, Link
Author: franky172
Dave Scot still doesn't know what the word random means.

 
Quote
I think it’s misleading to say mutations are random with relation to phenotype. Random is synonymous with unpredictable.

Full Stop. Dave Scot is confusing the word "random" as used when in colloquial settings with the technical word "random" as in stochastic, probabilistic, etc.  Of course when scientists use the word "random" they mean something radically different from what Dave Scot's intuitive notions are, and this has been explained to him previously:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/science....t-85981

But evidently Dave Scot not only considers such corrections pedantic, he also continues to make the same false statements.

 
Quote
Saying random mutations are unpredictable is like saying state lottery results are unpredictable.

In one sense this is correct, they are both unpredictable - we do not know ahead of time who will win the lottery or which mutations will occur, and knowing who is the poorest, or which mutations would be the best gives us no foreknowledge of which mutations will occur or who will win the lottery.  In this way the lottery is random with respect to need, and mutations are random with respect to fitness.  This is not a difficult concept.

 
Quote
We can confidently predict that any given random mutation won’t be beneficial.

But of course, this has nothing to do with what scientists say when they argue that mutations are random with respect to fitness, and DaveScot should know that.

Date: 2007/07/09 11:19:15, Link
Author: franky172
Pat, we hardly knew yee.

Date: 2007/07/10 14:15:16, Link
Author: franky172
Quote (J-Dog @ July 10 2007,14:05)
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 10 2007,13:45)
Quote
14. You are the head of a PR company in Seattle. You have $4 million a year to try to promote Science X. In 20 years Science X has solved no problems, performed no experiments, and generated neither hypotheses nor interest from serious researchers. You don't even bother to publish your fake journal anymore. Virtually all scientists say Science X is an enormous pantload and obviously fraudulent. Despite all this, a small percentage of zealous nitwits believe in Science X and buy your books and attend your fake conferences. Explain, in 300 words, whether you should get leather or fabric interior for your new Jaguar.

You've made me pee my pants.  :angry:[/quote]
No, THIS is the funniest post of the day!

seconded.

Date: 2007/07/11 08:52:53, Link
Author: franky172
The oldy goldy Bevets chimes in to criticize this:

Quote
personal theology has primacy over empirical facts


You see Bevets thinks YECs:

Quote
would call it ‘normative theology over personal facts’. Therein lies the rub.


But let's analyze what Bevets is really saying here - theology is "normative", and all formerly empirical facts are now "personal".  In other words, the facts that we encounter in our day-to-day lives have no bearing (they are "personal" and therefore subjective) over the "normative" reading of the Bible.  Make sure this is straight in our heads here - Bevets believes that *facts* are irrelevant to the YEC hypothesis since they are by definition "personal".  Have you ever heard anything as full of post-modern gobbledygook before?

Date: 2007/07/12 15:58:22, Link
Author: franky172
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 12 2007,15:55)
Quote (JAM @ July 12 2007,15:20)
Quote (JohnW @ July 12 2007,15:08)
 
Quote (JAM @ July 12 2007,14:58)
Yeah, but did it change his mind (whether he admitted it or not) or anyone else's?

Guess I'll have to break the news
That I got no mind to lose

- Ramones

I wanna be sedated...

I assume it also means he's gotta tell 'em that he's got no cerebellum...

These guys act like they never got their diploma from Rock N Roll High School

Date: 2007/07/13 07:00:07, Link
Author: franky172
Oh dear God.

Dembski has decided to spend some of his time dissecting the "Jesus Tomb Math" (which has already been rather strongly criticized in the mainstream media as a rather elaborate sham).  Not to be outdone by the hundreds of other people who took a stab at what appears to be some perhaps shoddy mathematics, Dembski tries.  What is interesting about this is two-fold.  First, Dembski put his refutation of the Jesus tomb math on the Baylor Evolutionary Informatics Lab website!  (here!

He makes it a point to provide links to his other "evolutionary informatics" papers, none of which have yet to appear in any journal (and I have read some of them, I reserve judgement until I get a chance to really read them in depth), but what in  God's name is a website devoted to the Jesus Tomb doing on an evolutionary informatics website?  Compounding matters is the lack of introduction, conclusions, or analysis on the website - it's just a collection of scripts (the links to which are currently broken) and plots.

I also appreciate this from the website:

There has been no consideration given to the historical evidence for the resurrection of Christ that conflicts with his being buried.  With a link to "Leader U", which posits the following 5 pieces of evidence that the resurrection is true:

1: The Bible says that Jesus was buried and later his tomb was empty.
2: Paul says Jesus rose from the grave.
3: The story of the resurrection is old.
4: The story is simple.
5: Women probably discovered the tomb.
6: Other biblical stories also say the tomb was empty.

Well, I'm convinced.


Edit: 2 more things.
1) I should mention that the paper proper has introduction, conclusion, etc.   The website lacks these

2) The website goes on to cite quotations arguing against the use of statistics.  Why?

Date: 2007/07/19 14:10:14, Link
Author: franky172
Sal wonders why no one pays attention to his quote mining.

Maybe it's because he's already shown himself to be intellectually bankrupt, and no one's going to be bothered to point out that intellectually bankrupt people make, well, intellectually bankrupt "arguments".

Date: 2007/07/20 08:16:27, Link
Author: franky172
Quote (blipey @ July 16 2007,23:18)
 
Quote (stevestory @ July 16 2007,23:09)
yesterday and today I tried to follow this thread. It hasn't worked. I can't understand anything as dumb as Joe G denying that familial relationships work into a nested hierarchy. It doesn't make sense to me what he's saying. I just can't get it.

It doesn't make any sense to me either and I think we agree that it doesn't make sense in the "WTF kind of way" not in the "that argument is dumb ind of way".

I find it fascinating that words can be put together in such a way that they form a coherent sentence which makes no sense.  Every once in a great while he puts something down that gets ever so slightly closer to the inner core of this NH dis-belief.  I truly believe that I may live to see into that dark core of whatever-it-is.

I've now asked him if he disagrees that the Sons of Steve can be placed in all of the following categories:

1.  Family of Steve
2.  Family of Bob
3.  Family of Chris

He will, of course, avoid answering this question, but someday he may slip up and give out some info on his opinion in this matter.

If even an indirect look at what his answer to that question can be had, oh what a day...for comedy.

Hm.  Sorry if this is pedantic, but I think I see JoeG's confusion regarding a nested hierarchy.  He keeps harping on the following:

   
Quote
On the other hand, the general at the top of a military command does not consist of his soldiers and so the military command is a non-nested hierarchy with regard to the soldiers in the army. Pecking orders and a food chains are also non-nested hierarchies.


And I think his confusion stems from the following understanding "any element at level N of a nested hierarchy (NH) must also be a member of level N-1 of the sane NH". He interprets this to mean that the following is a NH:

Code Sample

       Bob
       /    \
    Steve     Harry
  /      \    /       \
Pete    Barry Larry   Moe


if and only if larry is a "harry".  Which is by definition "false" - calling "larry" "harry" is incorrect.  But, of course, this misses the point which is that the hierarchy isn't on particular "people"; a NH is built exclusively on relationships.  Perhaps the following explanation of the same NH would clarify for Joe, where D(x) represents descendents of (x), including "x":

Code Sample

             D(Bob)
                /    \
      D(Steve)   D(Harry)
/      \    /       \
D(Pete), D(Barry), D(Larry), D(Moe)


Where now it is true that all "descendents of Larry" are "descendents of Harry", even though "Larry" is not a "Harry".

In this way the web page he cites is properly correct:

General --> Major --> PFC

is not a nested hierarchy because "Majors" are not "Generals".  But the following is a nested hierarchy (where U(x) represents "under the command of 'x'":

Code Sample

           U(General)
           /        \
   U(Major1)     U(Major2)
  /        \       /      \
U(PFC1),U(PFC2),U(PFC3),U(PFC4).


Could that be the confusion?  Or is Joe just too far gone?

Date: 2007/07/20 15:39:11, Link
Author: franky172
Dembski is upset no one has used his EF.

His response?

Quote
Does Padian mean Wesley Elsberry, Shallit’s sidekick, whose PhD is from the wildlife fisheries department at Texas A&M? Does Padian mean Richard Wein, whose 50,000 word response to my book NO FREE LUNCH is widely cited — Wein holds no more than a bachelors degree in statistics? Does Padian mean Elliott Sober, who is a philosopher and whose critique of my work along Bayesian lines is itself deeply problematic (for my response to Sober go here). Does he mean Thomas Schneider, who is a biologist who dabbles in information theory and not very well at that (see my “withering critique” with Bob Marks of his work on the evolution of nucleotide binding sites here). Does he mean David Wolpert, a co-discoverer of the NFL theorems? Wolpert had some nasty things to say about my book NO FREE LUNCH, but the upshot was that my ideas there were not sufficiently developed mathematically for him to critique them.

Yes, Dr. Dembski.  He means people who do math, regardless of their degrees.

Date: 2007/07/21 01:06:03, Link
Author: franky172
Quote (blipey @ July 20 2007,17:21)
@ franky172:

I've given Joe the link to your above excellent comment.  We'll see exactly what kind of response we get.  My thought is that he'll say exactly the same thing he always does:

Nanananana-boo-boo.

I'm sure Joe will :)

Out of curiosity, where is the current discussion?

Date: 2007/07/22 22:55:06, Link
Author: franky172
Quote (blipey @ July 22 2007,16:58)
All of my pets have been way more interesting than Joe and probably smarter as well.  Let's see, Siamese Cats, Airdale Terrier, Cockatiel, a pair of Newts, Red Devil.

Yep. All more interesting.  Joe doesn't even move on to different phrasing of stupid sentences.  He says A, then A, backs it up with A, and then links to A.  Once you've looked at the 3 or so topics that Joe blathers about, it's all very boring.

I think I've actually read every sentence that Joe will ever form.  He can, at this point, add no new information to the universe.  There are other, while still stupid, more interesting tards to watch.

Oh jeez.  What have I gotten myself into.  I can't stop.....  I'm not going to post anything on Joe's blog, but I imagine he may follow this thread, and I assume he isn't banned here, so if he would like to discuss this further I might suggest he post a response here.  

But here I go:

   
Quote
I read frank172 and he is incorrect also. Not only that he appears to put words in my mouth.


Precisely what part of your argument did I misrepresent in my post.  Please be specific.

   
Quote
That seems to be common amonst evolutionitwits.

Name calling does not add to the strength of your argument.

   
Quote
Perhaps you guys should focus on the OP and the rules of hierarchy theory.

Let's.

   
Quote
Hierarchical levels: levels are populated by entities whose properties characterize the level in question.

Level of organization: this type of level fits into its hierarchy by virtue of set of definitions that lock the level in question to those above and below.

The ordering of levels: there are several criteria whereby other levels reside above lower levels.


Do we agree with these rules?  Do we agree with the following definition of a nested hierarchy:

"A nested hierarchy is a structured set of sets, where all sets are potentially connected "above" to "parent" sets and "below" to "child" sets, such that all elements of a node's children are elements of the node.  The "top-most" node in such a structure, if it exists, has no parent and is called the "root node"."

 
Quote
Note the words "several criteria".

To re-iterarte- With a paternal family tree levels are determined by ONE and only ONE criterion- “Who’s your daddy?”

The argument in your original post appears to be that since a paternal family tree relies on only one "criteria" it is not a nested hierarchy.  Is this a correct statement of your argument?

   
Quote
With Kingdon, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species, we sapiens (species) also belong to the Genus Homo, the Family Hominindae, the Order Primates, the Class Mammalia, the Phylum Chordata and the Kingdom Anamalia.


Very good.

   
Quote
With a paternal family tree the lower levels will never be part of the upper level. The person on the top will always be a separate entity.

I believe this is false.  Let D(x) denote the set {x,descendants of x}.  Then I argue that the following is a nested hierarchy:

Example 1:
Code Sample

                D(sam)
               /           \
D(sam's first son) D(sam's second son)


   
Quote
However I do think it's funny that you think that other morons are going to be able to help you out.

Name calling does not add to the strength of your argument.

   
Quote
Why is it that you people still refuse to abide by the rules of hierarchy?

Which rules in particular are violated in example (1) above.  Please be specific.

   
Quote
And why would blipey run to some other anonymous imbeciles for support?

Name calling does not add to the strength of your argument.

   
Quote
K->P->C->O->F->G->S
   is NOT a nested hierarchy but:
   _P/\C_C
   /\_/\_/\_/\
   and so on is!!!


I believe you have mis-understood the fundamentals of the argument.  Re-shaping the way we draw the structure does not alter the underlying type of structure we are dealing with.  Carefully defining the terms used to generate the sets does.  For example if we assume "A = {set of all aces}", "K = {set of all kings}" etc,

A->K->Q->J->10->9...

is not a nested hierarchy, because "Aces" don't consist of "Kings".  However if we define a "below" operator: "B(x) = {s : the value of s is less than or equal to x}" then:
B(A)->B(K)->B(Q)->B(J)->...

Does form a nested hierarchy because the elements of the set "B(Q)" include the elements of "B(J)".  Do we agree that this ordering of playing cards forms a nested hierarchy?  If so, why does the following not form a nested hierarchy:

D(sam) -> D(sam's first son) -> D(sam's first grandson)?

If not, why not?

   
Quote
It would be best to find someone that actually knows what they are talking about.

Name calling does not add to the strength of your argument.

   
Quote
Better luck next time clowny. Until then I will have to go with the experts and authorities that agree with my premise that a paternal family tree is not a nested hierarchy.

I have not encountered any of these people.

   
Quote
And that there are other imbeciles that agree with blipey sure does say quite a bit about the level of education of evolutionitwits.

Name calling does not add to the strength of your argument.

   
Quote
It doesn't follow the rules.

Which of the rules does the paternal family tree not follow?

   
Quote
LoL!!! That is why I have been asking you to draw up a paternal family tree without the names.


D(p1) -> D(p1's first son) -> D(p1's first grandson)?

   
Quote
In both valid schemes of a nested hierarchy that I have presented, it is clear that the lowest level belongs to ALL nodes leading to it INCLUDING the top level.


A descendant of p1's first grandson is a descendant of p1's first son is a descendant of p1.  Yes or no?

 
Quote
In a paternal family tree Steve is at the top node- alone. Not Steve's family. Steve does not consist of his family any more than a general consists of his troops.

But D(p1) consists of D(p1's first son).  Yes?

Date: 2007/07/23 11:06:52, Link
Author: franky172
You have not answered any of my questions.  I will repeat some:

1) Precisely what part of your argument did I misrepresent in my post.  Please be specific.

2) Do we agree with the following definition of a nested hierarchy:

"A nested hierarchy is a structured set of sets, where all sets are potentially connected "above" to "parent" sets and "below" to "child" sets, such that all elements of a node's children are elements of the node.  The "top-most" node in such a structure, if it exists, has no parent and is called the "root node"."

3) The argument in your original post appears to be that since a paternal family tree relies on only one "criteria" it is not a nested hierarchy.  Is this a correct statement of your argument?

4) Which rules in particular are violated in example (1) above.  Please be specific.

5) However if we define a "below" operator: "B(x) = {s : the value of s is less than or equal to x}" then:
B(A)->B(K)->B(Q)->B(J)->...

Does form a nested hierarchy because the elements of the set "B(Q)" include the elements of "B(J)".  Do we agree that this ordering of playing cards forms a nested hierarchy?  If so, why does the following not form a nested hierarchy:

D(sam) -> D(sam's first son) -> D(sam's first grandson)?

If not, why not?

Continuing:

Quote
Nested and non-nested hierarchies: nested hierarchies involve levels which consist of, and contain, lower levels.

Do you still think that a paternal family tree is a nested hierarchy?


Yes.  Can you please answer the following question.  In the following:

D(p1) -> D(p2) -> D(p3)

Does the level D(p2) consist of and contain D(p3)?

Yes or no?  I believe that most people believe that D(p2) consists of and contains D(p3).  You appear to disagree.

Quote

You probably do, but then again you are also an evolutionist.

This is not aiding your argument.

Date: 2007/07/23 16:09:56, Link
Author: franky172
Quote
If D(x) denotes the set {x, descendants of x} you have taken away the original argument of a paternal family tree.


Stop.  Do we agree that the following structure:
Code Sample

              D(sam)
             /           \
D(sam's first son) D(sam's second son)


forms a nested hierarchy?  A simple yes or no will suffice.  (Call this structure example 1)

Quote
Ya see in your scheme the correct rendition would have D(sam, sam's first son, sam's second son), and would grow with every additional male descendant.

I do not know what you mean by "correct rendition".  

Quote
In a paternal family tree the father sits on top, alone

Do we agree that example 1 forms a nested hierarchy?  Yes or no.  Do we agree that example 1 describes a "paternal family tree"?  Yes or no.

Date: 2007/07/23 19:47:23, Link
Author: franky172
Quote
You stop Franky. If it doesn't abide by the principles of hierarchy then it isn't a nested hierarchy.


I have asked you a simple question.  Do you think this is a nested hierarchy:

Code Sample

             D(sam)
            /           \
D(sam's first son) D(sam's second son)


This is a straightforward question.

 
Quote
What are the defintionS for each of your levels? Male descendant is one definition and it is also part of the definition of the whole.

I do not understand your statement.

 
Quote
A correct rendition of a paternal family tree has the patriach at the top- alone.

Do you understand that?

It is true that in typical renditions of "family trees" we replace the notation D(sam) with simply "Sam", but this is merely shorthand - we understand that the lines connecting different people are shorthand for "descendent of" and we can interpret the names shown on the treee as belonging to the unique individual whose position is at each node.  I.e. the shorthand:

Code Sample

      Sam
     /   \
   Bill Steve

Means that Bill and Steve are descendents of Sam, and in terms of the "descendent" relationship, this structure forms a nested hierarchy since we are using an implicit shorthand for:

Code Sample

      D(Sam)
     /   \
   D(Bill) D(Steve)


 
Quote
A simple yes or no. We cannot continue until we agree on that point.

It depends what you mean by "patriarchal family tree", typically we use shorthand to represent the nested hierarchical structure that descent from a common ancestor leads to, and we simply write "X" at each node of a tree.  This is for many reasons, one of which is simplicity of notation.  That the relationship of "descended from" forms a nested hierarchical structure is not, I believe, in dispute, so what you appear to be arguing over is notation.  Do we agree that we can sort the descendents of a person into a nested hierarchy, and that with slight change of notation this structure is identical to the colloquial "family tree"?

 
Quote
By including all male decendants into the top superset D(x) you no longer have a paternal family tree.

I believe that the notation D(x) explicitly shows that decent-based relationships form nested hierarchies, regardless of whatever definition of "paternal family tree" you want to use.  Do we agree?

Now that I have answered your questions, there are several questions that have been posed to you that remain unanswered.  Would you do us the favor of answering them?

Date: 2007/07/24 11:29:12, Link
Author: franky172
Quote
In Franky's scheme all male descedants of x, including x also sit at the top node/ level.


What does it mean to "sit at the top node"?  That the set D(sam) includes all of Sam's descendents?  I agree.

Quote
But is that scheme a nested hierarchy?


I have asked you on several offasions to answer whether or not you think the scheme is a nested hierarchy.  You refuse to answer.  Why is that?

Quote
With a paternal family tree the sets are determined by ONE AND ONLY ONE criterion- "who's your daddy?"

Hierarchical levels: levels are populated by entities whose properties characterize the level in question.

Note the word "properties".


I will ask again: your argument appears to be that a nested hierarchy can not be formed using a single relationship, because this is not plural "properties".  Is this a valid restatement of your argument?

Quote
Note the words "set of definitions"

I will ask again: your argument appeats to be that a nested hierarchy can not be formed using a single relationship, because this is not a plural "definitions".  Is this a valid restatement of your argument?

Quote
The ordering of levels: there are several criteria whereby other levels reside above lower levels.

Note the words "several criteria".

I will ask again: your argument appeats to be that a nested hierarchy can not be formed using a single relationship, because this is not a plural "several criteria".  Is this a valid restatement of your argument?

To re-iterarte- With a paternal family tree levels are determined by ONE and only ONE criterion- “Who’s your daddy?”

Quote
Now in a scheme of all male descendants of x, including x what would be the properties that characterize the level in question?

The level in question is the set of all descendents of x.

Quote
What are the set of definitions that lock a level in question to those above and below it?

Above: "direct male ancestor of"

Quote
What are the several criteria whereby other levels reside above lower levels?

Below: "direct male descendant of"

Quote
And for the clincher- what is done to the male descendants that are born of female descendants? How are they tied to the top level?


I don't understand your question or it's relevance.

Quote
Questions like these arise and usually go unanswered when people, who don't know what they are doing, try to establish something anyway.

This is true, but not in the way you intend.

Quote
In your scenario D(sam) would really be D(sam, sam’s first son, sam’s first grandson). So we would have D(sam, sam’s first son, sam’s first grandson)-> D(sam’s first son, sam’s first grandson)-> D(sam’s first grandson).


I do not understand your statement.  What does it mean for D(sam) to "really be" D(sam, sam's first son, ...)?  What does it mean for a definition of a set to "really be" something else?

Quote
Either way it demonstrates that it is a waste of time trying to discuss this with you.


I noticed that I answered all of the questions you have posed to me, and you have steadfastly refused to answer all of the questions posed to you.  Simple "yes" "no" answers will suffice, Joe.

Date: 2007/07/24 11:47:14, Link
Author: franky172
Quote (Joe G @ July 24 2007,11:18)
It's like this blipey:

                D(sam)
              /           \
D(sam's first son) D(sam's second son)

SHOULD be written as:

D(sam, sam's first son, sam's second son)
               /           \
D(sam's first son) D(sam's second son)


That you refuse to understand that simple fact does more to your credibility than anything I could ever say.

Thank you once again.

Gotta run, lunch is here...

I have defined the following:

D(x) = {s: s = x, or s is a male descendant of x}

So it's not clear what you mean by:

Quote
SHOULD be written as:

Date: 2007/07/24 14:07:17, Link
Author: franky172
For what feels like the fifth time, you have not answered my question.  Is the following a nested hierarchy:

Code Sample

               D(sam)
             /           \
D(sam's first son) D(sam's second son)

Yes or no, Joe.

Quote
If you have a scheme of x and all male descendants ox x, with x also being a male, what happens when one generation is of all females, who then have sons?


It depends on how you want to define the tree that forms a "patriarchal family tree".  Assume Sam has a son, and a daughter and the daughter has a son, "Sam's second grandson".  The following is a set of "male decsendents of Sam":

Code Sample

--------------------D(sam)
--------------/-----------------\
------------D(sam's son)---------\
-------------/-------------------\
---D(sam's first grandson)----D(sam's second grand son)


If we define a "paternal family tree" as a set of relations linked by sons, you might simply ignore any descendents of females, so the tree might end at a certain point.  How do you define "paternal family tree", Joe?  In your world does a paternal family tree include all male offspring?  Or only trace continual male lineages through time?  Depending on your answer to this you should be able to answer your own question.  (You can feel free to answer this question Joe, it's been a while since you answered any questions it seems.).

How would you like to define the operator "D", Joe?  (Here is another question you should answer.)

Quote
That the set D(sam) includes all of Sam's descendents?
Then you do not have a paternal family tree.
IOW you are changing things to suit your outcome.

I don't understand what you mean.

Quote
It's ONE definition. A nested hierarchy requires several, and only sometimes will one apply.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Date: 2007/07/24 14:08:58, Link
Author: franky172
One more time Joe:

Quote

It depends what you mean by "patriarchal family tree", typically we use shorthand to represent the nested hierarchical structure that descent from a common ancestor leads to, and we simply write "X" at each node of a tree.  This is for many reasons, one of which is simplicity of notation.  That the relationship of "descended from" forms a nested hierarchical structure is not, I believe, in dispute, so what you appear to be arguing over is notation.  Do we agree that we can sort the descendents of a person into a nested hierarchy, and that with slight change of notation this structure is identical to the colloquial "family tree"?

Date: 2007/07/25 08:57:44, Link
Author: franky172
Quote
I just demonstrated that you don't have an argument.

You have demonstrated nothing other than your lack of comprehension of the basics of sets and nested hierarchies.

Quote
You cannot have any part of one set that can also belong to an otherwise unrelated set.

So the set of soldiers that comprises the army, they aren't also in the nested hierarchy starting with Kingdom Animal and ending with Homo Sapeins?

Quote
What you want is like saying that humans can be primates and insects.

False.  What we "want is like saying" that humans can be Homo Sapiens and soldiers.

Quote
This is no trivial matter and why you tried to keep the women out of the equation.

Yes, it is a trivial matter.

Date: 2007/07/25 21:54:00, Link
Author: franky172
Quote (Zachriel @ July 25 2007,06:50)
Acquiesce        
Quote
How therefore does NS select in the direction of higher complexity, when it appears that higher complexity necessitates a reduction in fitness? ... So basically what I’m saying is that even if we grant Darwinists NS and RM the likelihood is that NS would only direct RM in producing traits which further increase fitness. So its doubtful NS would ever go beyond simple, fast reproducing organisms such as bacteria.

Natural Selection doesn't necessarily select for higher complexity, but for the environment, which includes other competing organisms. If there's a rule, it's diversity. In some environments, a non-motile bacteria may do just fine. But in other environments, a motile bacteria may have a significant advantage. And an organism that eats bacteria may very well find a successful niche. Darwin 101.

PaV        
Quote
I remember taking a class in Animal Behavior years and years ago. One of the articles we read had to do with rats. It seems that when the density of rats in a restricted area gets so high, they begin to kill one another. Now, here’s the exercise, if fitness is related to competing species, and, if fitness is essentially reproductive success, then how can a species of rats that has developed the tendency to kill its own (and, therefore, reduce the number of offsprings in the present generation and the ensuing generation as well) be considered more fit? And, if it’s not more fit, then how did it develop?

Rats didn't evolve in cages. When a certain population density is reached, they tend to migrate to establish new communities. If there is only room in the given environment for so many rats, then only the biggest baddest rats live to propagate. Malthusian Logic 101.

tribune7        
Quote
Saying the eye evolved — a famously contested claim in itself — does not explain how creatures that depend on eyes are more fitted to survival than creatures that don’t.

An eye, eye-spot or light-sensitivity has obvious advantages to both plants and animals. Plants want to move towards the light (but not too much light). Animals eat other organisms, so eyes tend to be very useful for finding food. Biology 101.

Acquiesce        
Quote
Fitness is a measure of the numbers of surviving offspring (nothing else). Thus you are totally wrong, less complex organisms are orders of magnitude fitter than higher organisms – which brings us back to how NS can direct for higher complexity whilst simultaneously selecting for lower fitness.

Not quite. All organisms can produce more young than necessary for replacement. Fitness is a measure relative to the environment including other organisms competing in that niche resulting in differential reproductive success. Population Dynamics 101.

Making lots of babies does not necessarily result in success in every environment. Birth Control 101.

kairosfocus        
Quote
Put the two issues together and you see the other issue come out: the stasis and suddenness of new types of organisms that is all over the fossil record, the paltry number of celebrated “links” notwithstanding. (I gather they are now fewer than in late C19, contrary to Darwin’s hopes, and contrary to what one would reasonably expect from the “almost unmanageably rich” fossil collections we now have and have had for decades.)

If you have a gap, and fill a point in the gap, you now  have two gaps! Geometry 101.

But that's not quite the claim. Apparently, if you keep adding links, you end up with fewer links. But addition is, well, additive. Arithmetic 101.

Bob O'H    
Quote
To be honest, and my apologies for sounding arrogant, I would suggest you go back and learn the basics of evolutionary theory.

That's not arrogance Bob O'H, but a useful suggestion. They haven't a clue about the Theory of Evolution 101.

The more I read this thread:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/science....-129111

The more astounded I am at the level of a) ignorance and b) arrogance illustrated by the UD'ers when it comes to evolutionary theory.

Their argument appears to be: "NS must select for fast breeders.  Therefore evolution can't generate complicated structures."

The ignorance comes in when they refuse to even think that their initial argument: "NS has to select for fast breeders, and everything else is garbage to NS" doesn't translate to "Wow, you know, I never considered the fact that there might be two different traits in an organism that lead to increased fitness - 1) simplicity and thus increased reproduction rates, and 2) complexity and thus security in a niche."  

And the arrogance appears at this point: "I am a master genius who has singlehandedly dis-proven the power of natural selection.  No scientists in the past 150 years have considered the implications of my finding that NS may only select for the simplest and fastest breeding strains!"

Astounding.

Date: 2007/07/26 10:26:07, Link
Author: franky172
http://www.uncommondescent.com/science....-129228

Patrick, trying to distance himself from the absurdity of this thread, asks:


Quote
Patrick
07/26/2007 9:45 am
ok…so who here believes that Darwinian processes are incapable of producing complexity?


Evidently, reading is beyond the scope of the typical IDer:

Quote
tribune7
8:29 am
How are they more complex than other bacteria.


Quote
tribune7
6:43 am
Bob, has a bacterium ever been observed mutating into something more complex?


Quote
kairosfocus
6:36 am
Enough has long since been said — several times — to show why many of us note several problems with the assumption that we can credibly get enhanced functionality through random mutation


Quote
Acquiesce
3:37 am
How can NS form a trend of increasing complexity while selecting based on increasing reproductive success.


Quote
Atom
2:49 pm
q’s intial question about how NS can form a trend of increasing complexity while selecting based on increasing reproductive success…


Quote
Atom
2:37 pm
If I am correct, the more unecessarily complex will be weeded out by NS


Quote
Atom
11:53 am
How can NS select for increasing complexity when simpler mechanisms can (and do) replicate much quicker, more easily and robustly?


And that's just in the last 20 comments.

Date: 2007/07/27 09:58:29, Link
Author: franky172
Quote (Zachriel @ July 27 2007,07:28)
Chapter Review: Malthusian Logic 101

(Apparently, some of the class weren't paying attention when we covered this material previously.)

   
Quote
Acquiesce: What ‘other’ effects (i.e. apart from numbers of surviving offspring) are important for NS? In other words, what ‘other’ effects can NS ‘see’ and ‘select’ if they do not impact on the numbers of surviving offspring? What are you talking about?

All organisms can reproduce exponentially. The question is access to resources.

Motility or the ability to digest new food sources could represent a substantial advantage for an organism. The symbiosis of two different organisms, such as a prokaryote and chloroplast could be a substantial advantage. A stalk on a plant can leave its competitors in the shadows. So while Acquiesce's organism just sits there having eaten everything in the area, a mutant could be moving to greener pastures, or sending out spores, or even eating its competitors for lunch.



(Let me add that this argument concerning evolution of bacteria is faulty. Modern bacteria are highly optimized for their current niche, the result of billions of years of evolution. Primordial cells may very well have been more complex and ad hoc.)

Indeed, the confusion at UD about basic facts of evolution continues:

Quote
Atom

07/27/2007

9:28 am
  Ditto, Bob?


Wherein the underlying problem appears to be that UDers do not realize that the number of offspring generated is only one factor in the expected number of offspring that will survive to reproduce - i.e. fitness is only partially coupled to raw number of offspring produced.  If I have 4000 babies, but only 1 survives, I am no better off (evolutionarily speaking) than someone who produces 2 offspring and 1 survives to reproduce.

i.e. E(# reproducing offspring) != E(# of offspring)

But I must have forgotten - PaV has "studied quantum mechanics and knows what an expected value is".

Date: 2007/07/30 12:50:38, Link
Author: franky172
jerry opines:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/just-fo....-129910

Quote
However, even if we do have free will and materialism is the true explanation of the world, then choice of a standard becomes arbitrary. If you disagree that would be an interesting argument.


But the materialistic understanding of "good" is no more arbitrary than the religious understanding, as Plato showed in Euthryphro (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma), the notion that true morality must come from God appears to be false.

The basic argument is as follows:

1) A proponent like Jerry might assert: We can only know what is good by knowing what it is that God commands us to do.  God is the ultimate source of moral values.

2) To this we might inquire: Is what God commands us to do "good" by virtue of it being what God commands?  Or does God only command us to do objectively "good" things.

Now someone like Jerry has two options.  He might respond:

3 a) Of course whatever God commands us to do is "good", and it is "good" simply by virtue of God commanding it.

To which we reply:

4 a) But this definition of good is vacuous.  If God were to command us tomorrow to rape and murder our neighbors, surely we should resist because we know that rape and murder are "wrong", and thus whatever a hypothetical God might ask us to do can not be "good by definition", so in this way God can not be the source of what is "good".

Or Jerry might respond:

3 b) No, what God wants us to do is objectively good - God loves us and only wants us to do things that are "good" in some other sense.

To which we retort:

4 b) But, if what God wants us to do is "objectively good" then we do not need God to tell us to do it - the actions themselves are "objectively good" and we should be able to discern these for ourselves, so we do not need God to tell us what is right and wrong, so God is not necessary as a source of moral guidance.

I have not heard a convincing counter to this argument, posed over 2000 years ago.

Date: 2007/07/30 18:47:42, Link
Author: franky172
Oh dear god it burns.

Date: 2007/07/31 15:07:53, Link
Author: franky172
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 31 2007,15:05)
Dembski pouts:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-130084

 
Quote
ID proponents do have a positive program (e.g., www.evolutionaryinformatics.org).


Yes Bill, and DaveTard has a spaceship:



Quiz. Will this "positive program":

(a) Find the design mechanism
(b) Identify the designer
© Detect design in action
(d) Flail hopelessly at "Darwinism"/Materialism.

???

e) Fight against the Jesus Tomb: http://web.ecs.baylor.edu/faculty....ex.html

f) Quote dead people

Date: 2007/07/31 22:28:56, Link
Author: franky172
Sal thinks Dembski has "outrun" his critics who point out that in calculating the supposed "CSI" of the bacterial flagellum, Dembski *neglects to integrate over all the combinatorial possible ways to formulate a flagellum out of it's component pieces*, and *utterly fails to take into account any sort of step-by-step development of the flagellum* (he assumes it arises out of thin air), and that his calculations have been utter crap for the past 15 years.

Quote
By your comments here, your assessment is out of sync with his latest work. He is not ruling out that there are other possible distributions, but rather points out the information content those “improved” distributions would have relative to the equiprobable one.


Bull, Sal.  Dembski neglects to incorporate the fundamental (n choose k) terms that he points out are integral to the Caputo example (the reason being that we do not know how to calculate such expressions for any biological entities), and his mathematics are based on de-novo generation of full modern flagellum from component parts without gradual steps - i.e. without evolution.  

Whatever Dembski's "latest work" (where is that by the way - on the same page as the Jesus Tomb Math?), I can guarantee that he has failed to overcome these basic first-year probability / biology critiques of his work.

Quote
I’m afraid Dembski has outrun his critics and they are shooting at the earlier form of his ideas some 15 years ago. He has since evolved his ideas, and they are more virulent and resistant to what the critics can throw at him these days.


It's amazing how fast Dembski runs when he's not busy publishing anything.

Edit: Although I should admit that I love the description of Dembski's new ideas as "virulent":
Virulent:
1 a : marked by a rapid, severe, and destructive course <a virulent infection> b : able to overcome bodily defensive mechanisms : markedly pathogenic <virulent bacteria>
2 : extremely poisonous or venomous
3 : full of malice : MALIGNANT <virulent racists>
4 : objectionably harsh or strong <virulent criticism>

Maybe I should refer to ID as "scientifically vacuous, and virulent" from now on?

Date: 2007/08/01 12:57:45, Link
Author: franky172
Quote (Rob @ Aug. 01 2007,11:01)
Quote (franky172 @ July 31 2007,22:28)
Sal thinks Dembski has "outrun" his critics who point out that in calculating the supposed "CSI" of the bacterial flagellum, Dembski *neglects to integrate over all the combinatorial possible ways to formulate a flagellum out of it's component pieces*, and *utterly fails to take into account any sort of step-by-step development of the flagellum* (he assumes it arises out of thin air), and that his calculations have been utter crap for the past 15 years.

     
Quote
By your comments here, your assessment is out of sync with his latest work. He is not ruling out that there are other possible distributions, but rather points out the information content those “improved” distributions would have relative to the equiprobable one.


Bull, Sal.  Dembski neglects to incorporate the fundamental (n choose k) terms that he points out are integral to the Caputo example (the reason being that we do not know how to calculate such expressions for any biological entities), and his mathematics are based on de-novo generation of full modern flagellum from component parts without gradual steps - i.e. without evolution.

Sal's current position is that the only hypothesis that needs to be eliminated is pure random chance.  This implies that anything that's a product of law or law+chance is ultimately designed.  He bases this on Dembski's NFL-based notions.  It's a crazy claim, and it flatly contradicts the EF, which does not ascribe products of law to design.  If you try to pin Sal down on this contradiction, he'll disappear, as he did here and here.

Far from rising above their critics, Dembski and Sal are merely becoming increasingly confused and self-contradictory.

Two things:

First of all, this reliance on the idea that "if something is unlikely to happen under the uniform distribution, then it's CSI" is mind-numbingly idiotic.  Even for IDers.

Second, note that Sal didn't even suggest that Dembski had "risen above" or "replied to" his critics.  No.  Dembski *out-runs* his critics.

That virulent guy.

Date: 2007/08/02 12:47:06, Link
Author: franky172
I'm no boxing commentator, and this is slightly off-topic, but it looks like Tiggy has Sal on the ropes

edit: fixed URL

Date: 2007/08/03 08:46:20, Link
Author: franky172
Quote (Zachriel @ Aug. 03 2007,07:11)
Quote (Rob @ Aug. 02 2007,11:46)
   
Quote (Zachriel @ Aug. 02 2007,06:52)
   
Quote
kairosfocus: I am pointing out that the issue hinges crucially on how one defines the suspicious-activity tail, and what has happened in PO’s discussion, is that he expanded a 1 in 50 billion shot to nearly 2 in 5.

Which, of course, is not what Olofsson did. Kairosfocus is incapable of reading what Olofsson actually wrote, even on something as simple as defining a rejection region and then using a 22-19 split—as an illustrative example.

kairosfocus is adamant:
   
Quote
The 22+-D trail will have 38 or so % of the holes indeed, but the 40+ D configs will have a much, much lower fraction, about 1 in 50 billions.

Which is exactly what Olofsson's paper says.  I don't think kairos will ever get a clue, unless his unsupervised child reads the paper and explains it to him.

And it just gets worse. Kairosfocus goes on and on and on explaining why he is right. As he can't get past the simple and obvious point that Olofsson was providing an example, he is hopeless for any extended discussion. And Olofsson does seem like a very approachable teacher—though so very young in the ways of The Argument Regarding Design.

Quote
Olofsson: He has even gone so far as to cut one of my sentences in half (in his post #68) to support his quixotic mission. (I believe some refer to such pratice as “quote mining”; hasn’t happened to me before). If you read the entire paragraph it is clear that I mean relevant in that example, not in the actual Caputo case.


But kairosfocus does issue this apology:

Quote
kairosfocus: (I freely confess to highlighting the sometimes subtle [and I suspect inadvertent] rhetorical implications of how he built up his case, to bringing out how he perceives design thinkers and how that distorts the reading of what we have said, and to my challenging the substance of the case, with special reference to the Caputo court case of the EF in successful action.)

Kairosfocus apologizes for highlighting subtlety—quite the concession.

In my experience, when you get your Latin wrong, it is best to issue an apology in the best Latin you can muster, while smiling and nodding so that they might take pity on a hapless foreigner.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxzXDNEAKW4


Stultorum calami carbones moenia chartae.

Ah. Post-modern thinking at it's finest:

I have countered an argument that I found by "deconstructing" the actual intent of the paper Prof. Olofsson wrote and have argued against that interpretation.  The fact that neither Prof. Olofsson nor any reasonable reader of his paper could have found the implicit, subtle, and inadvertent message I have uncovered and argued against is no reason that my argument is fallacious!

Date: 2007/08/08 19:59:58, Link
Author: franky172
PaV still has no idea what P.O. is talking about.

In between his confusion about the "direction we are moving" for rejection regions (what?) is the following:

 
Quote
Well, as I pointed out in an earlier post, we know the “rules” for proteins: (1) they’re made up of amino acids; (2) each amino acid has a chance of occurring of 1 in 22; (3) specified proteins are of lengths as many as 300 a.a. long.


PaV is evidently unaware that he has proposed a model for the formulation of proteins - namely that they are arranged at random from a language of amino acids.  As faulty of a model of biological reality as this is - it is still a model.  If we want to accept or reject certain outcomes of the model we need to specify a rejection region and compare the probability of an outcome from a set of outcomes that share some property with the outcome we observed and make our inference based on that.  

This is (exactly as P.O. has made clear several times in the linked thread) fundamental to rejecting outcomes as statistically improbably - we 1) formulate a model 2) compare the predictions of the model to observations, and 3) accept or reject our hypothesis.

Of course, according to the model proposed by PaV, the probability of any specific set of proteins of given length is equally unlikely, so all possible observed sequences of proteins should fail the "EF" and be considered the product of "design", whether they result in flagella, random gibberish, or the first lines of Hamlet.  What PaV and others have failed to do is define a set, say "proteins that allow locomotion" and find the probability of the model predicting any of the elements of that set (just as we defined a set "sets of D/R's with less than 1 R" in the Caputo case).  

Furthermore, ignoring the fact that the model isn't being used properly - the model itself is fundamentally flawed - no biologist would ever suggest that the proposed model is the way that proteins actually form or evolution actually works.  (Which is why it's enlightening to see people finally accepting that of the 30 supposed "unique" protiens in the BF, many of them have already been found to have homologs).

The fact that that thread is now at its 260th post, with P.O. making these points clearly several times, and absolutely no regular at UD seems to be anywhere closer to understanding these basic facts about probability is rather disheartening.

Date: 2007/08/12 13:48:25, Link
Author: franky172
Dave
s irony meter must be busted:

Quote
If you can’t be bothered to do a small bit of due diligence before posting comments here why should we bother to publish your comments?


Excellent question Dave.

Date: 2007/08/21 12:13:20, Link
Author: franky172
Anyone want to play ID bingo?



Yes, I have too much time on my hands...

p.s. also taking suggestions for improvements to the categories...

Date: 2007/08/21 21:43:10, Link
Author: franky172
Over at UD, the regulars are aghast at the "irony" of PZ's being upset that someone is suing him to stop him from reviewing a book.

Their logic?  

A) Concerned parents successfully sued to stop religious propaganda from being presented in public schools under the flimsy guise of "ID"

B) This is equivalent to suing people who give your book bad reviews on their personal blog

C) Therefore if you think that religious propaganda shouldn't masquerade as science, you lose the right to defend your personal freedom of speech

No, I'm serious.  That's their "logic".

Let me give the UDers a little lesson in "irony".  It would be "ironic" if PZ had previously sued the dingbats at UD to stop posting horseshit on their blog and was now being sued for the contents of his personal blog.

Of course, no scientist has ever tried to sue any IDer for practicing ID or whatever the hell it is they claim to do (I can't call it "science").  No one has sued Dembski, Behe, UD, O'Leary, Morris, or any of the other shining lights of the ID movement to stop reviewing books or writing papers, or doing "research".  However an IDer is now suing PZ to prevent him from posting book reviews on his site.  

How's that for irony?

Date: 2007/08/22 20:31:48, Link
Author: franky172
Sorry for length... this turned into a good break from writing thesis...

I used to think Kairosfocus was somewhat intelligent, it turns out  he failed introductory philosophy, plus he's braying on about how no one can answer his ridiculous claims (see: http://www.uncommondescent.com/humor....33619).  I don't know KF, could it be that no one is responding to you because a) everyone who disagrees is banned from that blog relatively quickly and b) because that's not the subject of the post, nor what anyone else came their to discuss, or c) because your writing is difficult to parse?  No.  It must be your dizzying intellect that has everyone running scared.

In any case, I'll take a stab at showing how wrong KF can be...

He writes:

 
Quote
we all [a] struggle with morality, while implying/  expecting that we are bound by such a law, in turn [c] raising the  question who is the thereby acknowledged Lawgiver?


We can summarize his argument thus:

P1) All people struggle with morality

P2) That we struggle with morality implies that there exists some true set of morals

C) A set of true morals implies a "lawgiver"

P1 is a false premise - psychopaths (amongst others) feel no compassion towards others and are generally believed to lack what we would call any sort of moral compass, which renders the remainder of his argument meaningless, but nevermind...  let's give KF a chance here.

(See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy)

As for (P2) there are two points here that KF wants to make:

P2a) Our shared intuition implies that some "morality" exists

This is obviously false.  That we all have an intuition, gut feeling, or share the same belief about something has no bearing on the truth of the matter. For examples where practically everyone's intuition  misleads them we might consider:

the intuitive notion that heavier objects fall faster, the intuitive but vastly incorrect solution to the Monte-Hall problem (amongst other probability problems), as well as issues with optical illusions, magicians, etc.  

In all these cases our intuition - that we all share - supposes a solution that is absolutely incorrect.  Thus our shared intuition is no guarantee of fact, but this should be obvious.

P2b) Our shared intuition implies "morality" is objective

Even assuming that the premise 2a, that since we all share some intuitive notion of morality this implies a "morality" exists, this argument can not deny the fact that whatever "morality" we see people striving to obtain is determined almost exclusively by that person's social setting and upbringing.  Ask a Jain what is immoral about western life, and he will tell you "everything", and yet KairosFocus seeks to use the Jain's and our "shared sense of morality" to argue for an external and objective moral code.

As for C3, if KairosFocus wants to argue that "since there exists moral law, there must have been a moral law giver", he might save himself the time in formulating faulty arguments P1, P2a, and P2b to prove that moral laws exist and instead just make the following simpler argument: "since the law of gravity exists, there must have been a gravity law giver".  But phrased this way Kairosfocus' argument is obviously silly - we all agree that there exists some law of gravity (at worst we can agree there are approximations to such a law), and yet we can differ wildly on from where this "law" came from - if anywhere.

In summary, P1, P2a, and P2b are false, and in any case, C3 doesn't follow.  

[snip talk of the bible, and point (6), which I can't even parse]

 
Quote
can evolutionary materialism, relative to its premises, properly warrant the credibility of our minds and of morals as a particularly important function of mind?


I'm not sure what KF means here - what does it mean to "warrant the credibility of our minds [...] as a particularly important function of mind?"  Does KF think it's OK if we can "warrant the credibility of our minds and morals as a oh, mediocre-ly important function of mind (relative to the premises, of course)?"

In any case, I think what KF is trying to say here is some form of Plantinga's argument that materialism is what he (Plantiga) calls a "self-defeater", that is believing that materialism is accurate leaves us with no reason to believe that materialism is accurate, because "reason" itself is meaningless in a "materialistic" world.  

I would propose the exact opposite - it is the materialist who has good reason to trust the thoughts he has, and classical theism is the self-defeating proposition.  According to the theory of evolution, the thoughts we have are evolutionarily advantageous - which is a relatively good thing comparatively.  One might counter that an evolutionary materialist does not guarantee that his thoughts directly coincide with some "objective measure of truth", and I would agree - the evolutionary materialist position is that I have these thoughts because they are evolutionarily advantageous, no more.  However the fact that these thoughts were evolutionarily advantageous [b]is a relatively good indicator that at least most of them are "true" in at least some sense</b>.  This is easiest to see in our day-to-day lives - I believe that I am sitting on a chair, typing at a computer.  It is possible that in actuality I am standing up eating a buffalo right now, but it is difficult to imagine how it would be evolutionarily advantageous for me to have this split between my actions and my thoughts, thus I can reasonably conclude that if I am the product of evolution, my thoughts should at least casually reflect most relevant aspects of reality.

On the other hand, it is the [b]classical theist</b> in this regard who is at a loss to explain why he believes his thoughts - he, after all, posits the existence of the great deceiver Satan!  A being so devious he makes *good seem evil and evil seem good* - and the theist, being fallible, [b]has no way to discern between the lies of Satan and the goodness of God.  

Further, for a non-theological argument against the theistic understanding of knowledge - have a theist explain to you why optical illusions work - why, if our knowledge of objective truth is based upon God, are we so very easy to fool again and again and again with simple parlor tricks?  Is God fooled by optical illusions, too?

edit: removed some snarkyness...  no reason to be snarky

Date: 2007/08/23 10:01:33, Link
Author: franky172
Quote (J-Dog @ Aug. 22 2007,21:32)
Quote (franky172 @ Aug. 22 2007,20:31)
Sorry for length... this turned into a good break from writing thesis...

edit: removed some snarkyness... ?no reason to be snarky

Good arguments, you make a heck of a lot more sense than KF ever will, but I say "Keep the Snarkiness"!

We have to put up with all their tard, so they can put up with some snark.  I believe that further research will reveal that snark cures tard, like a rock cures scissors, and paper cures rock.

Actually, you're right, snark most definitely is the cure for tard, but for a dose of levity, does paper really cure rock?

http://www.foundmagazine.com/find/770

Date: 2007/08/23 20:49:05, Link
Author: franky172
Oh dear god.

That's right, folks.  Poor people shouldn't covet.  

\Wanting shiny things?  That's a coveting.

Date: 2007/08/30 15:37:53, Link
Author: franky172
Quote (Louis @ Aug. 30 2007,14:52)
What is lit bluffing (literature bluffing)? Since when is familairity with the relevant literature any kind of bluff?

Maybe I've missed the point. ;)

Louis

The claim that Sal is making is that the literature cited does not support the point being made.

I'm not familiar with the literature, so I am not sure whether it does or doesn't, but Sal appears to be arguing that it does not:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwini....-134868

http://endogenousretrovirus.blogspot.com/2007....ue.html

Date: 2007/09/03 10:04:38, Link
Author: franky172
Quote (J-Dog @ Sep. 01 2007,12:47)
Albatrossity posted an idea on PZ's blog that I think we could consider, since I think that WE provide most of the traffic at UD...

Albatrossity - I like your "Say No To UD Day" idea. Why don't you suggest it at ATBC, pick a date or two, and we'll see what happens.

We might also consider doing this via PM, so we don't tip our hand, and it will be more of a surprise... Too bad we missed Dr. Dr. Demsbski's birthday. Anybody know when Davey's is?

Please discuss and post.

I'd be down for a say no to UD month....

Imagine how productive I would be if I wasn't constantly restraining myself from screaming?  I might even finish this dissertation...

September?  October?

Date: 2007/09/04 07:16:17, Link
Author: franky172
Dr. Koonin wrote a (poorly thought out, and fundamentally flawed, IMHO) paper:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....he-gaps

The basic argument amounts to: "We don't know how this happened, so there must be an infinite number of universes."

Now the IDers are out commenting:
http://www.biology-direct.com/content/2/1/15/comments

I'm partial to this gem:
Quote
since irreducible complexity and gradual evolution are mutually exclusive (cf. the concept of a perpetual motion machine for physics).

huh?

What is this "biology direct" "journal" anyway?  Based on the reviews, I would have thought this paper would be rejected outright.
(see: http://www.biology-direct.com/content/2/1/15#IDA0AXRR)

Date: 2007/09/04 07:17:37, Link
Author: franky172
Oh, wait a minute:

http://www.biology-direct.com/
Quote
Editors-in-Chief:
Eugene V Koonin,
National Center for Biotechnology Information, NIH;

Date: 2007/09/05 08:32:16, Link
Author: franky172
kairosfocus writes:

Quote
Now, WHY does all of this lead to such interesting real-world connexions? Such as, for example, the Fourier and Laplace transform and the world of frequency and dynamical responses of systems?

Because we developed a mathematics that describes accurately the world around us.  If we lived in a different world, or wanted to describe things differently we would have different math.

Quote
In short, why is Math ? an issue of mind and abstract logic ? so elegant and magical, with capacity to refer to observed reality?

Because if it weren't, we wouldn't call it math - we'd call what ever else refers to the real world "math", and consider that "elegant and magical".  The ancient Greeks had math, too - it was hardly elegant or magical.

As an aside I'd suggest that anyone who's ever tried to do Bayesian analysis without conjugate priors and who still calls all of mathematics "elegant" is off his rocker.

Date: 2007/09/25 18:06:48, Link
Author: franky172
<b>Bornagain77</b> continues lying about ERV's essay.

http://calitreview.com/2007....olution

Date: 2007/10/29 09:14:31, Link
Author: franky172
DaveScot thinks this is funny:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/humor....bellion

Actually, it's just poorly thought out argument by assertion by Mr. Giles.  Let's take a look:

Quote
I think the atheists believe in not believing, however, not because they’re intellectual little dandies but because they want to be autonomous, loose and randy.

Yet atheists have lower divorce rates than their born-again counterparts.  But I realize Mr. Giles isn't interested in facts; and neither is UncommonDescent.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm

Quote
Look, I’m not buying that the atheists’ altruistic self-professed pursuit of reason is what undergirds their conclusion that God does not exist;

We each see in each other what is in ourselves.

Quote
I believe it’s because they want to believe that they’ll never be called into eternal accountability for their temporal actions by a holy God. Talk about an opiate for the masses!

The opiate is now "death and worm food"?  Christians promist everlasting life, and eternal pleasure, and atheists believe we become worm food.  Ask yourself honestly - if an atheist genuinely believed in God, heaven, and hell, how opiatic does worm food sound?  Unfortunately most atheists consider the evidence and conclude that the places Mr. Giles is so certain we are antsy to avoid thinking about just aren't there.

Quote
I’m an idiot.

I can't comment on Mr. Giles overall intelligence, but he certainly argues like one.

Quote
You remember Epi, don’t cha? His whole goal was to “get rid of the gods.” He and his other pre-Socratic “thinkers” like Lucretius and Democritus didn’t like all that duty and responsibility to higher powers and fellow mortals crap.

Epicurius was convinced that the myths of the Greeks involving the gods coming to earth and impregnating humans giving rise to super-humans was sheer folly.  I can see how his rejection of the myths of ancient Greece might be infuriating to Mr. Giles.  Or is Mr. Giles' point that Epicurius was right to reject the myths of his time?

Edit: <i> to quote, forgot I'm not on Fark.

Date: 2007/10/29 09:51:48, Link
Author: franky172
Patrick is confused.  He thinks that the fact that CQ resistance came about in a gradual manner is good for ID.

Quote
The interesting thing about the Darwinist commentators on Amazon is that they were so focused on “we must prove Behe to be wrong somehow” that they fail to realize they’re shooting themselves in the foot. If CQ resistance did indeed come about by a 2-part gradual scenario then that does is make this example of the “all-mighty powers of Darwinian mechanisms” even more trivial than before! After all, a direct stepwise scenario is much more likely to occur than one that requires simultaneous changes or an indirect pathway.


IDer: We've found hard limits to the ToE that prove that ID is true without resorting to arguments about how wonderfully complex life is.

Scientist: But your argument is flawed, the thing you're looking at didn't come about in the way you imagined, and Darwinian processes can produce these things easily.

IDer: A - ha!  So Darwinism is false!  Look at how complex life is!

Date: 2007/10/29 11:28:43, Link
Author: franky172
Quote (steve_h @ Oct. 29 2007,11:12)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 29 2007,15:55)
DaveTard:


http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-144711

   
Quote
39

DaveScot

10/29/2007

1:47 am
leo

As soon as I saw a Monty Python cartoon appearing in Sean Carrol’s review of Edge of Evolution I stopped reading. Anyone who needs to resort to Monty Python in a scientific argument can be safely ignored as not having any legs to stand on.


How do you feel about farting flash, Dave?

Evolutionary Theory and Monty Python’s Black Knight, Dembski:  
Quote
Just as Monty Python’s Black Knight was whittled from a full human to a stump, so evolutionary theory is finally being whittled to its proper size. Where, in the whittling of the Black Knight, is evolutionary theory (stage I, II, III, IV, or V?):


The Problem of Improvable Design DaveScot:
 
Quote
The story of King Arther and the Black Knight would have been much more entertaining if people could regrow lost limbs too!

http://www.rit.edu/~smo4215/monty.htm#Scene%204

By the way, I think there’s an analogy between Arthur (ID) and the Black Knight (evolution) to be made here.


Glen Davidson - Candidate for Stupid Question of the Year, DaveScot:
 
Quote
Thanks for showing us all the 5 D’s of Darwinism, by the way. Dodge, duck, dip, dive, and dodge! You’re not good at it but I’ll give you an A for persistence and no matter how big an ass I make of you, you keep coming back for more. Have you ever seen The Black Knight in “Monty Python and the Holy Grail”? That’s you Glen, the Black Knight. It’s only a flesh wound. Don’t stop now. You can still try to bite my legs.  -ds


Darwinism the Invincible Douglas Moran

spectacular.

Date: 2007/10/29 11:52:19, Link
Author: franky172
Quote (Altabin @ Oct. 29 2007,11:47)
Quote (Hermagoras @ Oct. 29 2007,18:32)
 
Quote (Altabin @ Oct. 29 2007,09:38)
   
Quote (franky172 @ Oct. 29 2007,16:14)
       
Quote
You remember Epi, don’t cha? His whole goal was to “get rid of the gods.” He and his other pre-Socratic “thinkers” like Lucretius and Democritus didn’t like all that duty and responsibility to higher powers and fellow mortals crap.

Epicurius was convinced that the myths of the Greeks involving the gods coming to earth and impregnating humans giving rise to super-humans was sheer folly.  I can see how his rejection of the myths of ancient Greece might be infuriating to Mr. Giles.  Or is Mr. Giles' point that Epicurius was right to reject the myths of his time?

Edit: <i> to quote, forgot I'm not on Fark.

Not to mention that, of all the ancient schools of philosophy, the Epicureans were renowned for living good, morally blameless lives, yet not being prigs about it.  Even their philosophical opponents who rejected their criterion for happiness (pleasure) -- especially the Stoics -- had to admit, ruefully, that the Epicureans couldn't be touched for the way they actually led their lives.

A hint: "pleasure" didn't mean shopping and f#cking.

Also, neither Democritus nor Epicurus is "pre-Socratic."  What the hell, Lucretius, who was primarily a poet, was Roman and lived several hundred years after Socrates.  His De rerum natura is a great philosophical poem in the epic mode.

Missed that in the original.

Here's a few nice quotes from Epicurus's Principal Doctrines:
 
Quote

1)  A blessed and imperishable being neither has trouble itself nor does it cause trouble for anyone else; therefore, it does not experience feelings of anger or indebtedness, for such feelings signify weakness.

5)  It is impossible to live pleasantly without living wisely and honorably and justly, and it is impossible to live wisely and honorably and justly without living pleasantly. Whenever any one of these is lacking (when, for instance, one is not able to live wisely, though he lives honorably and justly) it is impossible for him to live a pleasant life.

12)  One cannot rid himself of his primal fears if he does not understand the nature of the universe but instead suspects the truth of some mythical story.  So without the study of nature, there can be no enjoyment of pure pleasure.

There's more wisdom and good advice there than in a stack of bibles.

No, no, no!  Mr. Giles just told me that atheists are atheists because they want to be loose and randy and Epicurius didn't have anything smart to say - he just didn’t like "all that duty and responsibility to higher powers and fellow mortals crap".

/damn evidence

Date: 2007/10/29 14:44:37, Link
Author: franky172
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 29 2007,14:27)
Quote
Every bone in my body says that the maximum mutations an organism can take and be protected by natural selection is 1


Do these idiots beset other fields? Are there websites where alternative astronomers demand that the moon is only 780 meters above the earth, or alternative aeronautical forums where people assert the DC-9 is primarily composed of Velveeta? Or is it just evolution?

Yeah, but if your "bones" tell you that the moon is 780 meters away, well, you know... that makes sense.

Date: 2007/10/30 12:36:15, Link
Author: franky172
Now that Anthony Flew believes in a God, the IDers love him.  Dembski quotes some of "There Is a God" here:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/philoso....he-game

Now I am certainly not as much a philosopher of Dr. Flew, but some of the points he makes seem like the rantings of someone who never understood the atheism he espoused:

Quote
I therefore put to my former fellow-atheists the simple central question: ‘What would have to occur or to have occurred to constitute for you a reason to at least consider the existence of a superior Mind?

What kind of atheist was Flew if he never "at least considered" the existence of a "superior mind"?  I am an atheist and "consider the existence of a superior mind" daily; I consistently fail to find reason to believe in such a thing, however.

Flew goes on to posit three "evidences" for God:
Quote
The first is the fact that nature obeys laws.

What else would nature obey?

Quote
The second is the dimension of life, of intelligently organized and purpose-driven beings, which arose from matter.

So since we don't know how the first self-replicating creatures were formed, God?  Or is Dr. Flew trying to make a different point here?

Quote
The third is the very existence of nature.

What else would exist?

Quote
I have also been helped by a renewed study of the classical philosophical arguments.

The argument from ontology, perhaps?  Perhaps the argument from first cause?  Shocking stuff.

Date: 2007/10/31 10:38:43, Link
Author: franky172
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 31 2007,07:51)
"BarryA":

 
Quote

The class is assigned the task of identifying their blunder.


Heng and Green make the same error that Dembski and Marks do in misrepresenting Dawkins's "weasel" program. "Weasel" doesn't "fix" correct letters; all positions are open to mutation at every copy operation.

Added: I have sent an email to Prof. Green about the problem with the webpage.

And evolution works even without a "goal"
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/09/genetic_algorit.html#more
http://www.zachriel.com/mutagenation/

my own humble addition:

http://www.duke.edu/~pat7/public/htm/gaWordPt2.html

For some reason the IDers like to pretend these don't exist...

Date: 2007/11/01 10:51:07, Link
Author: franky172
Gil Dodgen has opined on the relative value of Zachriel's word Mutagenation program.  Of course Zach is quite capable of pointing out the numerous idiotic comments in Dodgen's reply, but I can't help jumping on the bandwagon pre-emptively.

Dodgen starts out:

 
Quote
I downloaded the simulation and looked at the source code. It is written in a programming language with which I am extremely familiar because I used it to develop the mission planner for our company’s guided airdrop system.

Yes, we are all impressed by your ability to write simulations.  

And continues:
 
Quote
I had to chuckle.

He then spends the next 4 paragraphs describing the binary search implemented to make the dictionary lookup (read: fitness evaluation) efficient.  What does this prove?
It proves that Dodgen knows what a binary search is - i.e. Dodgen took a second semester programming course.  What does it say about the relevance of Word Mutagenation as a model of evolutionary biology?  NOTHING.  The efficiency of the algorithm for determining word fitness has NOTHING to do with the fact that Word Mutagenation finds words via RM+NS.  (Much like my own humble additions do here:
http://www.duke.edu/~pat7/public/htm/gaWordPt2.html
and here:
http://www.duke.edu/~pat7/public/htm/sample.html)

Dodgen continues:
 
Quote
None of this has anything to do with biological Darwinian evolution.

But Dodgen has moved the goalposts - the author of the e-mail didn't want ot simulate biological evolution - he wanted to show that RM+NS was an effective search strategy - which he did.

Tell us again about mutating the hardware Dodgen, that at least was funny.

(edit: link fixed)

Date: 2007/11/01 11:19:16, Link
Author: franky172
Quote (Venus Mousetrap @ Nov. 01 2007,11:04)
Quote (franky172 @ Nov. 01 2007,10:51)
Gil Dodgen has opined on the relative value of Zachriel's word Mutagenation program.  Of course Zach is quite capable of pointing out the numerous idiotic comments in Dodgen's reply, but I can't help jumping on the bandwagon pre-emptively.

Dodgen starts out:

   
Quote
I downloaded the simulation and looked at the source code. It is written in a programming language with which I am extremely familiar because I used it to develop the mission planner for our company’s guided airdrop system.

That's that weird parachute anecdote I was remembering.

By the way, your word GA looks really good :)

Gil loves to talk about parachutes.  Which is fine, I like to talk about my work, too.  But Dodgen comes off like he's showing off - what does the fact that he does air-dropping simulations have to do with anything?

re: the GA, thanks!  I think all the code is available for messin around with; you need MATLAB though...

Date: 2007/11/01 11:33:09, Link
Author: franky172
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 01 2007,11:21)
Quote (franky172 @ Nov. 01 2007,10:51)
Gil Dodgen has opined on the relative value of Zachriel's word Mutagenation program.  Of course Zach is quite capable of pointing out the numerous idiotic comments in Dodgen's reply, but I can't help jumping on the bandwagon pre-emptively.

Dodgen starts out:

   
Quote
I downloaded the simulation and looked at the source code. It is written in a programming language with which I am extremely familiar because I used it to develop the mission planner for our company’s guided airdrop system.

Yes, we are all impressed by your ability to write simulations.  

And continues:
   
Quote
I had to chuckle.

He then spends the next 4 paragraphs describing the binary search implemented to make the dictionary lookup (read: fitness evaluation) efficient.  What does this prove?
It proves that Dodgen knows what a binary search is - i.e. Dodgen took a second semester programming course.  What does it say about the relevance of Word Mutagenation as a model of evolutionary biology?  NOTHING.  The efficiency of the algorithm for determining word fitness has NOTHING to do with the fact that Word Mutagenation finds words via RM+NS.  (Much like my own humble additions do here:
http://www.duke.edu/~pat7/public/htm/gaWordPt2.html
and here:
http://www.duke.edu/~pat7/public/htm/sample.html)

Dodgen continues:
   
Quote
None of this has anything to do with biological Darwinian evolution.

But Dodgen has moved the goalposts - the author of the e-mail didn't want ot simulate biological evolution - he wanted to show that RM+NS was an effective search strategy - which he did.

Tell us again about mutating the hardware Dodgen, that at least was funny.

(edit: link fixed)

I was that author. I've emailed Barry, who has been polite in our conversations to be fair to him, to ask if Zach. would be permitted to reply to this, erm, 'critique'.

Oh, I have no doubt that both Barry and Gil are polite, and probably decent fellows, I don't begrudge them that.

Sorry if my critique here is out of place or if you (and Zach) would like me to refrain from critiquing this "critique" until this plays out over at UD.

Date: 2007/11/01 11:45:54, Link
Author: franky172
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 01 2007,11:38)
Quote

you need MATLAB though...


Are the scripts dependent on features GNU Octave doesn't have yet?

As far as I know, the scripts shoule be Octave-compatible, but I haven't played with Octave in quite some time.

The only things I was concerned about were the cell-array bits of code used for the dictionary storage / look up, and it looks like Octave can rock the cell arrays.  The only other code in there that might be MATLAB specific is the plotting code.

I think the code (excluding the dictionary look ups) is simple enough that mods are easy to make if anything untoward happens in Octave.  (Just let me know if you find Octave issues and I'll try to find ways around em)

As a side note, I have a much more generic GA toolbox that uses MATLAB objects (not included in the code on the webpage) that can do pretty much anything :)  If anyone wants that, it's pretty Beta, but I've been able to run a bunch of interesting experiments with it....  (That definitely can not be used in Octave b/c of the MATLAB objects)

Date: 2007/11/01 14:12:34, Link
Author: franky172
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-145560

God bless NoChange and rrf.

Date: 2007/11/01 15:40:48, Link
Author: franky172
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Nov. 01 2007,15:40)
Quote (Hermagoras @ Nov. 01 2007,15:32)
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Nov. 01 2007,15:18)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 01 2007,14:53)
My goodness, BFast has begun thinking!

He should be very careful, that thinking can lead to all sorts of trouble.  For starters it will get him banned from UD.

Speaking of which, Mickey Bitsko is not long for that world.  He managed to post a comment that says    
Quote
the concept of CSI involves inescapable circular reasoning.

I'm opening the betting table now.  Weekends are slow at UD, so I'll put the over-under on Bitsko's bannination at 4 days (Monday 5 November).

Assuming he posts at least one comment each day I'll take the under.

He's toast for sure.  A dead man walking as they say.

I say he won't survive tomorrow (Friday the 2nd..)

Date: 2007/11/01 17:26:53, Link
Author: franky172
OK.  It's time to thank Patrick for illustrating that ID has been fighting a straw man version of the ToE for the past, oh 10 years.  It's really illuminating when someone posts a "challenge" that illustrates they don't understand what they're talking about.

UDers: GA's can't create information.

Scientists: Yes they can, here are one million examples.

UDers: You snuck information in.

Scientists: Where?

UDers: Uh... Well show me a GA that can make words; like Dembski says  - that's impossible.

ATBC: Here are several examples.

UDers: Well show me a GA that can make impossible jumps over state space without intermediaries in an extremely sparse search space.

Scientists: That's not going to work; no one thinks evolution works that way.

Patrick: Ha!  GA THIS, SUCKERS!

Date: 2007/11/01 17:28:26, Link
Author: franky172
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 01 2007,17:27)
Patrick is all excited.
Zachriel’s program (and other similar programs randomly generating phrases) don’t challenge IC because the target phrases do not have functioning precursors.
Did anybody mention IC anyway?

When in doubt, switch from nothing can generate CSI to nothing can generate IC and hope no one notices.

edit: i've had a slow day :)

Date: 2007/11/01 18:03:27, Link
Author: franky172
Leo we hardly knew yee.

that's it for today; I swear

Date: 2007/11/01 21:15:47, Link
Author: franky172
I think I've uncovered a disconnect between the way people who are coding up these genetic algorithms (GAs) and IDers are discussing the issues at hand.  It was actually re-reading Dembski's paper on "active information" that broight this to light (we'll ignore the tautological nature of Dembski's "active information" for the time being).  

Dembski spends a significant amount of effort pointing out (ad nauseum) that GAs and other search techniques can not violate the NFLT.  NFLT is interesting, so we'll take an aside to talk about it for anyone who hasn't grasped it yet  -  The NFLT basically state the following - averaged over all possible search spaces, any search algorithm is as good as any other search algorithm.  This leads to what seems to be a very counter-intuitive result, namely that averaged over all possible fitness landscapes, a *hill climbing* algorithm is as effective as a *hill descending* algorithm *for finding local maxima*.  At first glance this result seems highly unusual.  But deeper reflection on the first clause "averaged over all possible fitness landscapes" gives you a clue as to what is going on here.

It turns out that almost all (I mean that in the formal sense: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almost_all) of the possible fitness functions in the phrase "averaged over all fitness functions" look absolutely nothing like any "function" you've ever seen - notably, *almost all* error surfaces are nowhere differentiable and nowhere continuous.  Now consider a search over such a space (having trouble imagining it?  surf(rand(100)); in MATLAB will give you a vague notion), and it's obvious that no matter where you are, you have no idea where to go next to find the maximum.  In otherwords, walking "uphill" will do no better than waling "downhill" in general.  So that maybe explains the NFLT...  This ends the NFLT aside.

In any case, Dembski is constantly pointing something out - namely that no algorithm can violate NFLT (I think there are restrictions on the kinds of algos this applies to, but nevermind).  And Dembski is correct - nothing violates NFLT as far as we know.  Dembski takes this to mean that all search algorithms are therefore overall useless, and any time any search algorithm does any better than random chance some clever programmer somewhere input special (CSI, IC, whatever) information into their code.  

Thus the claims on UD that programs like word mutagenation and other GAs that implement very basic crossover and mutation on strings must be "sneaking information in" because they appear to be violating NFLT!  But the point of these GA's that programmers are throwing together to show IDers how wrong they are is not to violate NFLT - we are quite aware that we can't violate it.  The point of these algorithms is that *the search spaces of interest to us (word spaces, etc) are nothing like the nowhere continuous and nowhere differentiable surfaces that give rise to NFLT*.  In other words, the world we live in is filled with error surfaces very conducive to genetic-algorithm based search strategies (and gradient searches, branch and bound searches, etc).

That's why in Patrick's newest post he posits a search problem that is very difficult for a GA to solve and says "A ha!  You can't solve this, so GA's aren't universal problem solving tools".  But this misses the point - of course GAs aren't universal problem solving tools - NFLT says they can't be!  The point is that for most problems of interest to us, GAs perform well.

Date: 2007/11/02 08:04:24, Link
Author: franky172
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 01 2007,21:43)
Quote

In any case, Dembski is constantly pointing something out - namely that no algorithm can violate NFLT (I think there are restrictions on the kinds of algos this applies to, but nevermind).  And Dembski is correct - nothing violates NFLT as far as we know.  Dembski takes this to mean that all search algorithms are therefore overall useless, and any time any search algorithm does any better than random chance some clever programmer somewhere input special (CSI, IC, whatever) information into their code.


Dembski in one sense believes NFL is more powerful than it really is, and in another sense completely fails to comprehend its reach. When we talk about NFL, we usually do so in the context of computer algorithm design, but NFL actually applies to any effective method. That includes any procedure that a putative intelligent agent may come up with.

That is a very cool point of NFL I had totally missed.  So NFLT tells us that there isn't any way to do anything in general!

Again, the disconnect is the fact that IDers want to say "there's no way to do anything in general", and everyone else is saying "but we don't care about 'in general'; we care about the problems we care about".

IDers are focussed on discussing the fact that *algorithms* are crappy.  Everyone else is amazed that the *search spaces* we care about are so nice.

Date: 2007/11/02 14:59:36, Link
Author: franky172
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 02 2007,14:32)
Probably the best example of "not getting the concept":

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-145772

It's seriously difficult to believe that Gil is really not getting this.

Date: 2007/11/05 16:54:48, Link
Author: franky172
Quote (Altabin @ Nov. 05 2007,14:45)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 05 2007,15:40)
DaveTard:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/science....-146112

     
Quote
24

DaveScot

11/05/2007

9:29 am
getawitness

I see you got around to asking the notorious question “Who designed the designer?” The answer is we don’t know and we have no empirical evidence from which to infer any answers. Confined to the question of origin of life on earth we have lots of empirical evidence - enough to warrant a design inference. I have yet to see anything about life on earth that requires a non-material designer but rather at a minimum a designer with some rather advanced (beyond current human technology) skills in biochemistry. This doesn’t rule out a designer with more than just highly developed biochemistry technology but by the same token it doesn’t require more than that either.

In another application of ID say we examine a piece of fling and determine it’s an arrowhead. What can we infer about the designer from that? We can infer a designer with some skill in knapping flint. We might be able to determine roughly when it was made from its context. But there is a lot we can’t infer about the designer. We can reasonably presume the designer was a human because they are known to have produced arrowheads provided the context supports human presence (i.e. we didn’t find the arrowhead on the planet Mars or embedded in billion year-old strata). Beyond that we simply have no empirical data to infer anything. We don’t know the age or gender of the designer, whether he/she had children or how many, what the designer died of, or really anything else at all. Biological origins are like that only we have even less to go on. We can infer it was designed and can infer a minimum skill set required to accomplish the design but, based on the evidence we have to work with today, we can infer no more. Trying to make further inferences is no more than an exercise of narrative invention (story telling).


Emphasis mine.

Poor Dave can't even play his own game. Knapping is a mechanism. If the flint was perfectly honed at a molecular level, that'd be a different designer with different capabilities. There a a few ways you can sharpen a flint;  by smashing  with another heavy object, by placing a flint in a fire and having it "explode" along lines of moisture in the flint or by Pressure Flaking if you're a bit more sophisticated. Each one will give you a different flint..

OK, here's my response to Dave - not too long-winded, I hope.

Look at this:



This is a plate from Athanasius Kircher's work On light and shadow, a seventeenth-century work on optics and, more broadly, any kind of radiation.  (Clipped from Paula Findlen's seminal article "Jokes of Nature and Jokes of Knowledge: The Playfulness of Scientific Discourse in Early Modern Europe").

Kircher reproduces here stones that have been shaped "by the effort of nature the painter" - so-called "figured stones" that, through the action of nature have taken on shapes that are meaningful to us.  Here Kircher depicts an entire alphabet of stones; in the upper left-hand corner you see an entire cityscape revealed upon splitting a rock (this sort of figured stone was very popular in Renaissance and early-modern museums, particularly if the picture happened to resemble the city in which the museum was located).

There is a huge, and rich modern literature out there about the place of these fortuitous patterns in medieval and early-modern science.  In general, though, our predecessors were all agreed that such things were not the work of intelligence.  They weren't crazy; they didn't imagine that Jesus, or some other disembodied telic entity was out there making little sculptures to amuse them.

They explained these objects in a variety of ways.  Some thought that they were simply accidents - but most people considered that a bit of a cop out.  Others argued that since the planets strongly influenced the development of minerals in the ground, they could also shape them in ways meaningful to humans.  After all, if a particular combination of planets could affect the destiny of Strasbourg, surely the same combination could make a stone look like Strasbourg.

Others, finally, thought that God had set up nature to be overflowing with creativity - a kind of exuberance that exhibited itself through visual pun and experiment (the topic of Paula F.'s paper).

Whatever the explanation, though, they were convinced that these were objects explicable within nature.  They had not been shaped by supernatural forces, still less by human hands.

Now take a look like this:



This is an ancient cameo, carved in the 3rd century BC.  It depicts the Hellenistic king Ptolemy II, and his sister and wife Arsinoe II.   It is one of the great masterpieces of ancient crafts.

When Albert the Great wrote his book On minerals in the 13th century, he described this very gem, then decorating a reliquary in Cologne (after passing through many owners, it is now in St Petersburg).

What is crucial, though, is that he explained the cameo as a natural object.  He went to considerable length to show how a combination of earthly "exhalations," flowing waters and planetary influence could have given rise to these patterns so similar to human figures.

It was the same sort of thing as the other figured stones he discussed -- a natural object, needing a natural explanation.  He did not seriously consider that it was made by a human being, since there was no known technology that could have produced such incredibly fine detailing on a tiny piece of stone.

Albert was not stupid - quite the opposite.  His false conclusion was an argument to the best explanation - because he knew of no human agent that could produce such a thing.

Thus all of Dave's talk about recognizing that flints are designed objects is simply nonsense.  The "designedness" of flints does not assert itself directly to us.  We only infer that they are designed because we know an awful lot about the designer -- us -- and what s/he is capable of doing.  If we believed that humans were incapable of making such things, we would conclude that some other agent or natural process was responsible for them.

To labor the point once again: unless we have a similar information about the designer, we cannot in principle infer biological design - at least not without falling into the same sort of error as poor old Albert.

very nicely done

Date: 2007/11/13 21:52:34, Link
Author: franky172
getawitness is mopping the floor with some people; I'm not sure his stance on the ID/crevo debate, but he writes clearly and makes concise points (See, KairosFocus, that's how you do that)

Date: 2007/11/15 08:37:13, Link
Author: franky172
Quote (J-Dog @ Nov. 15 2007,07:59)
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 15 2007,07:09)
What should concern people about the denizens of UD is NOT that they might be sockpuppets and thus we get egg on our faces for taking them at their word, but that there is a very real possibility that they are not, and thus are sincere.

Louis

Louis - I don't think it is us that gets egg on our faces for all the UD sock-puppitry - it is UD and it's fawning sycophanticthropes that are exposed.

We (Or at least some of us) are having fun by out -IDing the IDers, and out Jesus-ng the BA77's.  If they can't tell our puppets from the "real" UD posters, what does that say about them?

I just learned of this yesterday and thought it appropriate:

Poe's Law
Quote

In other words, No matter how bizzare, outrageous, or just plain idiotic a parody of a Fundamentalist may seem, there will always be someone who cannot tell that it is a parody, having seen similar REAL ideas from real religious/political Fundamentalists.

Date: 2007/11/15 22:22:35, Link
Author: franky172
Prediction: DaveScot will ride in from the east tomorrow AM, perform a massive bannination, and say something to the effect of: "This is why you need me, your Czar!  You are lost without me!"

Date: 2007/11/16 12:47:11, Link
Author: franky172
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 16 2007,12:20)
They're still banging on about "active information".

I would suggest that the "active information", ie the selection process resides in the environment itself and so poses no real problem for evolution.

I think you are correct - "active information" is supposed to tell us how much better any search does than a search over all possible fitness landscapes, which is equivalent to asking "how much worse does this search do over a pathologically difficult search space" (since almost all search spaces are pathologically difficult).   Of course no one cares how well searches do over all these insane spaces; we only care about how well searches do over physically realistic search spaces - i.e. spaces like our own where life is generally good.

As far as I can tell, Dembski's "active information" critique of genetic algorithms is the equivalent of complaining because RM+NS doesn't produce life in a vacuum.

Date: 2007/11/19 09:40:38, Link
Author: franky172
Quote (Venus Mousetrap @ Nov. 19 2007,09:11)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Nov. 19 2007,08:04)
Well, at least we still have YoungCosmos, even though nobody is allowed to comment there except Ftk and Slimey Sal.

I get the feeling that FtK is still upset with some/all of us. Sal writes on the realities of sex change operations in the context of Jon/Joan Roughgarden    
Quote
Will other Darwinists follow suit and have themselves neutered like Roughgarden?   How about it PZ or Ed Brayton, or the boys at ATBC?  Of course, this will inhibit the passing of their genes, and thus, such Darwinists evidence themselves as being biologically unfit.  The irony is that with a high incidence of homosexuality in Darwinian circles, they demonstrate themselves to be biologically unfit.

The irony! It's almost like us Darwinists aren't using the scientific theory of evolution as a lifestyle guide at all!

bwa-ha-ha!

Date: 2007/11/25 10:20:39, Link
Author: franky172
Quote (Zachriel @ Nov. 24 2007,16:35)
Someone help me out. On Evolutionary Informatics I see this snippet:

Quote
"The inability of any evolutionary search procedure to perform better than average indicate[s] the importance of incorporating problem-specific knowledge into the behavior of the [search] algorithm.

--David Wolpert and William G. Macready, "No free lunch theorems for optimization", IEEE Trans. Evol. Comp. 1(1) (1997): 67-82.

I'm looking at Wolpert and Macready's paper right now and cannot find that quote. Am I going blind?


----------------------
Added:

I found this quote, "These same results also indicate the importance of  incorporating problem-specific knowledge into the behavior of the algorithm."

A search of the PDF doesn't show any of these terms: "inability", "evolutionary search" or "better than average".

I also can't find the word "inability" in the PDF.  Although I haven't read the paper carefully for the quote yet; maybe tonight.

Date: 2007/12/07 09:14:20, Link
Author: franky172
Quote (carlsonjok @ Dec. 07 2007,04:58)
Quote (ERV @ Dec. 06 2007,22:23)
     
Quote (dheddle @ Dec. 06 2007,21:50)
Although Peter Irons said the exact same thing I did in a post I had on The Design of Life, namely that it is a vanity publication, I would say his review is even worse than Kwok's. I look foward to some evolutionary biologists actually reading the book and penning a proper stone-cold, substantive review.

Well, its 'Pandas and People Part II'.  Its the 'same' damn book with a different cover and two different 'authors'.  There is going to be nothing in that book we havent seen over and over and over and over and some retarded Christian is going to see those GLOWING reviews and say "HEY! This should be part of OUR curriculum!" and then we get another DOVER..

Do you now understand Kwoks review?  Do you understand why bringing up Dover and high schools is important?  Do you see why Dembski spasmed at Kowks review?  Do you even undertand that reading another ID book on the same damn shit is pointless?

Whats the revelation?  Whats the new idea in 'Design' that none of us have seen before?  We could all recite chapters of 'Design' right now, without ever reading a damn page.

I tried, perhaps too gently, to answer this question before.  So, perhaps I should try again.

As someone who has sat on the sidelines since Dover watching the game and heckling the IDers, let me start by saying that commenting on books that haven't been read is something Dembski does (as you have noted).  Presuming to comment on papers by reading only the title or abstract is a tactic only worthy of a Sal Cordova or Denyse O'Leary.  I expect a better approach to scholarship from the pro-science side. So, who am I to make such demands on you?  Well, I am an reasonably educated adult that is neither a fundamentalist True Believer ™ nor involved in the life sciences in any manner whatsoever.  In short, people just like me are the battleground in this fight.  

The science will stand on its own merits, but public policy stands on the credibility of its proponents. And, on the public policy front, reviewing books that haven't been read is not a way to make inroads with people like me.  It just doesn't matter that you are absolutely certain it is the same old, warmed over BS. All that matters is that public policy discussions should be kept on substantive point.  And things like this hand the opposition the ability to easily poison the well. It may well be the only ability they have, but it is the only ability they need.  The fact that 'Billy did it too' does not bring the debate back on point and does nothing to regain lost credibility.  

You'll never do anything to win over the Dembski's of the world or their gaggle of hangers-on. Nor will you likely ever do anything to lose the knowledgeable scientists of the world.  But, you can lose the large middle ground, where people like me reside and public policy gets decided, with stunts like this.

worth repeating.

Date: 2007/12/13 20:07:16, Link
Author: franky172
Quote (Touchstone @ Dec. 13 2007,19:50)
Quote (Touchstone @ Dec. 13 2007,19:47)
Just for grins, I brewed up a set of spoof "inspirational posters" for the Intelligent Design d00dz as part of some good-natured jousting on an email loop I'm on.  Just thought I'd share a couple here.






More at my blog here.

-TS

Whoops, sorry 'bout that. Guess I have to link to the large-format pic.





link

-Touchstone

Spectacular!

I'm partial to Consilience.... what?

Date: 2007/12/13 21:13:59, Link
Author: franky172
Quote (Touchstone @ Dec. 13 2007,20:16)
Quote (franky172 @ Dec. 13 2007,20:07)
Quote (Touchstone @ Dec. 13 2007,19:50)
 
Quote (Touchstone @ Dec. 13 2007,19:47)
Just for grins, I brewed up a set of spoof "inspirational posters" for the Intelligent Design d00dz as part of some good-natured jousting on an email loop I'm on.  Just thought I'd share a couple here.






More at my blog here.

-TS

Whoops, sorry 'bout that. Guess I have to link to the large-format pic.





link

-Touchstone

Spectacular!

I'm partial to Consilience.... what?

Thanks,

Sorry about the link bummage. Not sure what voodoo I'm missing on IMG tags here, but I can't edit, so folks can click over if they wanna have a look.

-Touchstone

It looks like blogger.com doesn't allow hot-linking - i.e. you can't direct link to pics from other sites.  For example, I can't link to your pics using <img src =""> also.

Try hosting them on any of the free image hosting sites like Flickr or photobucket...

Date: 2007/12/14 07:24:37, Link
Author: franky172
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

Quote (Bob O'H @ Dec. 14 2007,00:59)
Quote (Annyday @ Dec. 13 2007,23:37)
Quote (franky172 @ Dec. 13 2007,21:13)
 
Quote (Touchstone @ Dec. 13 2007,20:16)
 
Quote (franky172 @ Dec. 13 2007,20:07)
   
Quote (Touchstone @ Dec. 13 2007,19:50)
   
Quote (Touchstone @ Dec. 13 2007,19:47)
Just for grins, I brewed up a set of spoof "inspirational posters" for the Intelligent Design d00dz as part of some good-natured jousting on an email loop I'm on.  Just thought I'd share a couple here.






More at my blog here.

-TS

Whoops, sorry 'bout that. Guess I have to link to the large-format pic.





link

-Touchstone

Spectacular!

I'm partial to Consilience.... what?

Thanks,

Sorry about the link bummage. Not sure what voodoo I'm missing on IMG tags here, but I can't edit, so folks can click over if they wanna have a look.

-Touchstone

It looks like blogger.com doesn't allow hot-linking - i.e. you can't direct link to pics from other sites.  For example, I can't link to your pics using <img src =""> also.

Try hosting them on any of the free image hosting sites like Flickr or photobucket...

I'll be honest, I just wanted to add another quote box into to the mix. I have nothing to say.

Oh dear, oh dear.  We all kjnow what's going to happen now.
Bob

What?

Date: 2008/01/03 09:14:15, Link
Author: franky172
Quote (Zachriel @ Jan. 03 2008,09:00)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Jan. 03 2008,06:56)
   
Quote (Bob O'H @ Jan. 03 2008,01:06)
If you can drag yourselves away from the Sal/FtK show, the regulars are getting creamed on the NFL thread.

Well, I gotta admit that I don't follow the math arguments over there, but I did find this quote (from Semiotic007) to be priceless.        
Quote
I realize that Meester gives you some juicy quotes. But the technical content of the paper is atrocious. Are the quotes worth so much to you that you are willing to champion garbage?

The answer to that question, as we all know, is "Yes!"

All Science So Far!

It takes a special commitment to T.A.R.D. to sustain the thrashing being delivered by Semiotic 007. Meanwhile, kairos shows he doesn't understand what constitutes an appeal to authority.

Quote
kairos: I observe that both Haggstrom and Meester DID NOT cite what David Wolpert (who did invent NFLT) wrote in his paper on IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation), Dec. 2005: “in the typical coevolutionary scenarios encountered in biology, where there is no champion, the NFL theorems still hold.”

Semiotic 007: You’re engaged in the logical fallacy known as appeal to authority. Would you care to quote their argument in support of this conclusion? You won’t find it.

An appeal to authority is valid when

* The cited authority has sufficient expertise.
* The authority is making a statement within their area of expertise.
* The area of expertise is a valid field of study.
* There is adequate agreement among authorities in the field.
* There is no evidence of undue bias.

But authority is not infallable, and the proper argument against a valid appeal to authority is to the evidence.


In this case, there is not adequate agreement in the field, the expert's remark seems offhand, and Semiotic 007 correctly asks for the actual argument. Just because Fermat—as great a mathematician as he was—scribbles in the margin of Arithmetica that he has a theorem doesn't mean citing the mythical theorem constitutes a valid appeal to authority.

Quote
kairos: Are you sure? Really this is not the case. That citation is in a paper that is all dedicated to show how NFLT DO NOT hold in some coevolution cases, precisely when there’s a champion. At the end of this paper Wolpert (who was DIRECTLY involved in the ID controversy in the 90’s) do explicitly state that “in the typical coevolutionary scenarios encountered in biology, where there is no champion, the NFL theorems still hold.” Sorry for you but this appears to be the argument you were looking for. Come on. Haven’t you anything better?

Kairos doesn't understand the distinction between a claim and an argument.

Quote
Semiotic 007: kairos,

Pointing out that an authority who made an assertion REALLY, REALLY, REALLY is an authority and REALLY, REALLY, REALLY did make the assertion does not legitimize an appeal to authority... The theorems still hold? Wolpert and Macready do not provide or cite any argument. The only arguments I have found are that the NFL theorems do not apply to biological evolution.

DaveScot: Appeals to authority are generally legitimate when the authority is an acknowledged expert in a relevant field and it is not claimed the expert is infallible. You should read a little more and write a little less.

DaveScot agrees it's an appeal to authority, but thinks it's legitimate even absent a requested proof or argument. Semiotic explains,

Quote
Semiotic 007: Appealing to an authority who has reversed himself without explanation, and who declares on his own authority a contradiction of what other researchers argue, is not legitimate.

Semiotic adds,

Quote
Semiotic 007: While some of you here pronounce on an amazing range of topics in which you have neither academic training nor research experience, I do not. This thread relates to the only topic I know a great deal about. No one else with my credentials in NFL is going to field questions here. I have not been attacking ID. Folks should be taking advantage of an opportunity to learn about NFL, not fending off the “evilutionist.”

Learn? I'll let DaveScot answer that.

Quote
DaveScot: After chastising someone else about appealing to authority you appeal to yourself as an authority.

Amazing.

No, DaveScot. That's a valid appeal to reasonable discourse.

Quote
kairos: I like particularly the answer by Dave.

Me too!

Further complicating matters, I believe that Kairos' example of a search space in which "it is apparent that NFLT still hold" is actually an example where NFL does not hold.

Just because a search space has very small range of plateau-like optima does not mean that all algorithms are equally valid; hill climbing in this case should outperform hill descending since on those rare occasions when a hill climbing algorithm is on a plateau, it will find at worst a local maxima of the plateau (assuming some slight non-flatness) while hill descending will not.  Further, if the plateaus have non zero support, efficient splitting of the search space (binary splits, for example) will find plateaus faster than random walks.  

I may be incorrect in these intuitive conclusions (and they depend on a more precise definition of the search space than Kairos has provided), but in any case Kairos' assertion that "it is apparent that NFLT still hold" seems hasty.

Date: 2008/01/03 10:34:16, Link
Author: franky172
Kairos doesn't understand probability.  

Quote
To have a whichever advantage in searching adjacent points it is necessary that at least one of the points involved in the search are out of the flat landscape. But the probability that this does really occur is put to 0 by the condition |S|^|V|>>v*w; in fact it’s a >> involving thousands and more magnitude orders between the cardinalities of the two sets.


No matter how much bigger ">>" means, it is not the equivalent of saying that an event has zero support.  So no, nothing is "put to 0".

In fact, as Kairos' focus has explicitly stated, he pictures plateaus of "adjacent or linked points" which can not have zero support, AFAIK.

Date: 2008/04/07 09:25:57, Link
Author: franky172
Quote (Louis @ April 07 2008,09:22)
Herein lies another crux of the IDC matter. Not only do IDCists claim (their) ignorance and lack of understanding is/should be equivalent to (scientists) knowledge and understanding they also love to play silly postmodernist games with "discrimination".

They seem to miss the point about freedom of speech, yes speech is free and I support and would die for their and my right to say and think as we all will, but, and this is a key but, there is no right to action free from consequence.

If I jump off the top of a high building, in the absence of special equipment I will fall in a direction generally accepted as downwards. Possibly to the detriment of my health.

If I am utterly useless at the 100 metres sprint, then I don't expect to get picked for the national Olympic sprint team.

If I fail all my exams, demonstrate no ability as a scientist, publish no papers, and behave like a total arse, then I don't expect a Nobel prize and a personal chair for my efforts.

If I make pronouncements directly at odds with the evidence, make claims I claim to be scientific and provide no support for them, quote mine and lie about other scientist's opinions, refuse to perform even the basic requirements of my job, then I am simply not going to be feted as the Isaac Newton of the 21st century.

Sorry IDCists but just because you're stupid and your ideas are not even good enough to be wrong, it doesn't follow that you are being discriminated against.

Louis

IDists don't seem to notice that all they really desire is affirmative action for shitty ideas.

Date: 2008/05/22 23:13:37, Link
Author: franky172
Quote (sparc @ May 22 2008,22:48)
Apparently, due to Cue's lack of humor UD lost another commenter:        
Quote
63

William Dembski
05/22/2008
7:55 pm

Cue: I’m not following this thread too closely, but to say that methodological naturalism is an essential ingredient of the scientific method betrays a gross ignorance of the history and philosophy of science. Indeed, it’s not even fair to say that there is one scientific method. Percy Bridgman put it this way: “the scientific method, insofar as it is a method, is doing one’s damndest with one’s mind, no holds barred.” In any case, you’re out of here.

Dr. Dr. has banned someone for being correct.

Quote
Steven D. Schafersman contends methodological naturalism is "the adoption or assumption of philosophical naturalism within scientific method with or without fully accepting or believing it … science is not metaphysical and does not depend on the ultimate truth of any metaphysics for its success (although science does have metaphysical implications), but methodological naturalism must be adopted as a strategy or working hypothesis for science to succeed. We may therefore be agnostic about the ultimate truth of naturalism, but must nevertheless adopt it and investigate nature as if nature is all that there is." [10]

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

Edit: fixed double post

Date: 2008/10/23 12:50:18, Link
Author: franky172
Frost122585, proving Poe's law on a daily basis.1 and 2

E.T.A: That's a hard does of reality.

Date: 2008/10/24 07:58:39, Link
Author: franky172
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 23 2008,17:12)
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.

Wesley,  that looks great to me.

One thing - the Javascript while(unmatched) loop doesn't allow for any other events in the browser window, which makes my browser get concerned with a slew of "A script on this page is not playing nice" type warnings.  Also, I can't affect anything in the browser window: no highlighting, scroll-bar interfacing, no new tabbing, etc.  

Remedying this might take more programming than it's worth, but it might be worth looking into popping off another thread or a while loop that allows for interruptions - but I have no idea how to do that in javascript.  It might be possible using setTimeout, but I haven't written javascript since back when we wrote our HTML by hand.  In notepad.  No, wait, in vi.

Date: 2008/10/24 10:57:04, Link
Author: franky172
Quote (Venus Mousetrap @ Oct. 24 2008,08:52)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 24 2008,08:14)
Yes, that is a concern. I think that to deal with that, I might have to have it run some, save the state of the run in progress with a cookie, then actually making it all the way through a run might require several presses of the "Run!" button. But as a JavaScript newbie, maybe I don't know the simplest way to deal with the problem. If there is some timer-based event loop that could be used, that would suggest another answer, though probably that also would require the cookie route for saving the state of the run.

Another approach would be for me to learn another language I've avoided so far, Java, and do an applet in that. I think that would in itself deal with a lot of the issues with not playing nice with other processes, but then again I know even less about Java than I currently do about JavaScript.

I'd say Java is probably easier to use than Javascript because it's more strongly typed, easier to debug, and you don't have to mess around trying to cater for every single browser... the only real difficulty with Java (assuming you're already familiar with curly brace languages like C++) is learning what the pre-existing classes do so you can use them. Like with the Applet class, you have to use its init() and paint() methods and be basically familiar with how it updates the applet window, etc. A Java weasel program would look roughly like this:


import java.applet.*; // for the applet classes
import java.awt.*; // for graphics and buttons and stuff
import java.awt.event.*; // for reading button presses

public class WeaselApplet extends Applet
{

// variables like Strings or char[] arrays for the weasel, etc

public void init()
{
 // applet setup stuff, like inititalising a dedicated thread
 // for the processing, and the input listeners, etc
}

public void paint(Graphics g)
{
 // gets called every time window needs repainting
}

public void someOtherFunctionThatIAlwaysLeaveOutButWhichIProbablyShouldntReally()
{
}
}


A tutorial on the web is probably better, but that's more or less it.

I agree that Java is a nicer language than jscript for programming because of the reasons you listed, but the seamless integration of javascript in your browser is just... oh so nice...  as with all things, there are trade offs to be considered...

Date: 2008/10/25 09:51:57, Link
Author: franky172
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 24 2008,20:40)
OK, I have revamped the stuff under the hood of the "weasel" demo. Hopefully this one will cause fewer problems for people, plus I've added a couple of convenience features.

A Real "weasel" Implementation that is True to the Description by Richard Dawkins, unlike the fake "weasel" being discussed over at UD.

I'm using a JavaScript global object for persistence, the "setInterval()" and "clearInterval()" functions to repeatedly call a routine that performs the steps associated with one generation of a run and then stop, and have added user control of the time between calls. There's also a "Stop!" button now.

Additionally, when a stepback is detected, the current population is dumped to the "console" textarea for examination.

Looking at the output of one of the runs I've done for testing, I found this:

Code Sample

Gen. 90, 27 letters, METHINKS IT IS LIK  A WEASEL
Gen. 91, 27 letters, METHINKS IT IS LIiE A WEASEL
Gen. 92, 28 letters, METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL


Notice the change between generations 90 and 91 of which letters match, even though the same number matched. No "locking" required.

Speactacular.  Nice work Wesley.

Date: 2008/11/24 21:27:43, Link
Author: franky172
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Nov. 24 2008,19:01)
Quote (bfish @ Nov. 24 2008,15:32)
Ugh.

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

Marks. Gotta be.

Let's see.  Shoddy sense of humor and a willingness to share it with the world.  Marks by a nose!

Date: 2008/12/11 08:47:11, Link
Author: franky172
Quote (sparc @ Dec. 11 2008,01:59)
Dembski  
Quote
I was thinking of just sticking with SC in the future, but with critics crowing about the demise of the EF, I’ll make sure it stays in circulation.
That's indeed how science works.

Yeah, next time I publish a paper and people point out glaring inconsistencies and no one is able to apply my work to any real world problem I may consider withdrawing my paper.  After 12 years.

But when people start talking about how it was never a good idea in the first place?  And the people criticizing the paper make the point that I should have dispensed with it 12 years ago?

I will rescind my withdrawal and remind myself that I invented the best idea ever.

That IS how science works.  

Nice job Dr Dr Dembski.

Date: 2009/02/20 09:28:41, Link
Author: franky172
DaveScot wants us all to look at something and say that it exhibits "CSI", when in reality, it exibits "Looks like a city"-ness.

Dave, please tell us you have something better than that.  

Or explain to me how you integrated over the uncertainty of functionally equivalent spaces to come to your CSI calculation.  Otherwise I have a tip for you - you didn't use the explanatory filter - you used the "It looks like something I've seen before" pattern recognition approach.  Even if Dembski wants you to think you're calculating CSI, or FCSI, or whatever the new code word of the day is, you're not.

Date: 2009/03/23 19:09:32, Link
Author: franky172
Quote (sparc @ Mar. 23 2009,14:54)
I am currently experiencing problems with my UD log in. I always get the message "Error: Incorrect password".
Is this a general problem in the moment?

That is how I was ignominiously "banned" from UD - one day I was relaxing and explaining the definition of "random" to DaveScot (see: http://www.uncommondescent.com/evoluti....);  my password stopped working shortly after that.  But I was never "banned".

*edit: broken link

Date: 2009/04/30 09:31:18, Link
Author: franky172
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.

Date: 2009/08/19 10:06:09, Link
Author: franky172
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Aug. 19 2009,09:48)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 19 2009,09:40)
Dembski can has peer review?

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....erature

Fucks sake
   
Quote
P.S. Our critics will immediately say that this really isn’t a pro-ID article but that it’s about something else (I’ve seen this line now for over a decade once work on ID started encroaching into peer-review territory). Before you believe this, have a look at the article. In it we critique, for instance, Richard Dawkins METHINKS*IT*IS*LIKE*A*WEASEL (p. 1055). Question: When Dawkins introduced this example, was he arguing pro-Darwinism? Yes he was. In critiquing his example and arguing that information is not created by unguided evolutionary processes, we are indeed making an argument that supports ID.

What the fuck does WEASEL have to do with anything? Anybody seen the paper yet? He "critiquing"  latched or proper Weasel?

And their argument might "support ID" in his mind but does it mention ID in the paper? Inquiring minds want to know and I can't look at the paper right now.

Dembski is full of shit, and he knows it.  On page 1055 he critiques "Partitioned Search", cites Dawkins [12], and then pretends that Weasel is a partitioned search.  Dawkins never used the term, AFAIK, and Weasel isn't partitioned.

Dembski knows these facts because they have been pointed out to him on his own blog, and he has known these facts for months, yet he let these lies (formerly perhaps mistakes, now corrected lies) be published.  Why?

Date: 2009/08/19 10:35:25, Link
Author: franky172
Quote (carlsonjok @ Aug. 19 2009,10:31)
Quote (franky172 @ Aug. 19 2009,10:06)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Aug. 19 2009,09:48)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 19 2009,09:40)
Dembski can has peer review?

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....erature

Fucks sake
     
Quote
P.S. Our critics will immediately say that this really isn’t a pro-ID article but that it’s about something else (I’ve seen this line now for over a decade once work on ID started encroaching into peer-review territory). Before you believe this, have a look at the article. In it we critique, for instance, Richard Dawkins METHINKS*IT*IS*LIKE*A*WEASEL (p. 1055). Question: When Dawkins introduced this example, was he arguing pro-Darwinism? Yes he was. In critiquing his example and arguing that information is not created by unguided evolutionary processes, we are indeed making an argument that supports ID.

What the fuck does WEASEL have to do with anything? Anybody seen the paper yet? He "critiquing"  latched or proper Weasel?

And their argument might "support ID" in his mind but does it mention ID in the paper? Inquiring minds want to know and I can't look at the paper right now.

Dembski is full of shit, and he knows it.  On page 1055 he critiques "Partitioned Search", cites Dawkins [12], and then pretends that Weasel is a partitioned search.  Dawkins never used the term, AFAIK, and Weasel isn't partitioned.

Dembski knows these facts because they have been pointed out to him on his own blog, and he has known these facts for months, yet he let these lies (formerly perhaps mistakes, now corrected lies) be published.  Why?

So, are you saying that Dembski and Marks have not addressed any of the criticism of the paper that Wes had previously pointed out to them?

Yes.  And worse - they deliberately let a falsehood pass through peer review.

Date: 2009/08/19 11:20:16, Link
Author: franky172
Quote (Bob O'H @ Aug. 19 2009,10:54)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Aug. 19 2009,09:48)
   
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 19 2009,09:40)
Dembski can has peer review?

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....erature

Fucks sake
       
Quote
P.S. Our critics will immediately say that this really isn’t a pro-ID article but that it’s about something else (I’ve seen this line now for over a decade once work on ID started encroaching into peer-review territory). Before you believe this, have a look at the article. In it we critique, for instance, Richard Dawkins METHINKS*IT*IS*LIKE*A*WEASEL (p. 1055). Question: When Dawkins introduced this example, was he arguing pro-Darwinism? Yes he was. In critiquing his example and arguing that information is not created by unguided evolutionary processes, we are indeed making an argument that supports ID.

What the fuck does WEASEL have to do with anything? Anybody seen the paper yet? He "critiquing"  latched or proper Weasel?

And their argument might "support ID" in his mind but does it mention ID in the paper? Inquiring minds want to know and I can't look at the paper right now.

He actually looks at both the latched and unlatched (or is that quasi-ratcheted?) versions, although not by name.  And he only associates WEASEL with the latched version.

The underlying message is the same one that's been discussed before - one can measure the difference in success between a blind search an a particular search algorithm as "active information", and this should be used to characterize search algorithms.

There's no real criticism of Dawkins, but we know how this is going to be used...

ETA: The only link in the article is that D&M cite The Blind Watchmaker as a reference for a partitioned search.  Complaining to the editors will look a bit anal, I suspect.

Agreed.  My only point was that his citation is false, and that he is deliberately obfuscating what WEASEL is, and what Dawkins said about it.  This is not actually fundamental to his paper.  

The larger point is that this paper is worthless.  As Good Math / Bad Math pointed out, it follows this form:

http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2009/05/dembski_responds.php
Quote
But that's not what Dembski is claiming to say. Dembski is saying that the program implicitly contains the solution.

Why does it implicitly contain the solution? Because Dembski says so. Seriously - that's what his argument reduces to. He defines the active information in a system in terms of how that system performs in a search. Then he shows that the amount of information that results from doing the search is equal to the amount of active information in the search algorithm. It's a trick of definitions, obscured by a lot of pointlessly complex math. In essence, it reduces to making a blind assertion: information is conserved; therefore any system that can in any sense produce information must contain that information.

Date: 2009/09/17 19:20:09, Link
Author: franky172
Dembski on why he publishes so many books:

Quote
[My books] sell well and they get read, especially in the Christian community.


Which is what matters to someone trying to make a difference and a lasting impact in science.

Date: 2009/09/22 11:45:10, Link
Author: franky172
Dembski gets a reply from Dawkins:

Quote
The relevant portion of his email for this discussion reads: “I cannot confirm that either of them is mine. They don’t look familiar to me, but it is a long time ago. I don’t see what more I can say.”


I have to wonder - what did the irrelevant portion of the e-mail say?

Date: 2009/09/29 16:43:53, Link
Author: franky172
Quote (Maya @ Sep. 29 2009,08:44)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 29 2009,08:19)
Gordon Mullings continues

   
Quote
Cabal:

All you have to do is write a program that without using the target sentence and a distance to target metric, reliably achieves it in several dozens to several hundreds of generations, showing implicit [quasi-]latching-ratcheting as it converges on target by a real, current functionality anchored metric of fitness.

I would love to see the result.

GEM of TKI
Tard. Where to begin?

WTF?  Can anyone translate that from tardese to something resembling English?  Is he asking for a simulation of evolution that doesn't incorporate any evolutionary mechanisms?

Ignoring for the moment KF's totally vague wording, I believe the following fit his bill:

Antennaes (no distance metric, no target, all intermediates are functional):
http://ti.arc.nasa.gov/projects/esg/research/antenna.htm
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.41.9308

Travelling Salesman (no distance metric, no target, all intermediates are functional):
http://www.lalena.com/AI/Tsp/

Unsupervised clustering (no distance metric, no target, all intermediates are functional):
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2105/6/289

Dozens more:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_algorithm#Applications

You might think that someone who had spent so much time writing probably over 20,000 words on GAs would have taken the time to read at least half that many words by people who use and understand GAs.

You'd be wrong.

Date: 2009/10/01 11:34:44, Link
Author: franky172
Rasputin keeps the ball rolling with KF, by explaining the difference between what is being simulated (evolutionary mechanisms) and what is taken as given (the laws of physics) in antennae design with GA's.  Of course, KF should understand this already, having penned well over 20,000 words on GA's in the past few weeks alone.

Will KF understand the difference?  Magic 8-Ball says "Ask again later".

Date: 2009/10/09 07:57:18, Link
Author: franky172
Quote (didymos @ Oct. 09 2009,00:08)
Oh, for fuck's sake!  Weasel.  Again.

Supposedly, this covers "every conceivable interpretation" of the program described in Blind Watchmaker.  Here be the source.  Haven't looked at it yet myself.


The amazing part?

You don't have to write 5 versions of "Weasel", most of which have nothing to do with GA's to prove anything.  Just one correct one will do.

Date: 2009/12/15 09:30:52, Link
Author: franky172
You heard it here first.  Scientists "carefully control the pH" and temperature, and *oh my god*! reaction medium to emulate what they think pre-biotic earth conditions might be like!  

Then, when the building blocks of proteins spontaneously form under these conditions (a violation of the SLoT!  Me typing this sentence!)... well...

They snuck in information!  They cheated!  How dare they use the apparatus of science to emulate the pre-biotic conditions of life on earth!  Intelligent Design!

I suppose the Darwinist house of cards is coming down any day now.

Date: 2009/12/15 09:51:59, Link
Author: franky172
Yes.  I believe that is exactly what Walton is arguing.  The more scientists try to emulate pre-biotic conditions, the more intelligent design is being done.

Quote

Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle.

"That's some catch, that catch-22," he observed.
"It's the best there is," Doc Daneeka agreed.

Date: 2009/12/15 18:25:15, Link
Author: franky172
Quote (J-Dog @ Dec. 15 2009,10:48)
Quote (franky172 @ Dec. 15 2009,09:51)
Yes.  I believe that is exactly what Walton is arguing.  The more scientists try to emulate pre-biotic conditions, the more intelligent design is being done.

 
Quote

Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle.

"That's some catch, that catch-22," he observed.
"It's the best there is," Doc Daneeka agreed.

It's a real shame what happened to Doc Daneeka.

Thanks for the Catch-22 quote!  I just re-read the book, because my son just read it for school.  It's still makes a lot of sense, and I can see a lot of IDCist personalities in the book.

And it's a real shame what happened to Doc Daneeka.

Ah, one of my favorite passages is the death of McWatt, and the "death" of Daneeka:

But Yossarian understood suddenly why McWatt wouldn't jump, and went running uncontrollably down the whole length of the squadron after McWatt's plane, waving his arms and shouting up at him imploringly to come down, McWatt, come down; but no one seemed to hear, certainly not McWatt, and a great, choking moan tore from Yossarian's throat as McWatt turned again, dipped his wings once in salute, decided oh, well, what the hell, and flew into a mountain.

Date: 2010/02/02 15:39:01, Link
Author: franky172
LINK

Quote
Also, let’s face it. It is truly ridiculous to suggest that a burglar is the same kind of cause as a tornado, and then, when called on it, weasel out by saying, “well yes, they are both natural causes, yet they are, at the same time, different: The burglar is of the Natural 1 variety while the tornado is natural 2 variety. Please!


You claim that cars and boats are both "vehicles"!  Therefore you can't tell the difference between cars and boats!  

It is truly ridiculous to suggest that a car is the same kind of thing as a boat, and then, when called on it, weasel out by saying, “well yes, they are both vehicles, yet they are, at the same time, different: The car is a land-based vehicle while the boat is a water based vehicle." Please!

Date: 2010/02/02 16:41:53, Link
Author: franky172
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 02 2010,16:26)
Quote (franky172 @ Feb. 02 2010,16:39)
LINK

   
Quote
Also, let’s face it. It is truly ridiculous to suggest that a burglar is the same kind of cause as a tornado, and then, when called on it, weasel out by saying, “well yes, they are both natural causes, yet they are, at the same time, different: The burglar is of the Natural 1 variety while the tornado is natural 2 variety. Please!


You claim that cars and boats are both "vehicles"!  Therefore you can't tell the difference between cars and boats!  

It is truly ridiculous to suggest that a car is the same kind of thing as a boat, and then, when called on it, weasel out by saying, “well yes, they are both vehicles, yet they are, at the same time, different: The car is a land-based vehicle while the boat is a water based vehicle." Please!

Diffaxial said it well (he and I are remarkably like-minded):
   
Quote
   
Quote
ScottAndrews @ 264:

The willful acts of intelligent humans are all natural?

You are tripping over semantics and levels of description.

Analogous error: You may insist that a that a particular move in chess, in the context of a particular game, is either legal or illegal. It can’t be both.

But upon making a move that exposes my king to check the police don’t arrive and arrest me. Making illegal moves in chess is perfectly legal. And the forgoing sentence is both intelligible and correct once one affixes the (implicit) scope of applicability of the word “legal” in each instance. The ability to do so is a matter of linguistic practice.

Similarly, we conventionally refer to artifacts of human contrivance as “artificial” rather than “natural,” a useful distinction. That doesn’t compel us to attribute the origins of human intelligence, including the ability to contrive artificial objects, to “artificial” (agentic) causes. Conversely, to say that human intelligence is a natural (and cultural) phenomenon no more renders meaningless the conventional “natural – artificial” distinction than does the absence of the rules of chess from the Ohio Revised Code vitiate the rules of chess....

It does not follow from the above that the ordinary distinction between “natural” and “artificial” objects has been lost. It is a useful distinction that reliably denotes the fact that natural objects (in the conventional sense) have a very different sort of history than do human artifacts. But there is a larger/other sense in which both sorts of history are “natural” histories, as human activities, human culture, etc., on this view, are ultimately components of the natural world.

StephenB:  **Woosh**

Indeed, that Diffaxil had a way with words.  And yes, I think we are all still hearing the "whoosh"

Date: 2010/03/03 11:32:47, Link
Author: franky172
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 03 2010,06:35)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Mar. 03 2010,06:06)
In order to make that comparison, StephenB must assert that the mounds of sand made by natural forces were not designed. Once StephenB understands the significance of that assertion, he will have taken a great big step toward pulling his fucking head out of his ass.

I'm not holding my breath.

He certainly must be.

StephenB is trying to have it both ways.

He wants to be able to say that if we maintain that human beings are part of the natural world, events that reflect human causation and those that do not (burglars versus tornados) are causally indistinguishable, because both have natural causes.

My response was that a lifetime of experiences with these very different sorts of natural causation enable us to make these distinctions quite effortlessly.

Toronto/lastyearon's question turns the tables on him. They note that StephenB's world view is a mirror image of the claim that human agency is continuous with the natural world: if God is the author of all things everywhere (by means of fine tuning, etc.), then it would follow that all phenomena are in a sense designed, and that design detection ("distinguishing designed objects from the products of natural 'undirected causes'") should therefore be impossible.

This is also wrong, if "detection of human agency" is substituted for "design detection," for the same reason: a lifetime of experiences with these very different sorts of natural causation enable us to make these distinctions quite effortlessly, without resort to placement of these events into different ontological categories - even if we believe in divine authorship of the universe.

Although StephenB wants to attribute to naturalism absurd cognitive impairments, he resists accepting the analogous attribution of impairment when the tables have turned. He has the same lifetime of such experience and knows that his sand-Corvette and a lump of sand are easily discerned as having different sorts of causal histories - one undirected, the other reflecting human agency. But like tornados and burglars, his sand-Corvette example doesn't accomplish what he wants it to accomplish (establish a basis for the detection of Wesley's well-named "rarified design"), and rather simply points to a universal human skill grounded in our long experience with (and adaptation to) the natural and cultural phenomenon of human agency.

this, this, this.  a million times, this.

Date: 2010/09/28 07:58:38, Link
Author: franky172
Holy cow. Niwrad is going to lecture us on probability theory now?

Quote
If we have a 1% difference between the genomes in average we find a mismatch in a 100 base sequence, then 3 mismatches in a series of 10 30 base sequences. Hence the probability of finding a mismatch in a 30 base sequence is 3/10.


No.  The probability of finding an error in 30 trials with 99% correct rate is not 3/10.  This is the kind of logic that would get you kicked out of undergraduate probability courses.

The correct answer is

P(at least one error) = 1-p(no errors) = 1-.99^30 ~= 0.26

I see that
CharlesJ caught this too.  

Doesn't the Isaac Newton of information theory have any standards?

Date: 2014/04/14 11:31:05, Link
Author: franky172
Barry posts the following:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-496343

Which he thinks shows that religion and classics students do better at the LSAT than, say, specialized Biology students.  Of course, it shows the exact opposite - that specialized biology students do better at the LSAT compared to religion students.  DESPITE HAVING LOWER UGPA's.  In fact, the low LSAT average for religionmajors conditioned on their GPA is probably indicative of grade inflation for religion majors.

Those students who chose to specialize in a particular kind of Biology (re: interested students) do better than their GPA would indicate on the LSAT.

EDIT: Actually, BOTH regular biology majors AND specialized biology majors do better than their GPA should indicate on the LSAT.  Religion majors?  Not so much.

Date: 2015/08/26 11:32:30, Link
Author: franky172
Popperian brings up that God used to command all sorts of evil things.  Barry, in his infinite wisdom responds with a link to Reasonable Faith which includes a long discussion about  divine command morality, which, amongst other things, basically says "whatever god says to do is objectively right" - so Barry, when God said "how blessed will be the one who bashes your babies against the rock", was that objectively a morally good thing to do?

Date: 2015/11/22 10:09:52, Link
Author: franky172
So, it looks like peteFun was banned from Uncommon Descent?  My fault?  I didn't save the response, but it was something like:

%%%%%%%%%%%%
Barry,

In your most recent response, why did you only include my initial claims, and not try and refute any of the supporting information or arguments?  This seems to me like you are not engaging in this discussion in good faith.  It is a tad disturbing.

Quote
some anonymous schmo spewing his uninformed opinions into an internet combox


What is that old lawyer trick?  Ah. Yes - "When you have no basis for argument, abuse the plaintiff."
%%%%%%%%%%%%

Clearly well outside the bounds of normal discourse allowed on UD.  Now my posts never appear, and that post appears to have disappeared into the ether...  oh well.  it was fun while it lasted.  If someone has the time, can someone ask Barry why my post was removed and I was banned?  It would be nice to get a straightforward answer.

 

 

 

=====