AE BB DB Explorer

Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):

form_srcid: sledgehammer

form_srcid: sledgehammer

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.


form_srcid: sledgehammer

q: SELECT AUTHOR, MEMBER_NAME, IP_ADDR, POST_DATE, TOPIC_ID, t1.FORUM_ID, POST, POST_ID, FORUM_VIEW_THREADS from ib_forum_posts AS t1 LEFT JOIN (ib_member_profiles AS t2, ib_forum_info AS t3) ON (t1.forum_id = t3.forum_id AND = t2.member_id) WHERE MEMBER_NAME like 'sledgehammer%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC


DB_result: Resource id #4

Date: 2008/10/11 00:28:50, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 11 2008,00:05)
What's happening at the moment is the intellectual conservatives, like Brooks, Doug Kmiec, Andrew Sullivan, Jeffrey Hart, etc are realizing that the anti-intellectual christianist faction has gotten into the driver's seat.

... and is about to run the GOP bus off the road into the ditch.

Date: 2008/10/21 12:39:04, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (bfish @ Oct. 21 2008,09:41)
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 20 2008,13:03)
Give us something!


C'mon. Get those cranky wheels a'turning. Surely there must be something assploding somewhere. Your job is to find it.

You might need to use both hands.

 I missed this one the first time around.  Did Poe's keep anyone in UD moderation from obliviating it?
From the first link:


Dr. Atevad


2:06 pm

The truth is they have no idea regarding OOL. It’s all conjecture until they actually create life themselves, and you can BET intelligent agency will be involved. Until then allthey have done is make more complex chemicals from less complex chemicals, which is frankly unremarkable.

P.S. Speaking of Frank, that’s also the name of my brother who is now my wife after her sex reassignment surgery. I’m such an inbred homo I work on WACKER Drive. LOL - I kill me sometimes.

AMLI Management Co.
125 S Wacker Dr., Ste. 3100, Chicago IL 60606, United States
(312)443-1477, (312)443-0909 fax,

Date: 2008/10/27 17:04:55, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Note the symbolism in this photo:

(from linky)

Date: 2008/11/06 16:45:48, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (steve_h @ Nov. 06 2008,04:37)
Quote (steve_h @ Nov. 05 2008,18:23)
AFAICT no pages have gone missing despite the fact they would have had a ready-made and plausible excuse. They must be slipping :)

Sorry, I didn't check thoroughly enough.



both cached by google on Nov 4th. Haven't checked for other Obama threads.

So not only do individual embarrassing comments disapparate, but entire threads get 404'd?  Just wow.
I guess I'm still learning about the UD way, as the rest of you don't seem surprised at all, and accept this as Situation Normal.
 I'm shocked that Dave could feel a little embarrassment over his past rantings, seeing as he's always so proud of himself for those posts.
I'm guessing it must have been one of the other moderators that had to feel embarrassed for him?

Date: 2008/11/06 18:34:51, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Great. I can see it already:
 "My name is Sledge and I'm a tardaholic.   Keep comin' back, it verks if you verk it 'cause your vurf it. One Day at a Time!"

Date: 2008/11/07 00:16:44, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 06 2008,23:50)
It's been years since I was up on this stuff, but IIRC the accuracy of G is only known to 1 part in about a thousand. It's very hard to measure accurately because it's so weak.

But, but, I recall reading somewhere (can't remember where) that gravity was the strongest force in the universe.

Date: 2008/11/07 15:27:04, Link
Author: sledgehammer
"It is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."  C. Darwin

Date: 2008/11/17 10:26:51, Link
Author: sledgehammer
"DaveScot is no longer with us"

The King of Tard is dead!  Long live the King!
Let the B-B-Barry Banninations Begin!

Date: 2008/11/17 20:32:15, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Thought it best to archive this one:
We'll see if Barry (or Dave) let it stay.




8:38 pm

Dave, I’m sorry you were EXPELLED before you had the chance to show us that proof that Obama wasn’t an American that you were talking about before.

Remember how you said that the Republicans were going to whip that proof out right before the election? And then how it didn’t happen? I’d love to know more about it.

Date: 2008/11/18 13:46:12, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Steve, I think i understand where you're coming from. Nicotine is a great drug, it's the various delivery systems that suck.  When I quit years ago, I tried replacement therapy (gum, patch).  It didn't work too well, because I never got the "kick" from those that inhaling nicotine laden smoke did. After looking at a comparison of blood nicotine levels that result form smoking to that of the patch, it was clear what the problem was.  The time profile of inhaled nicotine consisted of a low background level interspersed with these enormous spikes in concentration, whereas the patch kept a nice even concentration of nicotine in the blood, but at a level way below the spikes. If the background level was raised to the level of the spikes, it would probably be lethal (arrhythmia being one of the significant symptoms of nicotine overdose).
 So here's what worked for me:  you get yourself some patches and instead of sticking them to your body, stick them to a piece of tissue paper, and then put them back in the foil envelope.  Then, when you feel the need, take a deep snort from the foil package, sucking air past the exposed patch.  The nicotine vapor is so concentrated that not only will you feel the familiar tightness in your lungs that you get from a good hit off an unfiltered Camel, but hold your breath, like with a good toke, and you'll get the head rush that says, ahhh that's what I needed. A couple of hits of that, and it's like you smoked a whole cig. Pure nicotine, no added carcinogens (except for the mutagenic effects of the nicotine itself, of course)
 I kept that up for a few weeks and naturally began hitting it less and less.  After a month or so, I quit entirely. I've been nicotine free for six years now.

Date: 2008/11/21 13:45:42, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Here are a few scientific predictions made from the "God Centered Perspective"

The planetary orbits were predicted to be unstable by Isaac Newton. His hypothesis was that God must be intervening to keep the orbits stable.

Plagues, pestilence, floods and earthquakes were hypothesized to be the punishment wielded by a vengeful "rational intelligence".

Date: 2008/11/24 17:05:42, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Nov. 24 2008,15:08)

... if you're going to claim that something evolved from A to B Goddidit, you should at least be able to come up with a framework for how it happened.  Then within that framework, you should be able to fill in the details.  If it falls apart, you need a new framework

Fixed that for you.

Date: 2008/11/25 13:26:43, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Why do all you "Darwinists" hate America so much?





12:09 am

Most people who accept ID, for example, also accept the Constitution as a reliable founding document, believe in natural rights, and agree with its teaching that God grants rights. That’s the way design thinkers think. Those who agree might even provide financial support to the Discovery Institute. In the same way,most Darwinists reject the Constitution,  dispute the idea of natural rights, and reject God as the guarantor of rights. That’s the way non-design thinkers think. Those who agree are likely to support the ACLU and the American Secular Humanist Association.

My bold.

Date: 2008/11/25 13:36:31, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Whatever happened to "" that Patrick is still linking to ?

All I get is an "Address Not Found  
Firefox can't find the server"

The cache shows it was alive as of 07/26/08.

Another casualty in the rapidly expanding movement that is ID?

Date: 2008/11/25 15:00:42, Link
Author: sledgehammer




2:57 pm

Stephen writes, “In the same way, most Darwinists reject the Constitution, dispute the idea of natural rights, and reject God as the guarantor of rights. That’s the way non-design thinkers think. Those who agree are likely to support the ACLU and the American Secular Humanist Association.”

I object. I support the ACLU and the American Secular Humanist Association and ALSO the Constitution, and so do many others support all three of these. Making these kind of politically inflammatory, stereotypical and erroneous comments is needlessly divisive and doesn’t help further civil discussion.

Thanks for taking care of that, hazel.  My Sock Puppet's in the wash.

Date: 2008/11/28 20:28:57, Link
Author: sledgehammer

28 November 2008
Children are born with a belief in God
Andrew Sibley

Researchers from Oxford’s Centre for Anthropology and Mind have found evidence that children are predisposed to believe in God or a supreme being.

And some adults just can't seem to outgrow their childhood fantasies.

Date: 2008/12/03 20:16:39, Link
Author: sledgehammer
This interchange between ribcynski and Dave on the Olofsson thread is classic UD. It starts when Dave sez "yer wrong!":      
12:55 am

DaveScot wrote:
   ID predicted that nothing of any significant novel complexity would emerge in 10^30 opportunities for mutation and selection in p.falciparum.
   You said this agrees with the prediction of NDE. I disagree with that. NDE predicts something might emerge or it might not.

True, and the results did not contradict NDE.

Rib even agrees with Dave at this point, but Dave, being the pompous prick he is, has to bluster, and in doing so contradicts himself:
8:30 am

True, and the results did not contradict NDE.

Of course not. How can an outcome contradict NDE when NDE predicts all outcomes? NDE predicts major evolutionary changes happen except for when they don’t happen. I guess you didn’t get the subtle point that NDE made no prediction at all - a theory that predicts everything predicts nothing.

Then rib calls Dave's bluff, and politely but decisively shoots him down:
1:15 pm

DaveScot wrote:
   How can an outcome contradict NDE when NDE predicts all outcomes? NDE predicts major evolutionary changes happen except for when they don’t happen. I guess you didn’t get the subtle point that NDE made no prediction at all - a theory that predicts everything predicts nothing.

A contingent science cannot make predictions in every instance. And by the way, that applies to ID (which is contingent on the idiosyncrasies of an unknown designer) as well as every other theory. Even the “Theory of Everything” being sought by physicists won’t predict the weather on August 13, 2045.

As for NDE predicting “everything”, that is obviously false.

NDE does not predict that rabbit fossils will be found in Precambrian strata, to use Haldane’s classic example.

NDE does not predict that sheep are more closely related to paramecia than they are to goats.

NDE does not predict that the Cubs will win the Series this year.

I could go on.

Davey don't like being shown that he's wrong. Now he's pissed, and thinking "Clearly we can't have someone this articulate posting here.  What to do, what to do? I know! Quick, change the argument":
1:50 pm


NDE doesn’t predict when or if significant changes will happen. Since you cannot seem to acknowledge that simple fact you need to move along. Don’t post any more in this thread. Other authors here may continue to entertain your obstinance but I will not.

When it's clear that you are outclassed, silence the opposition by any means, even if it requires trumped-up charges.  In this case, insubordination by rib for failing to acknowledge Dave's ridiculous bluster provides a thin excuse.   Probably Dave wanted outright bannination, but that would clearly violate the "new moderation policy", and since poor Dave lost his position as Czar, this was the best he could do. I'm sure everone at UD are just itching to find a reason to ban ribcynski, but so far he's been able to dance close to the edge. It won't last. I predict within a week, they'll find some paltry excuse to give him/her the boot.  I'm rootin' for ya, rib!
It's the entertainment value of exchanges like this that are leading me into incurable tardaholism.  I'm an addict, and I can't stop myself.

Date: 2008/12/05 20:32:04, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Dec. 04 2008,11:09)
... no adequate causal explanations are forthcoming.  "I don't know, but I know it's not God", becomes the mantra.  It's a lie.  It's the BIG LIE.  And you all have believed it.

There.  I fixed your double standard for you.

Date: 2008/12/13 17:16:18, Link
Author: sledgehammer
[quote=JLT,Dec. 13 2008,12:23][/quote]
I think religious motivation is definitely one reason why Darwinists IDjits stick to a theory that science shows to be nonsense.

Works better this way.

Date: 2008/12/21 14:34:35, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (sledgehammer @ Dec. 03 2008,20:16)
I'm sure everone at UD are just itching to find a reason to ban ribcynski, but so far he's been able to dance close to the edge. It won't last. I predict within a week, they'll find some paltry excuse to give him/her the boot.  I'm rootin' for ya, rib!
It's the entertainment value of exchanges like this that are leading me into incurable tardaholism.  I'm an addict, and I can't stop myself.

Well, my prediction was off by a week or three.  Keiths, you gave Clive the excuse he needed, by exposing your sock's identity.  So we're back to banninations for our posts on PT.
Big scary 'ol Clive appears to lurk here "religiously", so YOU BETTER WATCH WHAT YOU SAY, YOU CHURCH BURNIN' EBOLA BOYS, 'CAUSE UNCLE CLIVE IS LISTENING, and we've always been at war with Eurasia!

Date: 2008/12/22 22:55:54, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 20 2008,19:38)
Quote (carlsonjok @ Dec. 20 2008,19:05)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 20 2008,15:40)
A in Spanish though (100 average and 100 on the final), A in English,

Have you decided which language you are going to learn?

Yes. Portugese, because it's a mixture of French and Spanish. I took French in high school, so when I'm done with Spanish, all I have to do is mix the words together, right?


(Where's AFDaveyDoodles when you need him?????

Cien por ciento es muy belo, hombre.

Mixing Spanish and Portuguese might not be such a good idea.  I learned Spanish growing up in Venezuela, so when I moved to Brazil, I spoke "Espangues" for the longest time, gradually shifting to "Portanhol". It took 12 years to finally master Brazilian Portuguese.

Date: 2008/12/26 13:27:27, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Bob O'H @ Dec. 26 2008,12:52)
Sparc, what did you say?      



1:41 am

EDIT: Sparc, quoting someone else insulting kf is not something to be appreciated. If you don’t like kf’s style that’s fine–just say so. But this comment went too far. –Admin

Called KFC a "pompous ass"?
Quote (sparc @ Dec. 26 2008,00:43)
I have to admit, I'd never realized just what a pompous ass KF really is...

Pompous ass indeed. But wait till someone mentions Gordon Mullings again.

Remember, what is said here is the same as if it was posted on UD, 'cause UNCLE CLIVE IS LISTENING!

Date: 2008/12/28 14:51:21, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Zachriel @ Dec. 28 2008,13:59)
Atom: The Ev program uses what is called an “oracle” that gives it information about the search space.

Well, duh. We have a population of virtual organisms, competing in a virtual environment. The Oracle is a blackbox that provides feedback on the relative fitness of the organisms within that virtual environment. Of course the Oracle provides information, in the form of a fitness valuation.

Atom: This oracle is a HUGE source of information.

So, Marks and Dembski have discovered that organisms can and do evolve in response to the environment. It's amazing!!

Using Dembskian terminology:

Environment = "Oracle of Active Information"

Environmental Information -> NS -> genome

-> specified complexity

What could be simpler (or more obvious, even to the tardulous)?

Date: 2008/12/30 00:44:54, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Dec. 29 2008,18:53)
...Take the Trichoplax for instance.  It is basically crawling slime - with no limbs, no nerves, no brain, and only four cell types.  Yet this creature has many of the same genes we humans do - genes for development of limbs, nerves, synapses and the like.  From a front-loading perspective, such a creature makes perfect sense.  From the perspective of the current theory, however, such a creature is out of place...

Here is a link to thefull Srivastava et. al. article from Nature on the Trichoplax genome.
Show me where it says that genes for "limbs, nerves, synapses and the like" are found in the Trichoplax genome. What it does say is that some genes are homologues to precursors of genes encoding for proteins used by vertebrates in "signalling pathways".
To say that "this creature has many of the same genes we do" when it's entire genome less than 3% the size of ours borders on ridiculous. Until you can show me some better references, I'll assume that your statement above is a gross and misleading exageration, at best.

Date: 2008/12/31 14:45:45, Link
Author: sledgehammer
At the risk of flogging a dead horse, there is a big difference between:
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Dec. 29 2008,18:53)
Yet this creature has many of the same genes we humans do - genes for development of limbs, nerves, synapses and the like.


"many of the genes used by single-celled and simple multi-cellular creatures like Trichoplax to control basic cellular machinery are also found in humans and other vertebrates"

The first is "huh"? , the second is "duh"!

Date: 2009/01/01 11:15:06, Link
Author: sledgehammer
In the first Fuller thread, based on the numbering and this comment by StephenB, original comment #20 by allanius, was deleted.
10:48 pm

allanius @30. Yes, and I agree with you at 20. This is getting scary.

Did anybody catch it before it was obliviated?

Date: 2009/01/04 19:18:57, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Atom tries to refute Gremlin's jab that " ID research seems to consist of combing pro-evolution articles for perceived gaps."  Here's what Atom comes up with:

As we all know, Dr. Dembski has been extending information theory using the concept of CSI for a few years.
translation: "Information- Nature can't make it".

Dr. Marks has been working with Dr. Dembski as well to formalize the concept of Active Information and its application to evolutionary algorithms.
translation: "Active information - GA's can't make it, they can only smuggle it".

Dr. Behe’s EoE remains a profound literature survey on the limitations of undirected variation and selection, even with fast replicators.
translation: "Natural selection is impotent. It can't possibly create anything new".

Dr. Axe, working with the Biologic Institute, has developed Stylus, a software environment using Chinese characters as a means of studying the emergence of hierarchical function in systems.
translation: "We have no idea how this relates to ID, but we're sure it's anti-Darwin, and he's spending a lot of the DI's $$, so it must be good".

A friend of mine is extendeding the concept of complexity classes to biology (and any loop based system such as gene regulation circuits.)
translation:"anything that extendedes complexity to biology is a problem for NDE".

Walter ReMine has extended and simplified Haldane’s Dilemma in population genetics
translation: "Natural selection can't possibly work.  Math proves it!'

Scott Minnich has done work on IC and the Bacterial Flagellum.
translation: "IC is impossible to create without intelligence"

Dr. Sanford has developed the model of Genetic Entropy relating to population genetics,
translation: "NDE violates SLOT!!!"

Dr. Gonzalez has been doing work on the Privileged Planet Hypothesis and Dr. Lee Spetner has developed his NREH (Non-random Evolutionary Hypothesis) over the past couple of decades
translation:"No way in hell could all this have happened by accident"

This isn’t even taking into account the work done by YECs
translation: "There's no way that evolution could have done all this in only 6000 years, especially with that flood stirring everything up and all"

There is more, but I’m not 1) all-knowing and 2) can’t share private research I am privy to, without asking the researchers themselves.
translation: "Only God and a privileged few know about the Super-Secret ID Research Program that's going to produce a Positive, Testable Design Hypothesis any day now"!

So yeah, lots of ID research is being done at moment.
translation:  So there! See, it's not all negative, anti-evo after all"

Date: 2009/01/05 00:26:49, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (J-Dog @ Jan. 04 2009,21:01)
Good translation effort and summary!

Don't let Arden find out you do tranny work though...

Arden has transmission problems?  At his age, It's probably the hydraulics.

Date: 2009/01/05 12:06:31, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (KCdgw @ Jan. 05 2009,11:46)
My goodness-- I missed this the first time.
Avida DID NOT generate IC. Because of the way Avida operates every structure it produces is by definition not IC because it was generated by stepwise path.

So...IC is defined by how it comes about, not by what it is. Right.

My reading of that whole tardfest is that Dave's statement that you quote, obviously at odds with D+B's various definitions of IC, and the subsequent drubbing that he took as a result, were the primary cause of his bannination fit that took out Tom English, Recip Bill, Keiths and others.

Davey don't like can't take being proven wrong.

Date: 2009/01/07 18:03:48, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Henry J @ Jan. 07 2009,17:22)
That leaves me wondering something - if it's not constant, against what would the difference be detected?

After all, aren't all our time measurement devices themselves based on how long it takes light to span some preset distance? I.e., it looks to me as though our measurement of time is itself relative to the speed of light.


One of the most precise measurements we can make today is the inverse of time, or frequency (current uncertainties approaching 1E-15).  Atomic resonant frequencies are determined primarily by the dimensionless fine structure constant, alpha, which includes c, as well as Plank's constant, elementary charge and free-space permeability.  By measuring spectra from distant objects, changes in alpha, and presumably in c, can be inferred.

Date: 2009/01/08 10:12:17, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Jerry prevaricates:  
I am interested in this discussion not because it will advance the ID position but because it is interesting from a philosophical point of view.
which he supports by saying:  
What bothers me from what you said is that something that is called science in no way fits the definition of science and that is Darwinian macro evolution (origin of novel complex capabilities.) Do you agree?
 But this statement wins the tardcake:  
So if one is honest, they would have to come to the same conclusion I do or else defend their belief that it is science. No one has ever done it on this site and have it stand up survived bannination.

Date: 2009/01/08 23:57:32, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 08 2009,21:26)
So anyway this kid had a bad day and just wasn't going to turn his brain on, and I swear to god, if you'd given him an IQ test today, it would have come back in the 'severely retarded--be prepared to teach him how to breathe' category.

Have you considered that your kid may have a drug/alcohol issue? 11's not too young for that. Hell, I started at 10, and look how f'd I ended up.

Date: 2009/01/09 00:03:46, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (khan @ Jan. 08 2009,18:54)
I recall it being argued by some who never tried to shove a watermelon through a hose.

And, of course, we have the Intelligent Designer to thank for the design. :angry:

Date: 2009/02/01 20:07:25, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 31 2009,22:19)
Durston doesn't seem to understand the math he's parading around.

I suspect he understands all too well the math he's "parading around", and is being deliberately dishonest when he thinks he can get away with it.  Here's why I have come to that conclusion:
 After watching that you-tube lecture with the tornado-in-a-junkyard conclusion, I had all but dismissed his reasoning as obviously bogus, if only due to naivete,  but his 70-bit limit on the "functional information" that nature was capable of intrigued me enough to look into his reasoning behind that, since Dembski's UPB was 500 bits. A google on "Durston 70 bits" yielded only 9 hits, one of which was this ISCID discussion  from 2002, where he introduces the same equations as he displayed in that you-tube.  Towards the end of the discussion, a commenter (Grape Ape) asked about the information increase from gene duplication followed by mutation, producing a paralogue protein with a new function.  Durston's answer was telling.  Here's the comment in it's entirety (apologies for the length, emphasis mine):
Kirk Durston
Member # 174

Icon 1 posted 12. September 2002 19:32      Profile for Kirk Durston   Email Kirk Durston   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post  Resp to Grape Ape:

I agree with you; a gene duplication followed by a sequential divergence of one of the paralogues, if it achieved a new function, would produce an increase in functional information. I also grant that such a thing can happen without the need for ID, provided the increase in functional information is not greater than 70 bits.

It was a bit sloppy of me to say, "The problem arises when we calculate the probability of achieving the novel protein and then realize that it is too small." I see no need for ID in obtaining novel proteins, or paralogues with novel functions, provided that the additional functional information required does not exceed 70 bits.

I suppose a next question could be regarding the possibility that the paralogue, which has achieved a novel function with less than 70 bits of information, could also duplicate, diverge, etc, and achieve yet another protein with a novel function, all within the stable folding sequence space for that family of proteins.

My answer would be, only if the total information required to generate both paralogues was less than 70 bits. The reason for this is that the probability of achieving a second paralogue with a second novel function, from the first paralogue with the first novel function is the probability of achieving the first paralogue, multiplied by the probability of achieving the second paralogue given the existence of the first paralogue. So the addition of required functional information is proportional to the product of each of their probabilities, where each probability refers to the chance of making the step from the parent gene. I should say that if the new function can be achieved by a paralogue that is less than 70 bits of functional information away within the same region of stable, folding sequence space, I would question whether a new function has been achieved, or a previously existing function has been regained. We might have to look at the fitness the new function provided. If it was not significant enough to prevent its loss, it may have been lost. If it was very significant, then there is a chance that it is a genuine novel function. But even at that, it could still have been lost in a bottle neck event somewhere in the past. One thing that ID, combined with the ITT predicts, is that there ought to be a slow loss of functions over time, depending upon the size of the population and the selective advantage such functions confer. We may have psuedogenes that are nothing more than ancient genes that can be reactivated, given the appropriate genetic engineering

So in summary, you are right. Paralogues that achieve new functions increase the functional information content of the genome, but the upper limit for how far this can go is 70 bits, if my hypothesis is correct. If 70 bits is too low, it certainly would not exceed 400 bits.

Grape's response:    
I don't see how I could agree with you here. The key element you're leaving out is selection and subsequent fixation. If the first duplication event creates a new gene with a novel function, and that function is of some use to the cell (which is probably a prerequisite for the novel funciton evolving anyway), the extra gene should quickly spread throughout the population and exist in thousands (or millions or billions) of copies. Now that everyone has the first paralogue, the probability of a second occurance is the same (actually lower) than the first. The scenario that you put forth would only apply AFAICT if you're talking about a single individual which only reproduces to replacement (making an effective population of 1). In that case, the probability of two duplications happening to the same individual would be the square of the probability of one duplication occuring over a given time frame. But of course we're talking about a population with many individuals where events can happen in parallel, so this wouldn't apply.

Incidentally, once there is one paralogue, the probability of subsequent duplications becomes greater. The reason is simply because there are now two targets to be duplicated rather than just one. Also, given that the most common mechanism for generating duplicates is unequal crossing-over, the chances of this happening increase when you have similar sequences next to each other on a chromosome. This is, for example, why short tandem repeats grow like they do, and it also allows for gene families to rapidly expand. This is the most likely explanation for why genes tend to follow a power law distribution IMO.    
 So the addition of required functional information is proportional to the product of each of their probabilities, where each probability refers to the chance of making the step from the parent gene.
 Again, the whole point of mutation/selection is that things can be "ratcheted up" such that each step, if it's not highly improbable itself, can be additive such that it can create cumulative change that would be too improbable given a single step. Multiplying the probabilities only assumes a single step. In other words, I think it's a legitimate argument to talk about "functional islands", but in order for the argument to work, you must show that these islands are not connected or cannot be bridged via a low probability event. (This is the essence of Behe/Dembski's IC argument.) In our situation here, we have a duplication/divergence event which is not itself too improbable, so therefore there is no intrinsic limit to how many iterations that this process can proceed. And since we now we have a situation where some amount of functional information -- say 10 bits -- can be added to the genome, then a repetition of this process can surely add up to more than 70. The only way I can see your argument working (at least in regards to this scenario) is to show that a single step must have been greater than 70 bits.

In his response, Durston backs down from his multiplicative factor for independent events, and after a paragraph or two of hand-waving obfuscation, he gives this surprisingly accurate admission on the effects of selection:    
Grape, I specifically included the phrase 'given the existence of the first paralogue' to account for what you have pointed out. You are right in that the generation of the second functional paralogue is not independent of the existence of the first. The effect of fixation merely increases the number of opportunities for the second paralogue to evolve. The probability that a paralogue will achieve a new function via a random walk is R!/R^R x (Nf/N). If there is an incremental, but significant advantage for each step closer in sequence space, then the R!/R^R disappears, as the fixation insures that we at least don't go backward, although we could go sideways, which still slows things down. Selection can't cut in until a mutation has occurred, which is largely random in nature (though not always). The right mutations have to occur to produce the function, even with selection operating, and the probability that the right mutations occur is related to Nf/N and the size of the population, if we ignore the possibility of sideways, or neutral mutations. Of course, the greater the population, the greater the probability that the right mutations will occur. But the likelihood that the second paralogue will become functional is dependent upon the Nf/N of both functional paralogues and probabilistic limitations, which are also related to Nf/N. That is why I say the second function won't happen unless the total information required is less than 70 bits.

So the effect of selection (or more accurately, elimination), if the fitness advantage is large enough, is to get rid of the random walk. The Nf/N still remains, however, as the target for which the random mutations must arrive at, one step at a time. Selection merely preserves gains. The number of generations and the size of the population, however, may virtually guarantee that the target is reached by this ratcheting processes, if Nf/N is high enough.

Now that was in 2002.  he has basically admitted that natural selection can increase the functional information in the genome by arbitrarily more than 70 bits.  Immediately after this exchange, he dismisses himself, Patrick-style:    
I'm going to have to sign off now. I'm bug-eyed from staring at this screen and I feel a little fried from generating all these essays today. I won't be able to continue this discussion, as I already indicated. I realize I probably have not convinced even one person, but I do hope I've introduced a few things to think about. My apologies to anyone who might post anything further on this subject, I just can't afford to get any further behind in my work.

I've enjoyed this discussion and feel that being involved in it was well worth my time.

Now that was in 2002.
The man is not stupid. He knows very well what this means for his theory.
 Do any of his subsequent lectures and discussions in the next 6-7 years touch on this aspect of selection? Does he ever qualify his "70 bits" capability for natural processes? No way!  In fact, like in the you-tube lecture, he introduces selection only to dismiss it as ineffective in creating "functional information".
I call that intellectual dishonesty.

Date: 2009/02/01 20:13:02, Link
Author: sledgehammer
The linky in the above doesn't appear to work for the general population.  Try this instead (If you have any interest in the whole discussion) ISCID: Dembski- Durston

I kin has eddibuddon pweese?

Date: 2009/02/02 18:29:48, Link
Author: sledgehammer
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - stevestory]

Quote (sparc @ Feb. 02 2009,11:52)
Bob O'H  
sledgehammer can haz POTW icon?

Tank u, tank u veddy much.  De tardmines have been veddy goo, to me.
But seriously, Art, Francis and Grape Ape did the heavy lifting way back when, not me. That was back in the Days of Old, when Knights were Bold, before I had taken even a whiff of the pure, uncut stuff. I just went down into the mines and hauled the br^own, sme^lly stuff to the surface for all to share.

 Nevertheless I am honored and humbled, peering over the shoulders of the Grape Ones.

Date: 2009/02/03 14:17:12, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (steve_h @ Feb. 03 2009,13:24)
Quote (Bob O'H @ Feb. 03 2009,18:20)
A promise from gpuccio

“Please give a demonstration of how to quantify CSI as part of your FAQ.”

It is coming. And you may notice that I have given you a specific indication about that in another thread.

You can't wait, can you?

No, but I predict it will be the usual -log2 (xxxx) formula and will be applied only to randomly drawn cards not to functional proteins.

...and certainly not to anything that involves repeated cycles of (duplication, mutation, selection).

Date: 2009/02/08 23:02:24, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (khan @ Feb. 08 2009,22:42)
It should be noted that the initial impetus behind my conversion was the realization that the Darwinian thesis of purposelessly-driven life was an obvious, Himalayan-sized pile of pseudoscientific crap. This realization required only a minimal education in mathematics, chemistry, physics, and computation.

I really is smarter than all you scientistic folks.

Author?  Linky please?

Date: 2009/02/08 23:38:16, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 07 2009,14:43)
I know that it is often said that selection takes the "luck" out of the equation.  As I understand it however, (and I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong), all potential solutions (pre-selection) are generated randomly and then the best solutions are sometimes selected.  So, in real life, without the random generation of a potential solution (pure luck and coincidence), and fortuitous selection (which also may involve some luck as well) evolution does not work.  That's a lot of luck Louis!  I agree though that it's not only luck that's involved.  Perhaps I should have said "mostly luck and coincidence".

Is it "mostly luck and coincidence" that there is a winner for every lottery?
 Is it luck and coincidence that the casinos in Vegas on the average take 15% of all money wagered?
 Is it luck and coincidence that with unlimited rolls, a game of Yahtzee will yield all sixes eventually?

 Some things you consider "luck and coincidence", are in fact, inevitable in the long run.

Date: 2009/02/16 01:26:42, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 15 2009,08:50)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 15 2009,05:55)
Quote (Quack @ Feb. 15 2009,05:24)
Seems to me he’s made little progress.


Perhaps Mike has reappeared at TT because his dreams of retirement, based on book royalties, have been quashed, and he needs to drum up more business now...

I also notice that Mike Gene's IDthink page at his publisher's site comes up:

"SUSPENDED: This Domain ( Has Been Disabled"

Maybe someone hasn't been paying the bills?

Date: 2009/02/16 01:42:12, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Laminar_ @ Feb. 16 2009,00:07)

Clive Hayden


12:06 am


I would avoid this sort of incendiary language if I were you.

“So, you also clearly know virtually nothing about the history of biology either.”

“The fact that you didn’t recognize it as such indicates that you, too, know virtually nothing about evolutionary biology.”

“So, your lame attempt to invoke the standard “RM & NS” strawman argument…..”

Even if it’s not incendiary to whomever it’s directed, it is to me.

MacNeill is one of the few anti-IDrational and educated people they have tolerated but this may have a few of them hoping someone will step in with the bannination stick.

Here it comes...

Incendiary language indeed? they seemed more like statements of fact to me, and certainly no worse than the kinds of comments we get from DaveScott. Perhaps Clive should put his own house in order first.

Remember, anything you say on AtBC can and will be used against you in Unkle Clive's Kangaroo Court of Uncommon Deceit.
 I always follow Dave's advice and "put a sock in it". :p

Date: 2009/02/16 12:56:23, Link
Author: sledgehammer
OH NOES!   StephenB has discovered our dirty little secret!  It's all about sex:
In response to Sal Gal's cogent post:    
The “They’ve been programmed by their educators” argument always offends me. I was a creationist in high school, and it was very much a matter of the programming of the Southern Baptist church. There were two very important developments in my freshman year at a Baptist college. In Bible 101, I learned about alternative notions of divine inspiration of scripture. In experimental psychology, I was introduced to the philosophy of science.
No professor suggested that I change my beliefs. But I earnestly sought the truth. I saw for myself that my biblical literalism was not justified by the history of the texts, and that scientific belief was of an entirely different kind than religious belief. The conflict between acceptance of the Genesis accounts (all three of them) of creation and the scientific account of the descent of species vanished. I could see that, as science, evolutionary theory gave a coherent account of a huge mass of empirical observations that had previously been given only taxonomic organization....(snip)...The upshot is that I feel sympathy for people who struggle with an unholy mishmash of religious and scientific beliefs. I was once one of them, and it was education that led me to see the necessity of teasing apart the two forms of belief.

StephenB offers a better reason:

“I suppose that the reason that we all leapt at The Origin [of Species] was that the idea of God interfered with our sexual mores.”

- Julian Huxley

Yep, that's certainly why I latched on to MET, so I could have wild licentious sex with abandon! And I still can!  Thank you, thank you, Charles Darwin!

StephenB is a veritable tardbucket today:

...The atheistic/agnostic world view, and its foundational principle that something can come from nothing, stem from pure emotionalism. No one who thinks straight can believe such things....The academy promotes a three fold philosophy of life: metaphysical naturalism, introduced as Darwinism, epistemological skepticism, characterized as sophistication, and licentiousness, promoted as freedom. Each complements the other, but certain individuals tend to pick their favorite in the beginning.

One may embrace skepticism for a while without getting all worked up about Darwinism and vice versa. Similarly, one may simply take on the licentious life-style without thinking much about the Darwinism. As the student gets older though, all three become reinforced and internalized, each through the other.

Through Darwinism, they learn to question the value of life and sneer at the dignity of the human person; through skepticism, they learn to hate truth and challenge the principles of right reason; through, licentiousness, they learn to disdain self control and avoid personal responsibility.

A sanctimonious little snot, he is.

Date: 2009/02/16 17:09:09, Link
Author: sledgehammer
From ReMine's book
13. The Fossil Record

     This chapter documents — in evolutionists' own words — how the fossil record fails to support Darwinian expectations.

Great, a whole chapter of quotemines.

Date: 2009/02/16 17:54:16, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Feb. 16 2009,17:29)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 16 2009,15:01)
Quote (damitall @ Feb. 16 2009,14:41)
Tardstorm warning!

Walter ReMine and his dratted Biotic Message have surfaced!
Batten down yer baramins!

You gotta love the reviews, from here.
"Apart from the Bible I've never been so enthralled by a book in all my life!"
Christopher Chaney, Horseheads, New York

Has he updated anything?  Or is this just a "buy my book!!" push for the same rancid horseshit he self-published over 15 years ago?

Apparently not..
In 1982 he began eleven years of laborious research, culminating in his treatise, The Biotic Message.
Copyright © 1997-2007 Saint Paul Science Inc., All Rights Reserved.

 So, he finished his "research" in 1991 and has been waiting 18 years for the "right moment" to publish :p

Date: 2009/02/16 18:18:42, Link
Author: sledgehammer
I don't understand the connection between Darwin and Larry Hillblom's death in 1995? I recall a famous paternity suit that involved his mother's DNA, only because I worked for his brother, Walt for a time.

Date: 2009/02/16 18:42:35, Link
Author: sledgehammer
23. Cosmological Issues

     The biotic message is first and foremost a biological theory, yet this chapter briefly examines how geological and cosmological evidences add additional support. Chief among these is the rather curious situation that the fossil record — mostly of marine organisms in sedimentary rocks — is stacked up high and dry on land starring at us. This record is unavoidable, even on the highest mountains. That is a curious and unexpected situation for a natural planet. Yet this fortuitous situation is absolutely essential for the success of the biotic message.

:O (speechless)

Date: 2009/02/16 18:59:38, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (J-Dog @ Feb. 16 2009,18:39)

Apparently not..
In 1982 he began eleven years of laborious research, culminating in his treatise, The Biotic Message.
Copyright © 1997-2007 Saint Paul Science Inc., All Rights Reserved.

 So, he finished his "research" in 1991 1993 and has been waiting 18 16 years for the "right moment" to publish :p

And apparently I can't add. ???

Date: 2009/02/16 19:04:03, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (J-Dog @ Feb. 16 2009,18:42)
I liked Rich Hughes' ID timeline - It is a true classic.

Got a link?

Date: 2009/02/17 14:41:37, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (olegt @ Feb. 16 2009,20:25)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 16 2009,10:08)
Quote (slpage @ Feb. 16 2009,09:56)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 16 2009,07:02)
Quote (sledgehammer @ Feb. 16 2009,01:26)
I also notice that Mike Gene's IDthink page at his publisher's site comes up:

"SUSPENDED: This Domain ( Has Been Disabled"

Maybe someone hasn't been paying the bills?

And then there's this bit of hilarity (my emphasis)          
Description:  Arbor Vitae Press is a small, independent publisher dedicated to the production and distribution of high quality books addressing major topics and issues of our times. We are committed to showcasing the works of both new and published authors who provide fresh, insightful and thought provoking commentary on analyses of important contemporary and controversial issues that are consistent with a Judeo-Christian worldview.

And yet we are told that ID has nothing to do with religion.

Gene especially was always so adamant about his non-religiosity.  Whatever...

What's even more amusing is that Gene's book seems to be the only thing ever published by Arbor Vitae Press. A search on their ISBN (978-0-9786314) yields only this book.  Is it a vanity press with a single vain author? Maybe our resident librarian/witch can enlighten us on this...

I am not a librarian, but I am reasonably sure that Arborvitae Publishing only planned to publish one book: The Design Matrix.  The web site of this publisher is down but you can access its old pages via Wayback Machine:*/
The web site was created shortly before the intended release of the book (Fall 2006) and folded shortly after the actual release (November 2007).

Bradford had this to say about Arbor Vitae:
#  Bradford Says:
January 22nd, 2009 at 4:35 pm

A correction. The AVP site is down but the publisher had more on its plate than the one book. Why would anyone think otherwise unless it is about bashing?

Comment by Bradford — January 22, 2009 @ 4:35 pm

Yet here's what i get from here:  
Books listed by ISBN
Arbor Vitae Press
year of publication ISBN author(s) title
2007 978-0-9786314-0-6 Mike Gene The Design Matrix: A Consilience of Clues

And that's all, folks.

Date: 2009/02/17 14:53:21, Link
Author: sledgehammer
I stand corrected.  Apparently AVP did publish one other book, "The Hawk's Mewl" poetry by Nigel Humphrey.

Jonathan Wood is/was the proprietor of AVP:

Wood, Jonathan
snail: BM Spellbound, London WC1N 3XX
Interests: produces irregular catalogues of interesting and obscure second-hand stock. Proprietor of the Arbor Vitae Press and publishes 'Through the Woods', an idiosyncratic journal of weird fiction, poetry and discourse specialising in lovelorn reveries, obscurantism and cultural timeslips.

An appropriate description of "Design Matrix"?

Date: 2009/02/17 15:05:38, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (J-Dog @ Feb. 17 2009,14:54)
Do I still have time to add an IDEA?

"Resurrected" from the past - BUT, since Casey will be there, I think it was worth re-working.

By the DESIGN PEOPLE - I-D-E-A Lyrics
(Y-M-C-A for all you youngsters out there)

That one got my co-workers to my office after hearing me choke on my coffee, followed by loud guffaws! It may be resurrected but it's new to me.  Thanks for that!

Date: 2009/02/17 19:35:02, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (khan @ Feb. 17 2009,18:59)
Just an observation:

ATBC time stamp is ahead of my PC time.

When first noticed a while back was 3 minutes; is now up to 6.

Right now PC says 7:52 PM

Your profile edit page should show a time zone tab where you can enter your desired timestamp relative to antiev central time (ACT)

Date: 2009/02/17 20:14:02, Link
Author: sledgehammer
No prob.  At the top of this page, click on "Your Control Panel", then the tab "account options", then the first clickable box that  says "adjust base time zone".  enter + or - the # of hours you want your timestamp to be relative to "ACT" which is listed near the box.

Date: 2009/02/17 20:18:40, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (olegt @ Feb. 17 2009,16:15)
sledgehammer, that is another one-man publisher, based in London.

Well I found it on yer internets, so it must be true!

Date: 2009/02/17 20:41:12, Link
Author: sledgehammer
That's better agreement than I get between my cell phone, my laptop, the microwave, and my alarm clock:p  I guess now you'll have to right click on that offending PC clock and make it agree with the "official" ACT.

Date: 2009/02/17 20:50:26, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Did I mention that you also have to click the "change my account options" at the bottom of the page?

My DVD/VCR player says 12:00...12:00...12:00...  I have no idea how to change it.

Date: 2009/02/18 18:04:07, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Allen McNeill:      
After you do, I would appreciate any comments (and especially substantive criticisms) you might have…but please, save the ad hominems for each other. Thank you for goading me to write what will become yet another chapter in my forthcoming evolution textbook from John Wiley & Sons (due out in 2010).

Quote (dvunkannon @ Feb. 18 2009,07:45)
Is Allen catching BMB (Buy My Book) disease from the rest of the UcD denizens? If you work too long in the psych ward...

I don't know, I took McNeill's comment as a subtle jab at the vanity press books published by the IDios

Date: 2009/02/18 19:13:20, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (GCUGreyArea @ Feb. 18 2009,11:47)

65 Allen_MacNeill 02/18/2009 2:09 pm

It’s called tenure, Dave; look it up.

Dave, you might also want to WRITE THAT DOWN!




I love it so!

Date: 2009/02/19 14:20:23, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (olegt @ Feb. 19 2009,08:31)
StephenB has a theory why evolutionary biologists don't go around killing people:    
For all I know, evolutionary biologists are too busy committing adultery and destroying the religious faith of their students to run stop lights and shoot people.

There's hope for you, science nerds!

In that same comment, StephenB confidently asserts:
What I do know for sure is that the irreligious states have higher rates for enabling child molestation. That’s on the record and no survey is needed to confirm it.

Wow.  The man wears some serious blinders. Two words: priests, pedophilia.
 The whole commentary is one huge "holier than thou" diatribe.

Date: 2009/02/21 18:49:33, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 21 2009,12:37)
Quote (J-Dog @ Feb. 21 2009,13:40)
Don't forget thatYoung Jack Inhofe gave up his posting life to fight against the tardicity of this post!  He is the one that got the Disclaimer put on the damn site and made Sibley issue his not-pology...

RIP and more power to Jack Inhofe!  As a matter of fact, I want all of you to equate UD with Jack Inhofe.  He would have wanted it that way.

As long as there are IDiots, Jack Inhofe will be a byword. Jack Inhofe is their inspiration, their guide, their legacy.

Jack Inhofe will always be the empty air that UD slickly pounds their fists against in snake-oiled frenzy .

Thanks for that, deadman.  I was in need of a sig, now I gots me a shiny new 1!

Date: 2009/02/23 14:59:38, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Quidam @ Feb. 23 2009,10:48)
Dave Scott says:
In other “global warming” news, the NSIDC reports that antarctic sea ice is at a record high (at least since 1980 when measurement started). The new high is REALLY high. It’s 50% greater than the old record set in 1995. In case anyone is laboring under the misapprehension that antarctic sea is retreating, it ain’t. The 30-year trend is up 2.5% per decade.

As the northern hemisphere warmed the southern hemisphere cooled. They don’t tell you that because, well, it’s not so easy to work you into a panic when the planet isn’t really warming.

the NSIDC reports
They don’t tell you that
seem to be a contradiction.  They DID tell you that Dave, you even linked to the article and chart where they told you.  It's not as if ID, Creationists and global warming deniers actually have do research to find these things out.

This is rather like "Scientists won't allow questioning of Darwinism - and here's a collection of quotes where famous scientists question Darwinism."

Did anyone else notice the slope?

2.5 +/- 5.0

Nice try, Dave!

Date: 2009/02/23 18:32:04, Link
Author: sledgehammer
5:35 pm

In order to be scientifically useful, measures must give the same results when different people apply them independently to the same objects.

Actually to be scientifically useful lots of measure only need to be accurate to a factor of 10.

Get out of my thread, Rob. You’re an argumentative moron.

Dave sez: We don't like argumentative, except for me, and I've got the corner on moron.

Date: 2009/02/23 18:45:30, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Rob @ Feb. 23 2009,15:58)
Maya, can you save that page?  Thanks.

I still have it on my screen.  I'll copy it and PM it to you.  Word doc OK?

Date: 2009/02/23 19:47:28, Link
Author: sledgehammer
5:35 pm

In order to be scientifically useful, measures must give the same results when different people apply them independently to the same objects.

Actually to be scientifically useful lots of measure only need to be accurate to a factor of 10.

Get out of my thread, Rob. You’re an argumentative moron.

5:35 pm


In order to be scientifically useful, measures must give the same results when different people apply them independently to the same objects.

Actually to be scientifically useful lots of measure only need to be accurate to a factor of 10.

Get out of my thread, Rob. You’re either uninformed or a troll or both. Either way your welcome is worn out.

Hmm.  Dave's last post seems to have evolved, and in less than a minute. Someone must have slapped his wrist for using the "M" word?
By the numbering, evidently seven of R0b's posts have been supranaturally poofed out of existence.
Par for the course for Dimwit Dave, who apparently only has bannination privileges within his own threads.

ETA: yay! gots me a edibuddon!

Date: 2009/03/31 16:31:25, Link
Author: sledgehammer
My speciality was the nitros.
Nitrocellulose, Nitroglycerine, Trinitrotoluene, and of course, my favorite, Nitrous oxide!

Parabens a voce.

Date: 2009/04/06 13:38:47, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Adel spanks gapoochie goodly:

Adel DiBagno
11:17 am

reply to gpuccio [82]:

... Perhaps you’re asking for a mutation-by-mutation account of those changes, and how they affected the function of each organism in whose genome they occurred. I doubt that much relevant data are available yet. We are shocked, shocked (heat-shocked?) to observe that there are gaps in the evidence. If and when gaps are filled by data, I expect that they will be published. Without additional data, further hypothesizing seems unproductive.

However, you have generously filled in those gaps with your preferred alternative hypothesis (though with rather scanty detail):

   I am the designer, and I am planning a new organ, the eye, and in particular the lens. I have special constraints there: I need many functional proteins to protect the tissue from light stress. Among them, I decide to use a type of small heat shock protein. But I also need the lens to be transparent, and to have a specific refractory power. So, I slightly adapt one of the existing small hsps, so that it can serve as a structural protein, while preserving its more complex biochemical function as a chaperone.

An excellent and entertaining hypothesis, but you are not the designer (as far as I know - do you claim otherwise?) and there is no evidence for the existence of a designer. Nor do you have a way of testing your hypothesis. Your scenario is fanciful. A fable. A “Just-so Story.”

There's lots more good tard-baiting before and after this little snippet.
A very entertaining thread. Thanks to Adel DiBagno for taking the time to skillfully confront The Argument Regarding Design.

Date: 2009/04/06 13:57:00, Link
Author: sledgehammer
April fools notwithstanding, here's an interesting brain fart:

With pi defined as the ratio between the circumference and diameter of a circle, it's value is 3.1416... only in an Euclidian geometry.  If space-time has a positive curvature (closed universe), then is not pi < 3.1416... (and > in negative curved space) so in principle could we measure the local curvature by a careful measurement of said ratio?
And does that not imply that pi was much smaller shortly after the Big One?

I'll get me coat...

Date: 2009/04/07 14:30:23, Link
Author: sledgehammer
mynym offers a clear, concise, rational reason why the courts rule against ID:
The judiciary is likely to be deeply prejudiced and biased against ID because in order to increase its own power it must reject the limitations of design rooted in text and the capacity to adapt that was written into the original design of the body politic.

Whew!  I sure wouldn't want to be inside that head.

Date: 2009/04/07 17:44:21, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 07 2009,14:44)
NetNanny and reality interdictor Clive:


Clive Hayden


4:30 pm

“Very good way of putting this. There is no argument for the first cause being personal that doesn’t apply equally to the first cause being impersonal.”

Well, that’s actually not true. If the universe’s first cause was impersonal–just a mere relation between impersonal entities–then the relationship between the impersonal force and the universe would necessitate that the universe would have been around for as long as the relationship between them has been around. This would mean that an impersonal force and the universe’s existence would be infinite into the past, and of course we know that the universe is not infinitely old. And neither will an oscillating universe assuage the difficulty, for that is only pushing the question back, and we also know that in a closed system there is not enough energy to account for an infinitely oscillating universe. And I Am that I Am is obviously different than It Is That It Is–namely, personality.

and we also know that in a closed system there is not enough energy to account for an infinitely oscillating universe - Heddle, Oleg, other n3rdlingers, is this true. Where does the energy dissipate to? I didn't think you could destroy it, just change its state.

Some editationalisms

"With no place to dissipate mass-energy, an oscillator will oscillate forever."  - Sledge N3rdlinger

I guess they don't get much physics or math in "Country Law School".

Date: 2009/04/12 00:25:50, Link
Author: sledgehammer
P. Mahoney
6:24 pm
...It is MOST reassuring that this study of phylogenetics undermining Darwinism comes so soon after the Texas Government has reopened the way for teachers to show pupils the unencumbered facts of Man’s true place in the order of creation. As so often before, we look to America to take the lead in unmiring us from value-free degeneracy.

This asshattery is too blatant, even for UD. I call Poe.

Date: 2009/04/13 18:41:28, Link
Author: sledgehammer
StephenBS's and Frosty's physics are a little (~100yrs) behind the times. It's positively, deterministically, pre-classical:    
1:43 am

Where is the logic police when you need them. Any theory which has at it’s heart the mechanism of random luck to explain the origin of specific structures is not a good theory at all.
Quantum Mechanics has savaged all these "something from nothing" and "OMG! Randomosity" arguments.
Quantum noise appears to be part of the fabric of the universe, and this noise can feed any number of selective ratchet mechanisms, producing "something" from "nothing".

Date: 2009/04/14 10:49:23, Link
Author: sledgehammer
12:50 am
...Linguistically, why must scientist use engineering metaphors to desribe pieces of the puzzel in organic life? For example, like ATP - “smallest motor in the world?” Is this trivial, or a language forced upon researchers? Why must a motor be described in RPM between human made inboard motors for example and flagellum? There is no other way of comparison but in engineering terms of force, velocity and motion. A nano structure far surpassing anything our best engineers have made to date.
I'll buy that when I see a flagellum cranking out 500 bhp @ 10,000 RPM

Date: 2009/04/21 13:28:29, Link
Author: sledgehammer
AngryOldFart equates religion with Tarot and horroscopes:
Do you not want to eliminate religion, DanSLO? If you do, and it’s because it’s irrational and illogical but not dangerous, then you should push for tarot cards and horoscopes to be made illegal as well.

Date: 2009/05/03 02:01:44, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ May 02 2009,14:26)
Dembski keeps looking for information in all the wrong places, as in his 1997 talk at the NTSE conference in Austin. There, Dembski provided a quantification of the amount of information that natural selection could fix per generation as -log_2(1/n) bits, where n was the number of offspring an organism had. Bill Jeffereys asked Dembski if a mutation for, say, a coat color in dogs had a different amount of information simply because of a difference in the number of pups a bitch might have in her litter?

And what was Dembski's answer?
Was it the "Well the premises are sound, so the conclusion follows" that I seem to recall from an early video of an interaction between you and DrDr D?
Any links to the '97 talk?

Date: 2009/05/05 19:38:25, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (CeilingCat @ May 03 2009,22:54)
What does he say about some of the consequences of C being 60 orders of magnitude faster in the past?  I'm thinking of things like E=MC2.  If energy given off by an atomic process* was suddenly to increase by (60 orders of magnitude) squared, striking a match would incinerate the solar system.

* I am not a nuclear physicist nor do I play one on TV, but from what I've heard from those who are nuclear physicists, when a chemical reaction gives off heat, the heat ultimately comes from some atomic bonds being formed or broken.  This gives the resultant atoms a very tiny bit less mass than the ones that went into the reaction and this tiny mass provides the heat and flames at the rate of E=MC2.  So if C increases by 60 magnitudes, don't scratch that match!  Or metabolize, for that matter.

Yes E=mc^2, but just as valid, m=E/c^2, so the energy release could be the same, but the mass change be smaller.  Only the ratio E/m must necessarily change (by 10^120!), if Mageijo's VSL theory is correct.
Wherefore art thou, Higgs Field?

But what's really puzzling is why the YECs are Big Bang Deniers.  Wasn't that their big chance to insert Godness into cosmology?

Date: 2009/05/07 00:29:59, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (ERV @ May 06 2009,21:09)
Quote (Ptaylor @ May 06 2009,21:21)
Quote (Lou FCD @ May 07 2009,13:29)
Luskin Lies for Jesus... again. On Faux News.

What a wanker. The only encouraging thing there is the low star ratings and the bulk of the comments - most are not buying Casey's bullshit.

I love it when Casey uses words with 's' in them.

You mean wordth like "thienth"?

Date: 2009/05/09 10:10:11, Link
Author: sledgehammer
So let me get this straight:
At Grove City College, participation in gay porn is cause for expulsion, but participation in intellectual porn, a.k.a. "Expelled", gets you tenure.

Date: 2009/05/10 15:59:30, Link
Author: sledgehammer
William Dembski: Regarding (3), our point is that precisely because evolution works with constrained landscapes, those constraints require prior information. Yes, the environment is pumping in information; so where did that information come from? ScienceBlogs resents the very question. But what’s the alternative? Simply to say, “Oh, it’s just there.” The Law of Conservation of Information, despite ScienceBlog’s caricatures, provides cogent grounds for thinking that the information had to come from somewhere, i.e., from an information source.

So Dembski has finally admitted that the natural environment is chock full of "information" and evolution is transferring this "information" into genomes.
 By definition, this information is of natural origin.
 I wonder how many bits of CSI the natural environment contains.  I'll bet (if it could be measured) that even Dembski would agree that it is much more than 500 bits, his UPB.
 Seems to me that this eviscerates his entire argument, and nature is entirely capable of explaining all the CSI he finds in biota.

Date: 2009/05/20 16:23:54, Link
Author: sledgehammer
JoeG demonstrates his depth of knowledge:  
“On the Origin of Species…” was published 150 years ago. Yet the evidence for the (alleged) evolution of the eye/ vision system is the same today as it was then.
and with his characteristic clarity:  
The “genetic information” is NOT the sequence. The sequence is just necessary to carry out the instructions. Those instructions that are NOT visible via a microscope (just as the information on a computer disk is not visible by a microscope).

Ya see, Joe, we now have microscopes (AFMs) that can map magnetic domains and the bit patterns on CDs, and secret decoder rings that tell us what the patterns mean. :O

Date: 2009/05/23 22:37:12, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (J-Dog @ May 23 2009,18:40)
I seem to recall from the big Sermon On The Mount Photo Op speech where Christ did say:
"For verily I speaketh to you that there shall come unto you a man that so doth misuse his noggin - and he shall be called Stephen B and yea though he thinketh that he doth preach design, he most certainly doth bring the tard in all it's moldy droppings.  Thus I speaketht this truth to you that most unblessed be StephenB.  And yea, I telleth you this now, that he will buyeth a bridge in the town of Brooklyn before the cock crows thrice.  And ye shall banketh upon this and be happy. "

Hear Ye! Verily, I doth beseech the P'wrs to awardeth unto the Dog, the esteemed POTW, so that all can bear witness to His Uncommon Descent into the depths of the tard that floweth in the veins and the souls of the denizens of that unspeakable place of infamy.

Date: 2009/05/27 15:05:46, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Advocatus Diaboli @ May 27 2009,12:33)
Quote (Aardvark @ May 27 2009,07:57)
I can barely contain my excitement.

Some new multimedia plus a collection of links to older Disco Institute articles. Very impressive. Now we know why the ID-community has been too busy to make science.

Notice who's conspicuously missing from the opening illustramedia clip?  It has all the Discotute fellows but one.
The D-D-Dr.-Dr. himself.

Date: 2009/06/02 13:31:10, Link
Author: sledgehammer
I followed a RBH link on PT to DrDr's "What every theologian should know about creation, evolution and design", and found these little gems (emphases mine):
First off, design is not young earth creationism. This is not to say that there are no young earth creationists who are also design theorists (Paul Nelson and Siegfried Scherer come to mind). ...
The point is that design theory does not stand or fall with what age one assigns to the universe. ...

Well this statement is clear(ly bullshit). The presumed age of the universe has, obviously, no impact whatsoever on the presumed methods used by the presumed designer.
... Next, the design theorists' critique of Darwinism in no way hinges on the Genesis account of creation. ...

Yeah, sure, whatever. But:
Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory.

All science, so far!

This next one's for Behe:
... Nor can it be said that design theory endorses progressive creation. Progressive creation can accommodate a considerable degree of evolutionary change once a given kind is in place. According to this view the creation of a given kind induces an evolutionary envelope within which considerable, but not unlimited, variation is possible.

So According to the premier DrDr Design Theorist (DTtm,PhD2), ID can't be said to endorse "limited change", Edge of Evolution notwithstanding.
...Nor can design theory strictly speaking be said to be anti-evolutionist. ...

Yeah. Uh-huh.  Got that.  Check.

So what exactly does "design theory" endorse DrDrD?

This last one's for JerryTheSock and the other anti-macro-evolitionismists:
... Design theory places no limits on the amount of evolutionary change that organisms might have experienced in the course of natural history.

Well, now that the good DrDr has cleared that up, there should be no more confusion about what ID is, so UD can close, and we can all go home now.

Date: 2009/06/04 16:38:28, Link
Author: sledgehammer
As un-flatulent as Bill Dembski ...

ETA  un

Date: 2009/06/07 15:49:55, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Zachriel @ June 06 2009,05:48)
Cornelius Hunter has posted several new threads at Uncommon Descent most of which link back to his own blog for the balance of the essay. But there doesn't seem to be a way to comment on his blog.

How Future Scholars Will View Evolution

PZ Myers: The Anti-Authoritarian Authoritarian

The Three Fallacies of Evolution

Religion Masquerades as Science in Forbes Magazine

Every single one of those topics include at least one, and sometimes several, links to his own pathetic blaggery.
Looks like Corny is taking lessons from Densye on how to use UD in a pitifully blatant attempt to direct traffic to their own blogs.

Date: 2009/06/08 19:41:00, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Dr.GH @ June 08 2009,17:19)
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ June 08 2009,16:53)
As an engineer I see spectrum analyzer abbreviated "spec anal" in test procedures all the time.

Is that "anal speculum engineer"?

I've always referred to it as a "rectum analyzer", and the task of spectral analysis abbreviated "rectal anal" is an oxymoron.

Date: 2009/06/08 23:40:10, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (afarensis @ June 08 2009,20:45)
Quote (Henry J @ June 08 2009,21:04)

Hey, did you know:

Folks from Dubai don't like the Flintstones.

But those from Abu Dhabi do!

I hope that theory is build on bedrock and not on loose sand...

Would Pebbles do instead of bedrock?

Bett(y)er on Rubble?

Date: 2009/06/09 16:08:08, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Frosty gives us a woo-nderfully precise scientific definition of Intelligence and ID: (emphasis added)
Now ID claims that intelligence is a non-physical explanation for the specified complexity of things. Hence, ID does not need to fallow [sic] a materialistic universal synthesis as it never claims this model to be the one true template of intelligence or for scientific inquiry. Intelligence is interwoven throughout the universe and it is the one natural acting force, cause and explanation that can pick and choose how and when it get’s [sic] involved. And this constitutes the explanatory benefit that an ID perspective beings [sic] to science.

ETA [sic]s

Date: 2009/06/09 22:44:36, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Dr.GH @ June 09 2009,17:27)
Quote (Doc Bill @ June 09 2009,16:30)
I haven't been broken down since I bought a Lexus.

As they say, It is not the years, it is the milage. And I would add, "the off-road milage."  My truck is a 1985 Toyota with 116,000 original miles. Since I rarely do field work anymore, it will probably rust apart before it wears apart.

I, however, just returned from the dentist $1,100 US poorer, and that is only 1/2 down.

I hear ya. I put 250K+ miles on my '79 Toyota SR5 pickup before I "donated" it to my brother-in-law (a charity case if there ever was one). I figure I got my money's worth from it. It's still running.  That 20R 4-banger was indestructible.  It's heritage was the Toyota HiLux pickup, the dominant truck in Africa during the 60's.
Now I gots me a brand new V8 Sequioa, and it cost a lot less than my dental implants!

Date: 2009/06/11 14:05:41, Link
Author: sledgehammer
I haven't run the program, but perusing the description of the algorithm, it seem to me that this section that describes how fitness is assigned is the part that determines the ultimate behavior of the model.  They clearly have built in an asymmetry in the fitness of beneficial vs deleterious mutations, and their justifications of the asymmetry smell fishy to me, but IANAB. (bolding mine)
To provide users of Mendel even more flexibility in specifying the fitness effect distribution, we have chosen to use a
form of the Weibull function [12] that is a generalization of the more usual exponential function. Our function, expressed
by eq. (3.1), maps a random number x, drawn from a set of uniformly distributed random numbers, to a fitness effect d(x)
for a given random mutation.
d(x) = (dsf) exp(?ax^gamma), 0 < x < 1. (3.1)
Here (dsf) is the scale factor which is equal to the extreme value which d(x) assumes when x = 0. We allow this scale
factor to have two separate values, one for deleterious mutations and the other for favorable ones.
These scale factors are meaningful relative to the initial fitness value assumed for the population before we introduce new mutations. In Mendel we assume this initial fitness value to be 1.0. For deleterious mutations, since lethal mutations exist, we choose dsf del = ?1. For favorable mutations, we allow the user to specify the (positive) scale factor dsf fav. Normally, this would be a small value (e.g., 0.01 to 0.1), since it is only in very special situations that a single beneficial mutation would
have a very large effect.

The parameters a and gamma, both positive real numbers, determine the shape of the fitness effect distribution. We applythe same values of a and gamma to both favorable and deleterious mutations. The parameter a determines the minimum absolute values for d(x), realized when x = 1. We choose to make the minimum absolute value of d(x) the inverse of the haploid genome size G (measured in number of nucleotides) by choosing a = loge(G). For example, for the human genome, G = 3 × 109, which means that for the case of deleterious mutations, d(1) = ?1/G = ?3 × 10?10. For large genomes,
this minimum value is essentially 0. For organisms with smaller genomes such as yeast, which has a value for G on
the order of 107, the minimum absolute effect is larger. This is consistent with the expectation that each nucleotide in a smaller genome on average plays a greater relative role in the organism’s fitness.
The second parameter gamma, can be viewed as ontrolling the fraction of mutations that have a large absolute fitness
effect. Instead of specifying gamma directly, we select two quantities that are more intuitive and together define gamma. The first is theta, a threshold value that defines a “high-impact mutation”. The second is q, the fraction of mutations that exceed this threshold in their effect. For example, a user can first define a high-impact mutation as one that results in 10% or more change in fitness (theta = 0.1) relative to the scale factor and then specify that 0.001 of all mutations (q = 0.001) be in this category. Inside the code the value of is computed that satisfies these requirements. We reiterate that Mendel uses the same value for gamma, and thus the same values for theta and q, for both favorable and deleterious mutations. Figure 3.1 shows the effect of the parameter q on the shape of the distribution of fitness effect. Note that for each of the cases displayed the large majority of mutations are nearly neutral, that is, they have very small effects. Since a utation’s effect on fitness can be measured experimentally only if it is sufficiently large, our strategy for parameterizing the fitness effect distribution in terms of high-impact situtations provides a means for the Mendel user to relate the numerical model input more directly to available data regarding the actual measurable frequencies of mutations in a given biological context.

Part of the justification for asymmetry is that some mutations are lethal, meaning that individual has zero probability of reproducing.  OK, but the maximum fitness benefit of a beneficial mutation is "a very small number like 0.001", which is then subject to "heritability factor", typically 0.2, and other probabilities that severely limit its ability to propagate.
 To make matters worse, for some unjustified reason, the same distribution for beneficial and deleterious is used, after severely skewing the results with the above.
Again, IANOB, but it seems to me that a single beneficial mutation can, in many situations like disease resistance, blonde hair, big boobs, etc, virtually guarantee mating success, just like a deleterious mutation can be reproductively lethal.
 I can see easily how the skewed treatment of beneficial vs deleterious mutations could virtually guarantee "genetic entropy", as evidenced by monotonically decreasing population fitness caused by accumulation of deleterious mutational load.

ETA source.  link is above
Sanford, J., Baumgardner, J., Gibson, P., Brewer, W., & ReMine, W.
(2007a). Mendel’s Accountant: A biologically realistic forward-time population genetics program. Scalable Computing: Practice and Experience 8(2), 147–165.

Date: 2009/06/11 14:23:38, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Call me skeptical, but I think  that they put the various "hooks" to skew the beneficial vs deleterious effects into the program for one reason only.

Date: 2009/06/11 23:20:53, Link
Author: sledgehammer
I would like to precipitate in the punfest, but the chemistry just isn't right.

Date: 2009/06/16 14:42:13, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Zachriel @ June 15 2009,19:00)
John Sanford: That is easily re-set, but one has to consider if it is reasonable to realistically build up a genome by increments of 10% (I am speaking of internal complexity - not adaptation to an external environmental factor). I think that is like going up Mt. Improbable using a helicopter.

Which goes to show that he doesn't understand his own simulation. Mendel's Accounant doesn't model "internal complexity". It purports to abstract selective differences.

A specific limit to beneficial mutations may not make sense. Some mutations may sweep over a population rapidly. It is certainly conceivable that a seemingly minor mutation could dramatically increase reproductive success, perhaps many-fold, such as when there is only one male that reproduces.

I think it is even worse that that Zach, for three reasons:

Firstly, the parameter in question is the "maximal fitness effect of a beneficial mutation". This has nothing to do with the physical makeup of the genome, as Dr Sanford seems to imply.  It seems absurd to link this parameter to some implication of "affected base pairs", much less some inferred "infusion of information" into the genome, as the description of this parameter in the MA manual below seems to imply:
Mendel's Accountant User Manual: Maximal beneficial mutation effects – A realistic upper limit must be placed upon beneficial mutations. This is because a single nucleotide change can expand total biological functionality of an organism only to a limited degree. The larger the genome and the greater the total genomic information, the less a single nucleotide is likely to increase the total. Researchers must make a judgment for themselves of what is a reasonable maximal value for a single base change. The MENDEL default value for this limit is 0.001. This limit implies that a single point mutation can increase total biological functionality by as much as 0.1%. In a genome such as man’s, assuming only 10% of the genome is functional, such a maximal impact point mutation might be viewed as equivalent to adding 300,000 new information-bearing base pairs each of which had the genome-wide average fitness contribution. Researchers need to honestly define the upper limit they feel is realistic for their species. However it should be obvious that, in all cases, the upper limit for beneficial mutation effects ought to correspond to a very small fraction of the total genomic information (i.e. a small number relative to one).

Call me cynical, but when this much handwaving is applied to a point,  I suspect it means that this is a crucial parameter when it comes to justifying the conclusion that "genetic entropy" leads inevitably to genetic meltdown.

Secondly, there seems to be no reason to limit the maximal fitness effect of a beneficial mutation to a very small number.  Clearly, as pointed out by Z and others, in a competitive environment, there seems to be no reason a single beneficial mutation cannot virtually guarantee reproductive success. In other words, why can't the maximal fitness benefit of a beneficial mutation be something close to unity?

Lastly, the parameter in question is implemented as a scale factor on the probability distribution of fitness effect, which, for no apparent reason, is hard coded to be identical to the shape of the PDF of fitness effects of deleterious mutations  (whose scale factor is hard coded to be -1, i.e. instant death).
 The effect of this fitness effect PDF scaling is even more significant when one considers that the PDF shape is already heavily skewed so that the vast majority of mutations fall "under the radar" of selection. So now, all beneficial mutations are 1000-fold (default value 0.001) less likely to become fixed in the population through selection, hard or soft.  That seems unrealistic to me, so say the least.

To mitigate the above bias against beneficials,  I recommend setting the maximal beneficial fitness parameter close to unity, which will symmetrize the fitness effect probability distribution, and then play with the parameter that determines the proportion of beneficial mutations ( i.e. set the ratio of beneficial to deleterious mutations to .001 or whatever).
 My guess is that this will "level the playing field" and have a significant effect on the overall fitness trend.

Maybe someone who has MA up and running (Zach, Sam?) could try this and report?

P.S. I occurs to me that the PDF shape symmetry might also help account for the effects of the mutational "flipping" of deleterious to beneficial and vice versa.

ETA clarification: "be fixed by selection" is now "become fixed in the population through selection"

Date: 2009/06/16 16:47:03, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (dnmlthr @ June 16 2009,14:02)
THE CAKE IS A LIE (by which I mean congratulations)

"Still Alive" is a good way to be.  There's science to be done for the people that are still..*

Hoppy burfday JohnW!!!11!!

*another obscure "Portal" reference for the uninitiated.

Date: 2009/06/16 17:46:58, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Thanks Sam. Overall fitness switching from a negative trend to positive as a result of a 10X increase in "maximal beneficial fitness" seems to confirm that it is one of the most important parameters as far as the trend is concerned. Unfortunately, I can't see the attachments you posted on TWeb without registering.  Any chance you could post them here as well?  (Post them to my photobucket page, and then link them here via the image tag)

Date: 2009/06/17 16:39:39, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Sanford: A setting of 1.0 means that a single mutation can double fitness - creating as much biological functionality as the entire rest of the genome.

I don't buy that argument either.
This is from:
J. Sanford, J. Baumgardner, W. Brewer, P. Gibson, and W. Remine. Mendel's Accountant: A biologically realistic forward-time population genetics program. SCPE. 8(2), July 2007, pp. 147-165.
3.2. Prescribing Fitness Effects of Mutations. ...These scale factors are meaningful relative to the initial fitness value assumed for the population before we introduce new mutations. In Mendel we assume this initial fitness value to be 1.0. For deleterious mutations, since lethal mutations exist, we choose dsf del = -1.
For favorable mutations, we allow the user to specify the (positive) scale factor dsf fav. Normally, this would be a small value (e.g., 0.01 to 0.1), since it is only in very special situations that a single beneficial mutation would
have a very large effect.

Seems to me that if the scale factor for deleterious mutations of -1 represents lethality, (i.e. no chance of reproduction), then it's inverse for beneficial mutations, +1, would represent guaranteed reproductive success, not "doubling of fitness".

Date: 2009/06/18 11:05:11, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Bob O'H @ June 17 2009,23:58)
Favorable Mutations:

c...  Compute mean absolute fitness effect for favorable mutations.

     sum = 0.
     d2  = 1.

     do i=1,1000000
        d1 = d2
        d2 = exp(-alpha_fav*(0.000001*i)**gamma_fav)
        sum = sum + d1 + d2
     end do

     fav_mean = 0.0000005*sum*max_fav_fitness_gain

Ugh.  That's a horrible way to do the integration.  I recognise the density (George Box was promoting it in the 50s), and it has an analytic solution: alpha_fav*gamma_fav*Gamma(1/gamma_fav), where Gamma() is the gamma function.

(ref: Box, G. E. P. 1953. A note on regions for tests of kurtosis. Biometrika 40: 465-468)

Also, where does the 0.0000005 come from?  I'm always suspicious of constants like that.

Well it is 1/2*1/1,000,000, and since it is a density, the sum-as-integral needs to be scaled, but I thought the (0.000001*i) was supposed to do that.
 I think it's a boo-boo.

Date: 2009/06/18 17:36:36, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Steve Schaffner @ June 18 2009,14:59)
Since MA keeps the population constant, it is implicitly using relative fitness. In that case, introducing an arbitrary scaling factor into the fitness doesn't matter; it's only the ratio of fitnesses that matters. It seems to me that the model treats fitness as being relative until it get very small, at which point it is treated as absolute. But there is no simple way to determine absolute fitness from relative fitness.

This seems like a basic point, but I don't understand what the program is trying to model here.

I think the program is trying to model nothing more or less than the complete, abject failure of Darwinian Evolution to produce anything other than Genetic Entropy leading inevitably to Mutational Meltdown, unless the genome is infused with Complex Specified Information from a divine source.

Date: 2009/06/25 14:42:04, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Here's a religion/child abuse situation that really frosts me: faith healing.
 Here in Oregon, we've recently had several kids die of pneumonia and other easily treatable diseases simply because their parents refused them medical treatment, opting instead for prayer, exclusively. One particular cult of fundies, "Followers of Christ Church", has been responsible for at least 70 childrens' deaths since the '50s, and not a single parent was ever prosecuted, because until recently, Oregon has had a provision (pushed through by fundie legislators) that exempts religious faith healing from manslaughter prosecution.
This provision has recently been removed from the statutes, mostly as a direct result of the practices of this cult, in spite of the vigorous protests of the Christian Science Church
The bill eliminates the shield laws from all Oregon's statutes, including murder by abuse, first- and second-degree manslaughter, criminal mistreatment and criminal nonsupport.

Only six states, including Oregon, allow such sweeping immunity for faith-healing parents whose children die without treatment, although more than 40 states include some kind of religious shields in their criminal, civil and juvenile codes.

Not only are Oregon's laws some of the weakest in protecting children of faith healers, but legislative records over the years show that lawmakers wrote the laws to suit the Christian Science Church.

Christian Scientists, the nation's largest religious group favoring spiritual healing methods, has been the chief defender of such religious shields nationwide. Oregon church members pushed through changes in 1995 and 1997 that strengthened parents' rights to use prayers in lieu of medical care, ironically as prosecutors were seeking stiffer sentences for child killers. The church's Oregon lobbyist, Bruce Fitzwater, said he will pay close attention to the debate, but said he couldn't comment Thursday because he hadn't yet seen the bill.

 The first manslaughter trial under the new statute is currently underway:
Faith Healing Manslaughter trial in Oregon

Date: 2009/06/25 16:51:20, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Sealawr @ June 25 2009,13:58)
I'll bet she isn't a woman of few words.

I'll bet she is.  What's the over/under?

I'd put money on "ex".

Date: 2009/06/28 01:39:27, Link
Author: sledgehammer
What is it about sanctimonious pricks like Bussel and Mullings that they can't admit to any error, no matter how trivial?

With DaveTard, it was clearly his fragile ego coupled with his weapon, the bannination stick, that explained his behavior.  (I've known a lot of police and military officers who had similar issues).

Stephen and Gordon's behavior reminds me of my 12 yo daughter, who will moan, bitch, whine, and argue, over the smallest request, putting more effort into the argument than doing the minor task would require.  With her, at least, I understand that she's arguing over the principle of the thing, her perception being that if she gives in, it will set a precedent, and she will then forever be expected to buss her dishes, load the dishwasher, etc. Her hope being that if she makes enough of a fuss, then I'll give up and just do it myself.

Stephen and Gordon act just as hilariously juvenile, but I get the impression that it's deeper. They seem to honestly believe that they can do no wrong, possibly because they believe they are warriors annointed by the Grand Poobah, which gives them license to cheat and lie, since it's the Culture War, and all's fair in a war.

Or maybe they imagine themselves to be paragons of virtue, and losing face in front of their fellow rubes is perceived by them as a fate worse than death?

Anyway, that's my Post #100 rant.

Date: 2009/06/28 11:59:33, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Louis @ June 28 2009,03:43)
Quote (sledgehammer @ June 28 2009,07:39)

Anyway, that's my Post #100 rant.


That's beautiful man, just beautiful.

Congrats. Now you have to make it to the 1k club. We has  Speshul Handsheik too.*


*Don't believe Arden. His "special handshake" is the wrong one.

Thanks, but at this rate that will be in, oh about 2020, when, as we all know, "The Wedge" will have long ago split the trunk of atheistic materialism wide open, Darwinian Evolution will be merely a whiff of a memory, long relegated to the compost heap of science, and all biologists will be singing the praises of the Grand Design, AtBC will be the sole dominion of JAD with endless posts of "I told you so, I love it so" and UD will consist of one long KF post.

Date: 2009/07/01 17:48:10, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Barb cracks me up with this bit of "irrefutable logic"
The Bible is inerrant. Let’s first spell out logically why the Bible can’t have errors:
1. God cannot err.
2. The Bible is the word of God.
3. Therefore, the Bible cannot err.

This is a valid syllogism; if the premises are true, then the conclusion is true. The Bible clearly identifies itself as the word of God as well as stating that God cannot err.

Sounds a lot like "If the premises are true, and the logic is sound, then the conclusion follows".  Where have I heard that before? :p  Could "Barb" be DrDrDiddly's sock?

Date: 2009/07/03 01:26:36, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Feliz Crumpledeanos para RichTardt'Huge  :D

Date: 2009/07/03 13:22:49, Link
Author: sledgehammer
At the risk of getting too explicit, I leave it the reader's basic grasp of anatomy to figure out why in ancient Rome a man who found pleasure in a woman, could also find pleasure in a man, while the record shows that a heterosexual woman rarely found sexual satisfaction in the company of another woman.

And I leave it to the reader to grasp that the author of this statement has a very poor understanding of female sexual arousal, much less female anatomy and ingenuity!

Date: 2009/07/03 16:32:58, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (didymos @ July 03 2009,12:06)



2:21 am


That’s the whole point now, isn’t it?

Neither ND nor ID has ‘proven’ anything. We are on the same playing field. Yet NDists deny ID is science. If so, then neither is ND science.

Furthermore, ID is more likely to get the closest to ‘proving’ anything, since it is a positive claim, whereas ND, claiming spontaneity as a core idea, could never explain anything. How does ND prove a negative?

So the advantage goes to ID. It predicts we will find more and more evidence of just how molecules become animated?
And ID predicts (IMO) that science will discover that the fundamental forces of nature are embedded with information vis-a-vis their multiplicative division, which gives rise to light, which clumps in different degrees, which in turn creates matter, energy, life.

By the time we get all that wrapped around our brains, we will all be in Heaven ‘looking’ at those united forces, which have names and personalities like Father, Jesus, Holy Spirit.


(my bold)

That's just too blatant. I call Poe.  

Oramus is a sock, right?

PM 'Ras immediately!

Date: 2009/07/04 11:21:31, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Happy anniversary Merkins!

Try not to blow any fingers off.

Date: 2009/07/04 18:40:33, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Righard T Hughes:

Rich, He Hug Tards

Ugh! Tard's Rich, Eh?

Sigh, He Tard Cur

High Tard Curse

He Sir,Chug Tard

Such Tard He Rig

High Tard Cures

Date: 2009/07/06 17:15:27, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 06 2009,06:49)
Although It has taken homo sapiens several million years to evolve from the apes, the useful information in our DNA, has probably changed by only a few million bits. So the rate of biological evolution in humans, Stephen Hawking points out in his Life in the Universe lecture,  is about a bit a year.


Does anybody have even an estimate for how much "useful information" separates H. sapiens from say, A. afarensis, as compared to the genetic variation within the current human population, much less from "apes"?
I suspect it's even less than "only a few million bits".

Anyway, a more useful number genetically, would probably be bits/generation*population rather than bits/year.

Not to disparage the Great Stephen, but HINAB, and I think his main point was to contrast genetic and cultural evolution, so I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Date: 2009/07/09 21:19:05, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (k.e.. @ July 09 2009,12:19)
v o l uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuummmmmmmmmmme


neg sux



That there is a tibet prayer wheel spinning the

density of the whole universe on its own axis b4

another time cycle. don u belive   /me/ a daeth

I see simians on keyboards  ???

Date: 2009/07/14 21:22:27, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (didymos @ July 14 2009,19:01)
Mapou, thinks evil Einsteinian time-travel religionists have usurped physics, and it's holding back the development of Biblically-attested transporter technology:



3:31 pm

BillB @5:

   A position isn’t a physical entity.

True and that is the point. However, relativists (including Einstein) have always claimed that massive bodies cause spacetime (a non-physical entity) to curve and that the curvature of spacetime, in turn, causes bodies to fall. Isn’t it rather strange that non-physical entities can interact with physical entities?

Space and time are "non-physical entities", why exactly?  Because they can't be measured?

I'm convinced.

Date: 2009/07/15 14:52:54, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 15 2009,11:35)
This one's mine!
Materialists hate gravity because it is a fundamental force which is not embodied in energy or matter.


Sig worthy :)

Materialists hate gravity

ROFL. Frost, PM Ras!

I HATE GRAVITY TOO!!!!  It's so, you know, CONFINING!

It's a real pain in the ass, especially when I ride.

(I must be a materialist.)

Date: 2009/07/18 15:10:08, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Lou FCD @ July 18 2009,11:42)
From the Shameless Self-Promotion Department:

My review of Kevin Roose's Unlikely Disciple is up at Carnal Nation, and I'd appreciate a little love.

Well done, Lou.  Engagingly written, particularly the juxtaposition of your own experience at BJU.  Any thoughts about writing your own memoirs about that era of your life? I'd buy it, and It might be quite cathartic.

Date: 2009/07/20 15:37:06, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (creeky belly @ July 19 2009,22:39)
Quote (didymos @ July 19 2009,23:30)
Wow, Mapou is just fucking nuts:



10:40 pm

Mr. Charrington:

   What test can you do that will differentiate your idea and show it to be right and capable of explaining more then the ideas of the relativists?

I have already said more than I had planned but I have a prediction regarding the propagation of the electric charge that is at odds with relativity. Relativists claim that the electric charge propagates at c. I claim that it is a non-local phenomenon and I predict that that its effect is instantaneous. The same goes for the gravitational potential. So there you go. Come up with an experiment to measure the speed of the electric charge and get ready for a trip to Oslo. You don’t even need to mention my name. Gotta go.

What the hell does that even mean?  "the speed of the electric charge"? HUHWTFBBQLOLWUT?  More importantly, what letter do we use to represent it?  'C' and 'c' are already taken.

Yeah, this I don't get. I assume he's talking about the fact that modern (by this I mean post 1880s) electrodynamics assumes that the EM fields at a given position are a function of charge and current distributions of the retarded potential. You can do very, very simple experiments to show how this works. By Zeus's beard, all radio communications are based on this principle.

In fact, all of this took places 20 years before the Nobel was ever AWARDED. Talk about missing the Titanic.

As for gravity, it's also been done, and in fact I believe some folks named Hulse and Taylor made it to Oslo. Then again, what would I know, it took me all of a minute to find this information online.

It's even easier than that.  Take a few feet of a pipe filled with charge (a wire), stuff some charge in one end, measure how long it takes for some charge to fall out the other end (a few nanoseconds) and divide by the length.

I do this every other day, and the results are always less than c.

Conclusion: Mapou is freaking batshit delusional.

ETA:  I kin haz No-Bell Pryze now? kthnx!

ETA: guuder grammerz

Date: 2009/07/20 16:29:28, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Mapou babbles:
Wow. A cause in physics is a violation of some conservation principle. The cause of movement is an interaction between two particles. If they have equal positions, they must interact due to an exclusion principle which is itself a consequence of a conservation principle. An interaction lasts as long as the two particles violate the principle. As soon as they move away from each other, they are no longer in violation and there is no reason that the movement of either particle should persist. If it does, it is because they are continually interacting with other particles. Consequently, we are swimming in a highly regular ocean of particles.

The reason objects in motion tend to remain in motion is a direct consequence of the conservation of mass/energy/momentum principle, since to do otherwise would require an expenditure of energy.

[As an aside, for the Biblical minded, The books of Ezekiel and Revelation compare it to a sea of glass (transparent), like crystal (lattice)].

It is all very simple really, so simple in fact, that children will have no trouble grasping it. However, I am afraid that, after centuries of wearing blinders, physicists have become so accustomed to wearing them that they will feel very unconfortable (sic) if they are forced to take them off.

And some of us outgrow our childish intuitions of how things work, after we grow up and are presented with irrefutable evidence that our childish intuitions are wrong.
And some of us just never advance that far.
(bolding mine)

Date: 2009/07/21 17:05:20, Link
Author: sledgehammer
I think I recognize the bolo tie.
Is it  Dick to the Dawk to the PhD ?
(He's smarter than you, he's got a science degree!)

Date: 2009/07/27 16:22:57, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (deadman_932 @ July 26 2009,23:08)
It would be so much better to be Louis Savain, internet genius and heir to the Wily E. Coyote prize.

Or, better yet, he could be the research professor Fig Newtons of Informations basking in the world-renown of the Southern Southwest Texas Baptist WhereGodLostHisShoe Theological Seminary and Semen Repository.


DAT IS FUNNEH !!!eleventy11!!!

Thanks for clearing my nasal passages with hot green tea.
It'll be a while 'fore I'm smellin' rite agin.

Date: 2009/08/01 10:57:42, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Radioactive decay constants seem not to be constant at all. Perhaps that's not so surprising, since radioactive decay is a result of random particle interactions between the surrounding vacuum and the nucleus. Changing the vacuum state will inevitably change the radioactive decay

I'd say YEC.  The bolded statement above is not what a "real" physicist would say.

ETA: I see now that was a YEC statement.  Never mind.

Date: 2009/08/07 16:47:58, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (ppb @ Aug. 07 2009,13:05)
Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 07 2009,15:48)
Doesn't that violate that thing in the constitution about separation of stuff? :p

The Constitution doesn't say anything about the separation of dinosaurs and Jesus.

Or fools and their money.

Date: 2009/08/14 14:12:41, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 14 2009,10:38)
But all this goes to the heart of the matter for evolutionists NEVER address how natural process can generate information in the first place
Are we still stuck in Second Law analogies? Conservation of information crap?

Someone ask him how photosynthesis generates carbohydrates. Maybe we could start a discussion on the definition of the word natural.

New Info Made Easy:

1) Duplicate a gene
2) Add a point mutation that changes a hydrophyllic amino acid to hydrophobic (or vice-versa) which changes a fold or modifies the core catalytic region in the new functional protein.

Voila! New info by "natural" processes, assuming of course that point mutations and gene duplications can happen without divine intervention.

If the new protein is a modest 300 aa long chain, by ID calculation methods, we get 600 bits of new, functional info, far exceeding the UPB.

Date: 2009/08/16 14:43:13, Link
Author: sledgehammer
It’s either God-given or it doesn’t exist. If it doesn’t exist, it can’t be invented. It is impossible to inject morality into a meaningless universe.

No wonder SB is such a "holier-than-thou", insufferable, sanctimonious prick.  He perceives a black-and-white world while most most of us enjoy shades and colors.

Date: 2009/08/16 15:15:35, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Bob O'H @ Aug. 16 2009,08:37)
I will, however, reveal that it was a celebrity wedding.  Of course Grrlscientist is a celeb, but we also had Prof Steve Steve present!  We felt truly honoured.

The rest of the day was spent at the AMNH (the Extreme Mammals and the Frog exhibits are both really worth seeing), and then we went to watch the latest Harry Potter in 3D.

Oh, and the bride wore the dress.  Sorry.

 The honeymoon at the Nat. History Museum was a bit over the top, however.
 I hope you two at least put some of what you leaned from the "extreme mammals" exhibit to good use later.

Date: 2009/08/20 15:06:57, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Aug. 20 2009,10:35)
Latest blog poster is Niwrad. Darwin backwards. How imaginative.

They could have at least used an anagram!

You mean like:

"Warn ID" or "Raw Din" or "In Ward"?

Date: 2009/08/20 18:07:35, Link
Author: sledgehammer
I think it's telling that the last comment by Dembski before squelching discussion was in answer to ppb's statement, which clearly struck a nerve:  
The information needed to drive evolution is provided by the environment the organism finds itself in.

Dembski answers by illogically twisting pbb's statement:
Dembski: And the environment creates the information required for evolution to successfully locate a target how? Lots of environments lack the active information to conduct successful targeted searches.
I’m growing weary of these quibblings and thus shutting the comments off.

Of course, pbb [ppb] never mentioned a target, a search, or creation of information, and "lots of environments" is totally non-sequiter, as if that has anything to do with the environment.
Yet this statement, taken from the IEEE paper, clearly identifies environmental selection as the source of "active information"
In evolutionary search, a large number of offspring is often generated, and the more fit offspring are selected for the next generation. When some offspring are correctly announced [selected] as more fit than others, external knowledge is being applied to the search, giving rise to active information.

So since natural selection by the environment is the application of "external knowledge" and the source of "active information", it follows from his own writing that the (presumably unintelligent) environment is the "natural" source of the specified information contained in the genome.
 So much for "only purposeful intelligence can create specified information" unless his definition of "purposeful intelligence" is expanded to include the environment (i.e. everything).

No wonder he shut down discussion.  He realizes his whole ID argument is screwed.

(edited to reflect ppb's comments.  thanks ppb)

Date: 2009/08/20 18:56:03, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Oh I'm sure he could conjure up a mathematical "environment" that gives rise to a fitness function that is completely flat everywhere except at the "target", or one that is completely random everywhere (like the ones that lead to the "No Free Lunch" theorem).
Of course neither look anything like the real world.

Date: 2009/08/20 19:43:07, Link
Author: sledgehammer
I was amused to see, in the IEEE paper, that the main section IV titled "IV. CRITIQUING EVOLUTIONARY-SEARCH ALGORITHMS", contains a single section: "A. Monkey at a Typewriter", and proceeds to analyze a blind search.  No mention of evolutionary algorithms anywhere in the entire section, except the first sentence:  
A “monkey at a typewriter” is often used to illustrate the viability of random evolutionary search.

"often" by whom? Marks and Dembski?
"random" obviously used here to obfuscate "evolutionary".
Could this be more disingenuous?
 I guess this shows the extent of their ability to critique "evolutionary-search algorithms".

Date: 2009/08/23 13:29:36, Link
Author: sledgehammer
I believe it was Atom that coded the various "Weasel Ware" versions, including the "proximity reward search", which I recall was added after a discussion between him and r0b (sorry no linky).


ETA linky

Date: 2009/08/23 20:05:42, Link
Author: sledgehammer
BAtty77 has really gone off the deep end on this one:
4:03 pm
... It is also interesting to note that we can only “destroy” a photon in these quantum teleportation experiments. No one has “created” a photon as of yet. I firmly believe man shall never do as such, since I hold only God is infinite, and perfect, in information/knowledge.

I am creating and destroying infrared photons as I sit here typing.  I must be God.
...traveling at the speed of light only gets us to the place where time, as we understand it, comes to complete stop for light, i.e. gets us to the eternal, “past and future folding into now”, framework/dimension of time. This “eternal” inference for light is warranted because light is not “frozen within time” yet it is shown that time does not pass for light.

Total, blathering hogwash.  Photons carry their own clock, i.e. their frequency, which keeps perfect time in spite of the fact that they are traveling at lightspeed.
Mass becomes infinite at the speed of light, thus mass will never go the speed of light. As well, distance in direction of travel will shrink to zero for mass at the speed of light (i.e. the mass would disappear from our sight if it could go the speed of light.).

-unless we look at any angle other than perpendicular. Besides, photons have finite mass: they have momentum, they are accelerated by gravity, they exert a force when deflected. They simply have no "rest mass", and they certainly don't "shrink to zero in the direction of travel", as evidenced by their wavepacket description.

BAtshit crazy77, if you are going to spout off about "quantum teleportation", learn some freakin' physics first, for cripes sakes.  You are embarrassing yourself.

Date: 2009/08/25 16:49:46, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Aug. 25 2009,09:13)
Clive Baby articulates a new moderation rule to the most excellent Learned Hand:
I see no grounds whatsoever in considering your anecdotal belief to be authoritative, especially considering that you don’t even know the man. The presumptuousness is really irritating, and I would advise you to stop, I’m serious...As your moderator, I would advise you to stop.

New moderation rule: Don't irritate Clive. Really. He's serious.

Shorter CliveBaby:
LH, your arguments are far too cogent, logical, and convincing for the purposes of this blog, so I am looking for any lame excuse to ban you without appearing too blatantly obvious.
 Just because Dr. Hunter signed a statement declaring his belief that the literal interpretation of Genesis takes precedence over anything scientific, doesn't mean that his religion directs his thinking, so there!
Oh and I'm serious!

Date: 2009/08/28 12:12:29, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Evidence of recent evolution in Deer Mice
Deer mice of the Sand hills in Nebraska have recently (in the last 4000 years) evolved a new, lighter color coat, that better matches their environment.

New coat color? Pfft.  Micro-evolution. No big deal.

Not so fast there, Poindexter.  The color change is a manifestation of a brand new gene, Agouti, that developed in around 8000 generations.  From the article:  
"The light gene wasn't in existence, so the mice had to "wait" until a particular mutation occurred and then selection had to act on that new mutation," says team member Professor Hopi Hoekstra, also of Harvard University.

"It's a two part process. First the mutation has to occur and second, selection has to increase its frequency."

The researchers say it is the first time that it has been possible to document the appearance of a gene, its selection and subsequent spread through a population of wild animals.

And that has allowed them to estimate the "strength" of the natural selection pressure.

Having light coloured fur gives the paler Sand Hills mice a 0.5% survival advantage.

"It doesn't seem that much, but multiplied over thousands of individuals over hundreds of years, it makes a huge difference," says Prof Hoekstra.

"Ours is a very complete story," adds Dr Linnen.

"We've been able to connect changes at DNA level to the ability of deer mice to survive in nature."

Now how many bits of "FSCI" does this new gene represent?  More than 140?  Must have been a direct intervention by god! :p

Date: 2009/08/30 11:59:29, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Thanks bfish, for digging up the details.  I apologize for taking the BBC blurb a little too literally. I should know better.
 I am but a humble physicist, and although I had learned of the agouti gene in mice, it's not a fact I use everyday. it's been a while since undergrad genetics and my memory is getting old and decrepit.
 So what are the odds of that protein island, in the middle of the vast sea on non-functional sequences, arising by chance mutations?  A bazillion-gazillion-to-one???!!!111!!! (technical physics terminology)
God must love those meeces to pieces, to make that change just for them!

Date: 2009/08/30 12:27:08, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (CeilingCat @ Aug. 30 2009,08:19)
Anybody know why he's referring to Richard Dawkins as "CRD"?

Because he's GEM of Tard-Kovered-Idiocy?

Date: 2009/09/01 00:06:03, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Uptight Blowtard:    
Why should a any theory demand something of the evidence? Why not (just for a salty change of pace) let the evidence demand something of the theory instead? It would seem that the evidence is that which can be studied and it is the theory that must conform to those studies.

In fact (given your condemnation of such logical errors) why don’t you personally lead the charge that (from now on) science should demand that the evidence demand something from the theory.

Perhaps that “something” could be conformity to the evidence itself.

seems to have difficulty with the concept of prediction, and that a good theory makes predictions that are supported by newly discovered evidence.
 In the case of the discovery of one less chromosome in humans as compared to apes: the theory of common descent predicts (demands?) that the evidence will eventually uncover to a fusion event. Special creation (or ID for that matter) makes no prediction (the omnipotent designer could design it any way it wanted).   Common Design is even worse in that there would be no good design reason for reducing chromosome number at all.

Date: 2009/09/03 23:00:20, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Origins:  The Zinc Link?
This work puts forward an evolutionary scenario that satisfies the known constraints by proposing that life on Earth emerged, powered by UV-rich solar radiation, at photosynthetically active porous edifices made of precipitated zinc sulfide (ZnS) similar to those found around modern deep-sea hydrothermal vents. Under the high pressure of the primeval, carbon dioxide-dominated atmosphere ZnS could precipitate at the surface of the first continents, within reach of solar light. It is suggested that the ZnS surfaces (1) used the solar radiation to drive carbon dioxide reduction, yielding the building blocks for the first biopolymers, (2) served as templates for the synthesis of longer biopolymers from simpler building blocks, and (3) prevented the first biopolymers from photo-dissociation, by absorbing from them the excess radiation. In addition, the UV light may have favoured the selective enrichment of photostable, RNA-like polymers. Falsification tests of this hypothesis are described in the accompanying article (A.Y. Mulkidjanian, M.Y. Galperin, Biology Direct 2009, 4:27).

Abstr. Part 2
and PDFs too!
and PDF two

Date: 2009/09/03 23:09:56, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Not to mention that with a little knowledge of "nuclear chemistry", we figured out how to make gold from lead!
 So Frill, whose the "alchemist" now, those pursuing the detailed knowledge of the inner workings of the cell, or those who sit back and say "It's too complicated, goddidit!"

Date: 2009/09/04 00:46:27, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Must be you Bob.  It seems to be working for me @ 22:45 PST, 6:45 GMT.

Date: 2009/09/06 14:26:04, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (socle @ Sep. 06 2009,10:26)

Gil is right, Blue Lotus also goes by David v. Squatney. So, Blue, which name would you like to use? To make it easier to follow and for the sake of continuity, just stick with your David v. Squatney handle, and Blue Lotus will now be retired by me.

Just for the record, I know with absolute certainty that David v. Squatney and Blue Lotus are not the same person.  I've made a post to that effect, but DvS is now under moderation.

The cynic in me suspects that CliveBaby knows this all too well, and just needed a justification to excommunicate Blue.





10:05 pm

That is a key reason that we are Alone in this war. We have to Reprioritize our commitments towards Depending on common decency.


Date: 2009/09/08 14:32:24, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 08 2009,11:05)
west virginia we love amerikkka day

Massey Energy CEO Don Blankenship, who told the crowd he spent about $1 million on the rally, offered sharp criticism of multinational corporations, Republicans, Democrats and "environmental nuts" who are trying, he said, to ship American jobs to China.

"Only God can change the Earth's temperature, not Al Gore," he said, later adding, "Global warming is pure make-believe."


The precursor to that last bit was something like
" some folks think we in Appalachia are stupid, but we're smart enough to know that only God can raise the temperature ...."

That's not just pandering by "Big Coal", but downright insulting to the folks in W. Virginny, who have to live with the environmental consequences of his company's exploitation.

Date: 2009/09/09 00:51:10, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 08 2009,19:33)
So, whose tail does the swallowtail swallow? :)

All the tales that a swallowtail would swallow if a swallowtail could swallow tales?

Date: 2009/09/10 16:20:40, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (dvunkannon @ Sep. 10 2009,09:51)
Quote (sledgehammer @ Sep. 04 2009,00:00)
Origins:  The Zinc Link?
This work puts forward an evolutionary scenario that satisfies the known constraints by proposing that life on Earth emerged, powered by UV-rich solar radiation, at photosynthetically active porous edifices made of precipitated zinc sulfide (ZnS) similar to those found around modern deep-sea hydrothermal vents. Under the high pressure of the primeval, carbon dioxide-dominated atmosphere ZnS could precipitate at the surface of the first continents, within reach of solar light. It is suggested that the ZnS surfaces (1) used the solar radiation to drive carbon dioxide reduction, yielding the building blocks for the first biopolymers, (2) served as templates for the synthesis of longer biopolymers from simpler building blocks, and (3) prevented the first biopolymers from photo-dissociation, by absorbing from them the excess radiation. In addition, the UV light may have favoured the selective enrichment of photostable, RNA-like polymers. Falsification tests of this hypothesis are described in the accompanying article (A.Y. Mulkidjanian, M.Y. Galperin, Biology Direct 2009, 4:27).

Abstr. Part 2
and PDFs too!
and PDF two

I just finished reading the first article yesterday. I think they did a great job of bringing together multiple streams of evidence to support their hypothesis, as well as bridging the RNA-world and metabolism first divide.

Definitely something to wave in front of GERM of TIKI the next time he goes on about the always linked improbabilities of OOL. It looks like you don't need plate tectonics to get started, though tides might help.

Except for the extent of plate tectonics being resposible for undersea vents?
Also, for part 2 abstract and PDF, change the ref number inthe URL's from "26" to "27"
Abstr. Part 2
and PDF two

My bad.

Date: 2009/09/10 18:25:06, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (dvunkannon @ Sep. 10 2009,15:52)
Quote (dvunkannon @ Sep. 10 2009,09:51)
While the article explains the hydrothermal precipitation of ZnS with reference to what we see today at the mid ocean ridges caused by plate tectonics, it also makes clear (deep in the article) that the huge ZnS outflows such as the Pilbara Craton of the early Earth took place at the continental surface as the result of volcanic hot spots and high atmospheric pressure working together - hydrothermal does not imply deep ocean in this case.

Plate tectonics would still be important later in sequestering carbon, but just to get life started, they are argunig not necessary.

Yes I see that now.  Thanks for clearing that up.  From the abstract in part 2:
If  life  started within  photosynthesizing  ZnS compartments,  it  should  have  been  able  to  evolve under  the  conditions  of  elevated  levels  of  Zn2+  ions,  byproducts  of  the  ZnS-mediated photosynthesis.  Therefore,  the  Zn  world  hypothesis  leads  to  a  set  of  testable  predictions regarding  the  specific  roles  of Zn2+  ions  in modern  organisms,  particularly  in RNA  and  protein structures  related  to  the  procession  of RNA  and  the  “evolutionarily  old”  cellular  functions.   We checked  these  predictions  using  publicly  available  data  and  obtained  evidence  suggesting  that the  development  of  the  primeval  life  forms  up  to  the  stage  of  the  Last  Universal  Common Ancestor  proceeded  in  zinc-rich  settings.   Testing  of  the  hypothesis  has  revealed  the  possible supportive role of manganese sulfide in the primeval photosynthesis.  In addition, we demonstrate the explanatory power of the Zn world concept by elucidating several points that so far remained without  acceptable  rationalization.    In  particular,  this  concept  implies  a  new  scenario  for  the separation of Bacteria and Archaea and the origin of Eukarya.  

I also notice that Gene Koonin was one of the reviewers. Here's (part of) what he had to say:
...The idea of the pivotal role  of  Zn  ions  (and  ZnS  in  particular)  in  the  earliest  stages  of  the  evolution  of  life  is  highly attractive and generally plausible. However, in this manuscript, Mulkidjanian and Galperin put the plank very high by formulating several predictions that they claim to serve as Popperian tests of the “Zn world” hypothesis. In principle, the intention to test the hypothesis in a formal Popperian setting  is  indeed  commendable.  In  practice,  it  is well  known  that  it  is  hard  to  strictly  adhere  to Popperian criteria,  and  this paper  is no exception...

I think it is very cool that the reviewers comments and the responses by the authors are included in the manuscript.  Is this common in biology?  I've not seen this in the physics realm, unless I was one of the reviewers.

Date: 2009/09/12 16:50:54, Link
Author: sledgehammer
The different American spelling of what British English spells 'aluminium' sometimes cause puzzlement as to how it could have come about. This article tells that story.

Date: 2009/09/14 02:30:38, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Hi Floyd.  Let me be the first to welcome you to teh swamp.  As you can probably tell, you've wandered in to the bar across the street from the debate hall.  The clientele have mostly passed out on the floor, and won't be awake to nurse their hangovers until about noon or so.
 Deadman has set up a proper forum for you here, and will try to keep the riffraff out, or at least up in the peanut gallery/nosebleed seats.
 Don't let the occasional "YOU LIE!!!!111!!!" from the ruffians in the peanut gallery throw you off script.
 Let the showww begin!

Date: 2009/09/14 12:55:54, Link
Author: sledgehammer
While it would be perfectly valid for you to say "evolution is incompatible with my version of Christianity", the generalization "evolution is incompatible with all forms of Christianity" is so obviously wrong, since all that's required to falsify that statement is for a single Christian to disagree with it (e.g. the Pope), and your only recourse seems to be the "No True Scotsman" fallacy (the Pope's not a "True Christiantm").
 I'm surprised that you next plan to argue that "ID is science".  Seems like first you must answer the question "Is ID compatible with Christianity", since  by your apparent definition of Christianity, it would seem that the answer is "No".  Even Baptist Dembski and Catholic Behe argue that ID is compatible with the science of evolution.  Where does that leave you?

Date: 2009/09/14 23:23:43, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Well, I'll offer the first one:
Dembski and Marks IEEE paper, where they show that the "active information" they insist is in the genome comes from the environment, thereby relegating Teh Designer to, at most, setting up the environment. Therefore  no direct infusion of Completely Specious Incantation is needed to explain the complexity of the biosphere, thereby nullifying a significant portion of The Argument Regarding Design.

Date: 2009/09/18 02:11:02, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (sparc @ Sep. 17 2009,21:36)
I receive a mention next to one of the slides — apparently the emergence of nylonase is supposed to provide empirical disconfirmation of my theoretical work on specified complexity (Miller has been taking this line for years). For my response about nylonase, which the critics never cite, go here.

If you go ther you will find something hilarious:
The problem with this argument is that Miller fails to show that the construction/evolution of nylonase from its precursor actually requires CSI at all. As I develop the concept, CSI requires a certain threshold of complexity to be achieved (500 bits, as I argue in my book No Free Lunch). It’s not at all clear that this threshold is achieved here (certainly Miller doesn’t compute the relevant numbers).
Did Dembski ever calculated such numbers himself?

By the Durston/Axe method of calculating functional sequence specificity in protein configuration space, namely:

(negative base 2 log of the ratio of the number of sequences with a specified functionality, to the total number of possible sequences)

- any protein or enzyme that is longer than 250 aa can have over 500 bits of "Functional Information" (by their definition);
-even if it is a near duplicate of another extant sequence, even if different by only a single amino acid-
as long as it enables a novel, specifiable function (like digesting Nylon).

 Since evolution can easily produce just such a sequence, It appears that Dembski and Co. have specified themselves into a proverbial corner.

Date: 2009/09/18 12:27:16, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (creeky belly @ Sep. 18 2009,10:10)
Save it, Augustine had this wrapped up in the 4th century:
... Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books..... (1 Timothy 1.7)

An apt description of Floyd's forays into these fora.

Date: 2009/09/18 12:28:00, Link
Author: sledgehammer
(deleted double post)

Date: 2009/09/22 22:49:32, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (sparc @ Sep. 22 2009,20:09)
Quote (didymos @ Sep. 22 2009,20:30)
Personally, I think it's high time Clivebaby started quoting Huey Lewis at every opportunity.  Or Emmanuel Lewis.

What about Lewis Hamilton?

I think Jerry Lewis is more his style.

Date: 2009/09/22 22:58:28, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 22 2009,19:56)
the comment was disappeared into the aether.

And here I thought that aether theory had gotten dropped a long time ago...


The aether theory is still alive and well with the cranks and crackpots (like Louis Savain a.k.a. Mapou)

Date: 2009/09/25 00:18:38, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Feathered dinosaur fossils from China

Exceptionally well preserved dinosaur fossils uncovered in north-eastern China display the earliest known feathers.

The creatures are all more than 150 million years old.

The new finds are indisputably older than Archaeopteryx, the oldest recognised bird discovered in Germany.

Professor Xu Xing and colleagues tell the journal Nature that this represents the final proof that dinosaurs were ancestral to birds.

Date: 2009/09/25 01:08:45, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Well, there's always the Kent Hovind fallback theory, that the debill planted all dem fossels to test the faith of the Tru Beeleebers

Date: 2009/09/26 17:46:58, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Can we all agree that we have established, beyond a reasonable doubt, that evolution, as defined by FloydLee (as well as geology, paleontology, astronomy, biology, and probably all of science) is incompatible with FloydLee's personal version of Christianity?

I'm magnanimously willing to concede this.  Any disagreements on this point? This discussion has become quite tedious, IMHO.  Is it time to move on?

Date: 2009/09/28 23:12:23, Link
Author: sledgehammer
But as for the ideas: Used to was, and done to death, and it will wash no more.

WTF?  Is this some literary reference or just Densye's attempt at lyrical prose? Either way, it makes no sense to me.

Date: 2009/09/29 11:30:41, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Amadan @ Sep. 29 2009,02:29)
Darwin was a nut case even before publishing his evil satanic work. It was inevitable that his son would die young - probably of shame and embarrassment - after his screwed-up father named him Annie. This proves that gay marriage is socialistic.

Further proof, if it were needed, that evolution is evil is in the fact that the evidence showing its falsity is visible only to true believing fundagelicals living in the USA.

LOL!  I nominate Amadan's for POTW, and Scienthuse as chew-toy of the month.

Date: 2009/09/29 16:53:18, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Has anybody else's fonts gone completely nutso, or is it just me?  (Firefox 3.5.3)

Date: 2009/09/29 17:33:39, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Thanks.  That narrows it down considerably!

Date: 2009/09/29 22:56:40, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Scienthuse @ Sep. 29 2009,19:40)

Perhaps you should actually watch the video before you make statements referring to cobbles of 25 cm.  One only need to watch the first 3 minutes to see Austin climbing the basalt cliff where there are many many boulders as tall as him and as wide.  This would make for several tons a piece and of the same composition as the mountains upriver.

As well, it is Darwin that journaled a 15 ft boulder, not Austin.

As for the scablands, they were ignored for 40 years by the unformintarian science community after in 1923 J Harlan Bretz proposed water flow as a cause for them.

I watched the video, and what I saw/heard was Austin going out of his way to dis Darwin, who was not a geologist, without once answering Darwin's' real point, which was that small rivers can create great wide valleys grain by grain and cobble by cobble. Except to ask the facetious question "If Darwin was wrong about this particular river valley because he didn't have satellite photos and GPS like I do, what else was he wrong about? Huh? Huh? Nyeah, Nyeah. Take that, you big dead atheist biologist."
 Do you, or do you think Austin would disagree that small rivers can carve deep, wide valleys given time?  If not, than what was the point of that whole video other than Darwin bashing?

 Cherry picking minutiae while (dis)missing the main point is a common YEC tactic.

Date: 2009/10/02 12:21:23, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Raevmo @ Oct. 02 2009,01:04)
fifth monarchy man speaks for the rest of the world:

You only think so because you begin with the assumption that it’s possible that God does not exist. You have not presented one iota of evidence that this is the case. You just assert it and expect the rest of the world to agree.

We don’t

What a lunatic.

"You only think so because you begin with the assumption that there's no teapot in orbit around the Earth. You have not presented one iota of evidence that this is the case. You just assert it and expect the rest of the world to agree.

We don’t"

Date: 2009/10/04 00:52:46, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (sparc @ Oct. 03 2009,21:52)
It must be former NSF employees applying for a new job:          
Half of males who apply to serve as a missionary for the Southern Baptist Convention's international mission agency are turned down, according to a Baptist pastor. The primary reason is the use of internet porn.

from the Christian Post

from the Christian Post (

WTF is this "Private Prayer Language" or "Charismatic Prayer" that is as bad as porn according to the SBC?  Is this a euphemism for "speaking is tongues", and why is it so bad?  I was under the impression that this was considered a form of devotion by a lot of Baptists.
According to the AP ("Seminary passes resolution against speaking in tongues", 10/19/2006), the trustees at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary recently voted 36-1 that "Southwestern will not knowingly endorse in any way, advertise, or commend the conclusions of the contemporary charismatic movement including 'private prayer language.'"

They're all wierd by my reckoning, but pornographic? I don't get it, but then, IANAB.

Date: 2009/10/05 11:38:12, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 05 2009,08:04)
Quote (Louis @ Oct. 05 2009,09:01)
P.P.P.S. Turning up to a church when there's a funeral on to badger the priest about some idiot creationist Yank's utterly inane twattery about evolutionary biology....Priceless!

My goodness. Above and beyond the call of duty, indeed. Shroedinger's Perro, I salute you! Trying, at least, to annoy both Floyd and some poor baffled priest is like two birds with one stone: Boink! boink!

Not to mention, annoying the "Lady In Blue".  I'll bet it was the earring, SD.  Doesn't Satan wear an earring, or am I thinking of Mr. Clean?  Anyway, Thanks for the pics!  Above and beyond the call, fer sure, fer sure.

As for Floyd, hasta la vista, baby.  It's apparent that all of your "Big 5" incompats rely on biblical literalism, an unsustainable position w/ respect to reality.  I'm getting the  distinct impression that you and your "Biblical Christians" (literalists) are a dying breed. So much the better for Christianity, and a necessity for it's survival in the modern world, IMHO.

Date: 2009/10/05 18:06:25, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Turncoat @ Oct. 05 2009,15:57)
The latest at Bounded Science:
Resolving a moral dilemma

I made a promise to Bob Marks that I would not divulge my correspondence with him regarding drafts of the paper that IEEE SMC-A published last month. But I did not know that he and Dembski would resort to trickery to get the paper published, and, after considerable agonizing, I've decided that the better course is to break my word.

False attribution of partitioned search to Dawkins is the not the full extent of the academic dishonesty in the article.

This is the first I've heard of sneaky tactics or trickery in the path to publication.  Any details you can share? Give us dirty laundry!  We like dirty laundry.

Date: 2009/10/05 19:55:49, Link
Author: sledgehammer
That and "cleverly" hiding "Evolutionary Informatics" and "this is designed" in the starting strings for the partitioned search.
But I thought the most egregious error was characterizing evolutionary search as "monkey at a typewriter", the only entry in the section labeled "Critiquing Evolutionary Search Algorithms".
That should have been caught by the reviewers IMHO:


4 Critiquing Evolutionary Search Algorithms

Christensen and Oppacher note the sometimes-outrageous claims that had been made of specific optimiza-
tion algorithms" [7]. Their concern is well founded. In computer simulations of evolutionary search,
researchers often construct a complicated computational software environment and then evolve a group of
agents in that environment. When subjected to rounds of selection and variation, the agents can demon-
strate remarkable success at resolving the problem in question. Often the claim is made, or implied, that
the search algorithm deserves full credit for this remarkable success. Such claims, however, are often made
(1) without numerically or analytically assessing the endogenous information that gauges the difficulty of
the problem to be solved, and (2) without acknowledging, much less estimating, the active information that
is folded into the simulation for the search to reach a solution.

4.1 Monkey at a Typewriter
A "monkey at a typewriter" is often used to illustrate the viability of random evolutionary search. It also illustrates the need for active information in even modestly sized searches...

(my bold)
WTF is "random evolutionary search"?  Since "Active Info" is defined by them as the improvement over random search, so that last sentance is bullcrap.

Edited just because.

Date: 2009/10/06 01:36:12, Link
Author: sledgehammer
I see your point, Bill.  On a charitable re-read from that perspective, I concede that M&D might be trying to say something like "Monkeys at typewriters are sometimes used as a contrasting counterexample to demonstrate the effectiveness of evolutionary algorithms"
That still doesn't explain their use of the term "random evolutionary search", not to mention that it's immediately followed by that "mass of the earth" and "planet destroying" 147 bits hokum.  They then proceed to show how partitioned search can solve the problem "in milliseconds".  Nowhere do I see evolutionary algorithms critiqued, much less discussed, unless they somehow consider partitioned search as an example of an evolutionary algorithm.  I suppose that would be in line with their mistaken interpretation of Weasel.
 That plus the section title, "Critiquing Evolutionary Search Algorithms" followed by a single section titled "Monkey at a Typewriter" seems too deliberate from my admittedly cynical perspective.

Date: 2009/10/06 11:56:22, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Oct. 06 2009,09:05)
The most excellent Learned Hand informs me that he has been silently banninated at UD.

He asked, "Would you mind posting a quick FYI that Barrys thread is, indeed, a cowards trap?"


(LH was never a sock. He'll be joining us shortly.)

Cripes, what a bunch of sleazeballs that crew is. They've got the morals of a turnip.
 No doubt it was LH pointing out Barry's contribution to the reputation of his profession.
 Welcome to the swamp, LH.

Date: 2009/10/07 14:44:13, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 07 2009,11:45)
Quote (ppb @ Oct. 06 2009,20:22)
Given Deadman's proclivities you should take care what vertebrate you come back as.

PS: I love image stabilization.  Another excuse to spend more money!

Deer Mr. Sciemtist: I founded this aminal outside today & I wondred what spesces kind it is. Thankyuvery Much, Ur friend, deadman.


Looks like you've captured the rare tarantumunk.

Date: 2009/10/08 01:19:00, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (nmgirl @ Oct. 07 2009,22:06)
I started reading Baar's book again and as he talks about the beauty and majesty of the Grand Canyon as seen from a small raft on the river, I just don't understand why YECs have to believe in this 6000 year old earth and things happening in just moments.  Can't they see the wonder of millions of years of geologic activity, one process building on the other to create this fantastic place? Why is this not evidence of creation over millions of years?

Because big numbers are scary and confuse them?
Maybe they can't count that high :p

Date: 2009/10/08 15:07:45, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (OWKtree @ Oct. 08 2009,11:50)
Quote (nmgirl @ Oct. 08 2009,13:28)
Quote (OWKtree @ Oct. 08 2009,12:36)
The last six pages of chewtoy-dom aside does the acceptance of geological "deep time", a long age of the earth, etc. therefore require the acceptance of evolutionary theory to explain the development of life on the aged orb?

I think any explanation that the current (or very similar to current) lifeforms were developed at that time (e.g. multiple billions of years ago) and have existed in something close to a static state for that length of time is:
1. Not supported by the fossil evidence
2. Not supported by the DNA evidence (pointing to development and diversity of species in relatively rapid time frames.)

To summarize, if you accept an old Earth (4+ billion years old and the accompanying geology (stratifigraphy, plate tectonics, etc.) does that require acceptance of the current theory of the evolution of life?  (And if not, what is a rational theory that explains the known evidence?)

- Kurt

I don't think you can even discuss evolution without an acceptance of deep time. And i don't understand how you can know anything about geology and deny deep time.

I also don't see how you can deny all the evidence of an old earth by claiming that god deliberately faked all that evidence. I think it's blasphemy to claim that god is a fraud.

I am working this from the opposite tack - assuming you accept deep time and the geology, what are the rational options for explaining the diversity and scope of life on the planet given the existing evidence?

- Kurt

There are lots of ways that a god might have "poofed" things into existence over time.  It's the "rational" part that's hard to come by.  About the only alternative that I've heard that even flirts with some form of rationality, is that an unseen, all-powerful god subtly manipulated many individual quantum events over the eons, in such a way that the overall statistics remained unchanged, and therefore undetectable, yet steered the macroscopic results.
Of course that scenario is as unfalsifiable as the all powerful entity itself.

Date: 2009/10/08 16:18:58, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (dmso74 @ Oct. 08 2009,10:19)
over at Corny's blog he's now claiming quantum mechanics is a religious theory:
As for Einstein's religious claims, sure, like everyone else he had his religious beliefs. And they probably influenced his thinking on QM. It is another example of religious influences in science.


That fits.  Einstein was wrong about QM:  God really does play dice with the universe.

Date: 2009/10/13 14:56:20, Link
Author: sledgehammer
tz, on that same thread:
Which is why Evolutionists don't debate. The science - actual science, not the rituals by people in lab-coats - is NOT on their side. Someone else gave an example above of PZ talking about complexity "just being there". It isn't. They can't explain things like the Burgess Shale and the Cambrian Explosion. Science would say it was seeded. Evolutionists say it just all popped into existence via some unexplained and unidentified magical process.

Just Wow.

Date: 2009/10/13 16:12:02, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Like this one:
Sea-floor Sediments Illuminate 53 Million Years of Climate History

Date: 2009/10/13 16:16:56, Link
Author: sledgehammer
If it walks like a dork, Kwoks like a dork, ...

Date: 2009/10/13 19:44:46, Link
Author: sledgehammer
[quote=dvunkannon,Oct. 13 2009,08:44]
Enriched Corn Meal (Corn Meal, Ferrous Sulfate, Niacin, Thiamin Monoitrate, Riboflavin, and Frolic Acid), <snip>Ingredients.

Does the package actually say "Frolic Acid"? That and MSG is a dangerous combination, but would explain a lot.[/qoute]

That was the best kind of acid evah. The favorite of the Merry Pranksters.  Even better than Owsley's.

Date: 2009/10/13 19:54:15, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Zachriel @ Oct. 13 2009,07:16)
niwrad: But the entropic order is not true organization and as such cannot account for the complexity of organisms, which are highly organized systems... ID theory says that organization is different from the simple energy decrease in entropy because the former implies CSI while the latter doesn’t.

Ouch.  Doesn't it hurt when you do the stoopid, nirwad?

Date: 2009/10/14 13:17:53, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Floyd, this is so obvious it shouldn't even have to be pointed out, except to you:
without replication, descent with modification followed by selection (Darwinian evolution) cannot happen.
What part of the term "cosmochemical" do you not understand?
We're only here to help :p

Date: 2009/10/14 15:04:24, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Oct. 14 2009,06:23)
WAD's perfect apologetics:
My approach, in a nutshell, is to argue that just as the salvation in Christ at the Cross saves backward in time as well as forward (the OT saints were saved in virtue of the Cross), so the effects of the Fall can be retroactive. This, it seems to me, preserves the most important thing that young-earth creationism has attempted to preserve, namely, that the sin of Adam brought ruin on the human race and on the physical world.

That is lunatic talk.

Maybe Dembski got his idea from this?:
NY Times
No, I’m talking about the notion that the troubled collider is being sabotaged by its own future. A pair of otherwise distinguished physicists have suggested that the hypothesized Higgs boson, which physicists hope to produce with the collider, might be so abhorrent to nature that its creation would ripple backward through time and stop the collider before it could make one, like a time traveler who goes back in time to kill his grandfather.

Holger Bech Nielsen, of the Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen, and Masao Ninomiya of the Yukawa Institute for Theoretical Physics in Kyoto, Japan, put this idea forward in a series of papers with titles like “Test of Effect From Future in Large Hadron Collider: a Proposal” and “Search for Future Influence From LHC,” posted on the physics Web site in the last year and a half.

Date: 2009/10/14 15:13:17, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (khan @ Oct. 14 2009,12:25)
I'm looking for a quote
something like: a theory is an idea people come up with after a late night of drinking


I came up with the "Theory of Everything" several times when I was stoned on weed.  Now if I could only remember what it was...

Date: 2009/10/14 18:32:50, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Sparrow us your puns. I don't swallow it.

Date: 2009/10/25 23:53:13, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Barb, commenting on D'Oh Leary's "What makes the human Unuque" seems to think that only humans have a prefrontal cortex:
The prefrontal cortex in particular makes humans unique. According to Marieb’s Human Anatomy and Physiology this area “is most associated with elaboration of thought, intelligence, motivation, and personality. It associates experiences necessary for the production of abstract ideas, judgment, persistence, planning, concern for others, and conscience.”

Try these, Barbie:
Prefrontal cortex in humans and apes: A comparative study of area 10
and from "The new cognitive neurosciences
By Michael S. Gazzaniga, pg.1223:
Enlargement of frontal or prefrontal cortex in human evolution has not been [universally accepted, however.  MRI studies have shown that ] humans having about the same relative amount of frontal cortex as apes, ...

ETA: oops. Make that "what makes a human eunuch"

Date: 2009/10/26 00:31:29, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 25 2009,20:11)
i know its been a million years but i'd love to grab it for you know posteriors and stuff

Fixed that for you, Ras.

Date: 2009/10/27 22:39:32, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (khan @ Oct. 27 2009,16:06)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 27 2009,18:40)
The atheist life ethic may be summed up as follows: When we want them, babies may live; when we don’t want them, they must die.

So no "believer" has ever had an abortion? According to StephenB I guess not.

Anybody fancy asking him? I've not been able to stand the stink over there lately...

Abortion is one of the most common medical procedures in the USA. Lying cretins try to ban abortion while they have them.

And natural (divine?) abortion, a.k.a. miscarriage, is even more common. God must be the the most prolific abortionist of all. Praise the Lord!!!11!

Date: 2009/10/27 22:51:23, Link
Author: sledgehammer
G'day Mate, and have a good Czech-in. Czech-up? Czech-out?
Czech, Mate!

Date: 2009/10/28 21:15:23, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Maya @ Oct. 28 2009,17:33)
Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 28 2009,17:41)
* What does evolution have to say about our being able to make a virus from scratch?

And does somebody really have an itch to do that?

It would be pretty rash.

I'm psoriasis a head-scratcher.

I'll get me coat.

Date: 2009/10/30 23:49:26, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Oct. 30 2009,17:43)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Oct. 23 2009,06:54)
I just got blown away by the Lawrence Krauss lecture at AAI 2009!

Excellent cosmology right there!

Just watched that. Bloody marvelous.

Agreed.  It was almost as good as the sheep art  :p

Date: 2009/10/31 17:55:37, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Wow.  I just listened to VD's radio interview here  It's the first time I've ever heard him speak.

 I actually felt embarrassment for the arrogant little prick.  He sounds like a frikken squeaky-voiced teenager.  His dialog was filled with errs, umms, likes, y'knows, and the other verbal tics of someone who can't think "on his feet".
The most embarrassing moment came when he was talking about his predictions for the upcoming Great Depression [tm]
You can expect to see lots of umm, economic stuff, like, y'know, defaults and things.

Cracked me up.  He certainly didn't sound anything like a self-described "Internet Superintelligence" to me.  I wonder who his ghost writer is. Maybe spacebunny?

Date: 2009/11/01 12:09:03, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Raevmo @ Nov. 01 2009,09:08)
StephenB is a sick fuck:      
As a general rule, atheists cannot bear the idea of self-disclipline with respect to sexual activity, and that is the basis for their anger.

StevieBlather just can't conceive how an atheist thinks, so all he can do is project his own barely suppressed lustful thoughts on them.
Then he pulls out that old canard that by suppressing and/or denying lustful thoughts, somehow the passion will be re-directed toward spreading the Good WordTM. I would think that the pedophile priests and the pastors bangin' the church ladies (or men) would have put the lie to that notion.
 Reminds me of that lady from Faith and the Family who can't enjoy sex with her husband unless she fantasizes that it's Jeebus himself on top of her doing the deed.

Date: 2009/11/01 23:12:31, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Constant Mews @ Nov. 01 2009,19:29)
Let's lay out Floyd's principle difficulty.

Christianity is not based on Biblical literalism.  The appropriate, rational reading of Biblical verses does not require literalism.  The reason no "incompatibilities" exist is that Biblical literalism is not a key tenet of Christianity, and the "incompatibilities" only exist with regard to Biblical literalism.

Do you understand that, Floyd?  Biblical literalism and Christianity are not synonymous.


Does it bother you to realize that you are lying in order to save face?  That you have put your ego on a pedestal above God?

I'm in total agreement w/ CM here, as I stated very early in this thread. Without biblical literalism, your Five Nincompats fall apart.
 It seems to me Floyd, that your battle is not just with science and evolution, but also with the vast majority of modern Christians. I think you understand this all too well.
You and the few remaining fundamentalist biblical literalists have a tough row to hoe with the rest of the faith, and you and your ilk are obviously losing the battle, thank God.
 You are not helping your stated cause, of reducing the numbers of those leaving the faith. Most ex-Christians I've known, and the vast majority who write of their de-conversion experiences,  cite biblical literalism and the absurdly narrow viewpoint of the fundamentalists as a primary reason for leaving the faith.  Your quaint little cultish backwater of the Christian Faith is completely incompatible and irreconcilable with what the rest of modern Christians have come to accept as reality, and you are doing a disservice to your brethren.
 So my closing comment to you is this:
Before you even try to tackle science and evolution, you will have to first make your case for biblical literalism with your fellow Christians.
 As we have seen here in this thread, you haven't done so well in that regard.

Date: 2009/11/04 13:49:54, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Reasons the universe and our location in it is poorly suited for humans and human scientific discovery.
Counterpoint to “The Privileged Planet”

What a waste!

1. The universe is far too vast for humans to travel to even a tiny fraction of it.  
2. Distances between planets and solar systems are far too large for us to navigate.
3. The universal speed limit, c, is far too low to make exploration practical.
4. Normal visible matter constitutes a tiny fraction of the total mass-energy. The rest, dark matter and dark energy are of no value to us.
5. Antimatter is very hard to come by, needlessly restricting our technology .

Earth sucks!

1. Our sun is unstable and using up fuel way too fast, spraying high energy particles and harmful radiation at us to no good end.
2. Gravity is far too strong to suit us.  Makes reaching orbit very expensive, ruins our knees far too soon, and makes bridges and tall building much too difficult to engineer.
3. There’s not enough oxygen to be able to exploit all the available topography.
4. Water is far too opaque and heavy to allow us to use the 70% of available surface area.

Humans are weak!

1. We don’t live nearly long enough to allow us to achieve our full potential.
2. We can’t see but a very small fraction of the useful electromagnetic spectrum.
3. We can’t hardly even lift our own weight.
4. We can’t last even a measly week without water.
5. Some of us can’t seem to use even a small fraction of the brains we were born with.

I could go on and on ...

Date: 2009/11/05 10:15:52, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Freddie @ Nov. 05 2009,07:36)
Yet one more string to add to that talented bow.  Author, consitutional consultant, and now ... textbook editor.  Can anyone say "Jack of all trades ... "

8:59 am

As a sometime textbook editor with an excellent reputation, I would say that we must be clear, who are the final users? The students.

"Jack-off. Halt raids"

Date: 2009/11/05 12:44:26, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Let's see... 6K posts, 4 years, ~5 posts/day.  Do you guys ever get any real (paying) work done?

Date: 2009/11/05 16:24:38, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 05 2009,12:53)
Quote (Reg @ Nov. 05 2009,12:50)
I wouldn’t be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified.

These aren't the genes you're looking for. Move along, now.

Somebody needs to pull down her genes and check her sex chromosomes.
I'm not volunteering though. I hate to imagine what would be found.

Date: 2009/11/07 00:02:26, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 06 2009,09:02)
Quote (Freddie @ Nov. 06 2009,09:54)
Perhaps it would improve the reading of it if it was translated into Reverse Polish Notation


I always get such a chuckle when one of the kids in one of my classes asks to borrow my calculator. I usually have it back within about 15 seconds.

It's a 1995 model HP 48G from when I went to college at Marshall.

Pfft.  Young whippersnapper.  My trusty hp 32C is the same one I bought for HS physics back in the stone age.  Cost me 250 Jimmy Carter Dollars.

Date: 2009/11/11 01:20:40, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Get the Popcorn! We've got a major tardfight going on over there

Frosty is calling all non-litealists, including Billy D, false christians.  Mung calls bullshit, and StevieB comes to Frosty's defense and accuses Billy boy of being "too open-minded"!!!11!!

If I didn't know Frosty from previous posts, I'd call Poe, but I know better.  It's hard for me to fathom, but I think he actually believes all the fundie bile he is spewing!

Good times.  On with the show!

Date: 2009/11/12 12:50:24, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Maya @ Nov. 12 2009,04:32)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 12 2009,06:23)
Quote (keiths @ Nov. 11 2009,20:25)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 09 2009,04:33)
Quote (Alan Fox @ Nov. 08 2009,16:20)
Quote (someotherguy @ Nov. 08 2009,10:14)
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Nov. 08 2009,14:38)
Quote (RDK @ Nov. 08 2009,13:24)
Quote (someotherguy @ Nov. 08 2009,13:06)
Quote (keiths @ Nov. 08 2009,12:09)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 08 2009,09:30)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 05 2009,07:25)

Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 05 2009,00:03)

Quote (keiths @ Nov. 04 2009,23:02)

Quote (RDK @ Nov. 04 2009,18:07)

Quote (deadman_932 @ Nov. 04 2009,19:13)

Quote (keiths @ Nov. 04 2009,18:54)

Quote (keiths @ Nov. 04 2009,16:43)

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 04 2009,13:59)

Quote (keiths @ Nov. 04 2009,14:32)

Quote (jerry @ Nov. 04 2009,whenever)
I know he has a PhD in mathematics but he failed to understand the implications of Behe’s Edge of Evolution and on his blog mocked him because of his short sidedness.

On behalf of all small polygons, I object to this slur.

It's a deep-seeded short sidedness, too.

It's a doggy-dog world, for all intensive purposes.

Jerry is a bowl in a china shop.

Jerry deserves a pullet surprise, but this is a mute point.

Indeed, for it seems Jerry could care less about what you have to say.

That's because he's a naval gazer.

I thought he won the Noble Prize for naval grazing.

It's time for him to shit and get off the pot.

BA77 warms the coggles of my heart. Yours?

RB, I think you need to curve your enthusiasm for these eggcorns.

They say the pun is mightier than the sword.

I have nothing but the up-most respect for BA^77, irregardless of his rather lengthy posts.

Is this what you folks call a nested hierarchy?

I have it on good authority that no such thing exists.

Wes'll be so mad if you break his forum!

Like BA77, you speak with undo bias.

Anyone have more eggcorns? Speak now or forever hold your piece.

Noledge is power, sayeth Frost122585. And just saying your a Chrsitain does not make you one. It simply doe snot.

Stare at the squares.  Innie or outie?

I wonder how many more of these it will take to squeeze the central square into  a vertical column of characters.  Let's find out!

Date: 2009/11/16 12:43:34, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (J-Dog @ Nov. 16 2009,06:47)
My highpoint was my first UD puppet (and you always remember your first) Gary Larson insisting that BA^77  would go to hell for not being religious and holy enough.

* Unless Denyse accepts the marriage proposal of an as yet unnamed puppet and plans to elope to Montesserat with him and/or her.

J-Dog, surely Jack Mehoff, and Denseye's admiration of your Hugh Jass merits at least a mention?

Date: 2009/11/18 21:10:55, Link
Author: sledgehammer
We dare not leave out the promiscuous Bicycles!

Date: 2009/11/19 09:49:30, Link
Author: sledgehammer
I've got the whipped cream and chocolate sauce covered.

Date: 2009/11/19 20:46:43, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 19 2009,14:46)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 19 2009,15:17)
Clive lets it all out. At once:

It's true.

If the multiplication tables change, morality lies in ruins.  

And the outside world never explains itself. Just comes up with excuses like "The dog ate it" or "You're imagining things" or "It was raining so hard I decided to stay late at work" or "It didn't mean anything, it was just a fling!"

Damn the outside world anyway. Constantly alluding us.

Even though Clyde often alludes to the notion that he thinks he knows of what he speaks, the facts of the matter elude him.

Date: 2009/11/19 20:51:00, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Nov. 19 2009,16:08)
tardagain77 has a - clumsily expressed - brainwave:
The problem for getting a rough measure of CSI in larger systems, of multiple interlocking parts, such as echolocation of bats, is that we don’t actually know where the information is stored at that is directing the construction of the overall body plans??? No one knows! This is a very mysterious enigma to put it mildly: i.e. How do you put a measuring stick to information that no seems able to find?

Will it last?

CSI in a nutshell.

Date: 2009/11/19 20:57:16, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Texas Teach @ Nov. 19 2009,15:41)
Quote (khan @ Nov. 19 2009,16:09)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 19 2009,16:51)

A comment:

Verlch    11/19/09 3:25 PM
I heard a rumor that there is RFID technology, or nano technology in the swine flu vaccine. If their goal is world domination, what better way than to implant a chip to track man's every movement. We know a lot of things will be forced on us. The nano technology will be easily picked up by the readers I'm sure, in stores, and wherever else they are installed to track our every movement.

World Government might want to know where those pesky Christians, atheists and God fearing Jews are, so they can round them up and reeducate them to serve the godless system. Well there will be one mini god, the anti christ who will demand worship. (Anybody seen Obowma lately? Is he worshiping these leaders?)

Recently a movie on You Tube talked about how verichip now admits they want to tie in the implant to the banking system. They even bought a company like "life (suckers) lock" to safe guard against fraud. Well we figured as much, that the buying and selling aspect of the chip was coming. Just not this fast.

Anyways wake up folks, keep your ears to the tracks and lets share information so that this day doesn't sneak up on us like a thief in the night.


That is some serious fucking stupid shit. Has this stupid one ever seen the size of a tracking chip? And how will this chip be administered via the inhaled version?


You just shove it down the swine's flue.


Date: 2009/11/19 21:26:58, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 19 2009,13:58)
Argument with the wife tonight was it Joe. Or too much peroxide in your milk?

Perhaps both?

I think he's here because "ID Guy" is being blatantly ignored over at TT.  Even the regulars are embarrased.
Go Fogure yourself.

Date: 2009/11/19 21:32:31, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Wolfhound @ Nov. 19 2009,19:09)
Quote (ppb @ Nov. 19 2009,12:27)
Quote (Wolfhound @ Nov. 19 2009,10:12)
I'll bring the Slip N' Slide™!

I thought you were bringing the batteries.

Get yer own batteries, you mooch!   :angry:

All I've got are "D" size. Will those work?

Date: 2009/11/23 20:04:07, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (RDK @ Nov. 23 2009,17:08)

Anybody notice the Specified Complex Information acronym on the side of the dumpster?
 Good place for it.

Date: 2009/11/23 23:01:31, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (jswilkins @ Nov. 23 2009,18:57)
Blogged the explosions link. Put a different spin on it, though.


Not that J-Dawg is undeserving, but I think the credit for this one goes to ponyboy.

Date: 2009/11/24 18:11:11, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Gunthernacus @ Nov. 24 2009,11:24)
Quote (jeffox @ Nov. 24 2009,14:04)
More than made up for by the likes of ... "Geddy" Lee ... and a few others.  My 2c.



And Second City Television.  And Tommy Chong.

Dave?  Dave's not here, Man

Date: 2009/12/01 18:16:10, Link
Author: sledgehammer




6:20 pm

Anythings a possibility in the Darwinian world, thats why we call it a fairytale!

Anything's a possibility in the goddidit world, that's why we call it tard.

Date: 2009/12/04 17:32:22, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (JLT @ Dec. 04 2009,08:30)



10:20 pm

Might it not equally describe those who reject fragments of modern science that they perceive to conflict with deeply held religious beliefs?

Very good point. I was once a deeply religious atheist who rejected the fragments of modern science that I perceived to conflict with my devout beliefs (e.g., the fine-tuning of the laws of physics which suggested long-term teleological cosmological design for life, and the information-processing machinery of living systems).

As a result, I concluded that my religion of atheism required more faith, in the light of the evidence, than I could muster.

It's people like GilLOLgen that make it almost impossible to parody creationists.

It's people like GilLOLgen that make it unnecessary to parody creationists. They do quite a good job themselves.

Date: 2009/12/05 22:29:27, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Amadan @ Dec. 05 2009,17:43)
Thank you for letting me share that with yiz. If you never sweated like a pig in a parish hall while the lads belted out Dearg Doom, you never lived.

I'm a big Jethro Tull/Ian Anderson fan, and the lads do justice to the genre, with more than a wee bit o' the Irish in there.
They're definitely going on the ol' playlist.   Thank ye for sharing.

Date: 2009/12/05 22:33:45, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Doc Bill @ Dec. 05 2009,18:49)
So what's a Danni?

Is it like a Toni?

More like a Phoni Boloni.

I listened to the recent debate w/ Shermer, and he got Meyer to admit that "ID is not a mechanistic theory.  We have no idea how the intelligence did the deed, but He must have intervened many times.  Not just at abiogenesis and the Cambrian, but also in the whale's turf to surf transition" (paraphrased slightly)

ETA:  "All Science So Far !!111!!!"

Date: 2009/12/09 23:18:24, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 09 2009,12:12)
Quote (Kristine @ Dec. 09 2009,13:04)
Quote (Freddie @ Dec. 09 2009,11:45)
Quote (Kristine @ Dec. 09 2009,11:42)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 09 2009,10:56)
FTK is as delusional as ever

He won’t debate Craig for the same reason he never mentions highly credentialed intelligent design theorist’s and their objections to evolution in his latest book.

He merely takes on critiques of naïve creationists and other amateurs without ever mentioning the ID community because (wait for it) HE’S A FREAKING COWARD, obviously. That’s the only explanation, of course. Anyone who *truly* believes what they purpose would take on their top notch critiques at the drop of a hat. PZ Myers is cut from the same mold as are most evolutionists.
Why Richard Dawkins won’t debate William Lane Craig

Oh, my English Nazi ears (eyes?)

he never mentions highly credentialed intelligent design theorist’s [?] and their objections to evolution in his latest

PZ Myers is cut from the same mold as are most evolutionists.

"Cut from the same mold"?

Similar to being cast from the same cloth ...

Yes, FTK is definitely a horse of another feather.

You're barking up a dead horse. Stop it.

What's good for the goose, is calling the kettle black.

Date: 2009/12/13 18:59:18, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Maya @ Dec. 11 2009,13:48)
Dembski is crowing about getting another article published.  Has the IEEE always had such low standards?
I note that these last two "papers" are conference proceedings.
The IEEE standards for accepting a conference paper and those for publication in one of their journals are vastly different.
 Conference papers are accepted purely on the basis of an abstract, with no peer review except by the session chairs, who often have a quota of slots to fill.
Later, after the conference, authors are often invited to submit a "proper" paper for peer review and publication in the appropriate journal.

ETA:  I see olegt has already made this point three pages ago! I'm late and lacking, as usual.

Date: 2009/12/15 20:27:49, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Turncoat @ Dec. 15 2009,13:14)
Quote (sledgehammer @ Dec. 13 2009,18:59)
Quote (Maya @ Dec. 11 2009,13:48)
Dembski is crowing about getting another article published.  Has the IEEE always had such low standards?
I note that these last two "papers" are conference proceedings.
The IEEE standards for accepting a conference paper and those for publication in one of their journals are vastly different.
 Conference papers are accepted purely on the basis of an abstract, with no peer review except by the session chairs, who often have a quota of slots to fill.
Later, after the conference, authors are often invited to submit a "proper" paper for peer review and publication in the appropriate journal.

ETA:  I see olegt has already made this point three pages ago! I'm late and lacking, as usual.

Sorry, but this is simply wrong.

Yes, all generalizations are false. I should have said some, or many, IEEE conferences accept papers on the basis of abstracts or summaries alone.  I know LEOS, CLEO, IMS and other physics conferences do, because I've had  papers  accepted on the basis of 500-word summaries.
 It could well be that the computer science societies are more selective because they have more submissions?  I've never had to pay to have a paper included in a conference, like this one seems to.

Date: 2009/12/17 18:52:54, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Mung(e) sez:          

(MacNeill)  This is simply another way of defining evolutionary convergence, and in no way constitutes evidence for intrinsic evolutionary teleology. On the contrary, it simply provides support for the hypothesis that, given similar conditions, similar outcomes result.

Allen, that is the very definition of teleology. If the process did not converge upon similar outcomes, that would be non-teleological.

I sense that a profound misunderstanding of teleology pervades the scientific world.

That's absurd  So if I observe a rock rolling down to the bottom of a hill at two different locations, it was because someone or something "intended" that it be so?

I sense a profound misunderstanding of science and teleology in this teleological defender.

ETA: Late and lacking as usual, as this is followed by Allen's discussion of just that rock-falling analogy, but Munge still doesn't get it, so my point still stands.

Date: 2009/12/17 19:36:36, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (HypatiasGirl @ Dec. 17 2009,17:23)
(which is why people <em>should not talk about pomo until they understand it</em> but as a continental philosopher, that's just my burden to bear)
god I hope I formatted this right

[square brackets] for HTML tags, but your intention was clear enough.

Date: 2009/12/31 17:56:15, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 31 2009,11:29)

Cool, good for teachers?

Tres Cool  But they left off Unobtanium, an element crucial to many perpetual motion machines.

Happy New Decadium, AtBC!

Date: 2009/12/31 19:45:39, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (fnxtr @ Dec. 31 2009,10:48)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 31 2009,09:47)
Quote (RDK @ Dec. 31 2009,11:24)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 31 2009,08:37)
Quote (didymos @ Dec. 31 2009,08:36)
Quote (Zachriel @ Dec. 31 2009,06:04)
Quote (afarensis @ Dec. 31 2009,07:21)
Quote (RDK @ Dec. 31 2009,00:04)
Quote (k.e.. @ Dec. 30 2009,22:17)
Quote (rhmc @ Dec. 31 2009,03:38)
Quote (Zachriel @ Dec. 30 2009,08:33)
Otters vs. Crocodiles

from that link:  this one time, I was walking home and a gang of otters stole my wallet.

You should have pelted them.

Come on now, boys, we otter stop these puns before they get out of control.  You remember what happened last time?

Sure, just weasel out of it...

That was otterly uncalled for.

Objection! Badgering the poster!

That's Stoatally out of order..

The magnificent Richardhughes joins the fray!  May I be so kind as to ask for your ottergraph?

Hmmm. I'll have to mink about that one.


Ferrets better to give than recieve at this time of year.
< snip Lee Majors>

He was married to Ferret Fossa-Majors, wasn't he?

Furry interestink, but not very punny.

Date: 2010/01/02 15:44:12, Link
Author: sledgehammer
From the inimitable Onion:
Sumerians Look On In Confusion As God Creates World

"The Sumerian people must have found God's making of heaven and earth in the middle of their well-established society to be more of an annoyance than anything else," said Paul Helund, ancient history professor at Cornell University. "If what the pictographs indicate are true, His loud voice interrupted their ancient prayer rituals for an entire week."

According to the cuneiform tablets, Sumerians found God's most puzzling act to be the creation from dust of the first two human beings.

"These two people made in his image do not know how to communicate, lack skills in both mathematics and farming, and have the intellectual capacity of an infant," one Sumerian philosopher wrote. "They must be the creation of a complete idiot."

Date: 2010/01/02 20:49:51, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Prion evolution:
'Lifeless' prion proteins are 'capable of evolution'

"Scientists have shown for the first time that "lifeless" prion proteins, devoid of all genetic material, can evolve just like higher forms of life."

So prions replicate by inducing configuration changes in "normal" proteins?  (IANOB)


Date: 2010/01/04 09:52:37, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 04 2010,07:10)
Quote (sledgehammer @ Jan. 02 2010,20:49)
Prion evolution:
'Lifeless' prion proteins are 'capable of evolution'

"Scientists have shown for the first time that "lifeless" prion proteins, devoid of all genetic material, can evolve just like higher forms of life."

So prions replicate by inducing configuration changes in "normal" proteins?  (IANOB)


"This means that this pattern of Darwinian evolution appears to be universally active.

Quotemine THAT, bitches.

Yeah, yeah, but they're still just proteins.

Date: 2010/01/13 11:56:01, Link
Author: sledgehammer
From Carl Zimmer (NYT/Science):
"Hunting Fossil Viruses in Human Genome"

 An interesting side plot: apparently placental mammals co-opted a retrovirus to produce a viral protein (syncytin) that is crucial to placental formation. From page 2 of the NYT article: (links can be found in the original)

"Mammal genomes contain thousands of stretches of DNA called LINEs. LINEs sometimes make copies of themselves that get reinserted back into the genome. Dr. Tomonaga’s research indicates that LINEs grabbed the genes of borna viruses and pulled them into their genome.

The discovery raises the possibility that LINEs have kidnapped other viruses floating near their host’s DNA, like flu viruses.

Two of the four copies of the borna virus gene carry crippling mutations. It’s impossible for our cells to make proteins from them. But the other two genes look remarkably intact, perhaps suggesting that our bodies use them for our own benefit. Exactly what they do isn’t clear though.

Studies on other captive viruses have revealed that some help ward off viral invasions. One virus protein, syncytin, is essential for our being born at all.

“The only place it’s expressed is in the placenta,” Dr. Heidmann said. To understand its function, he and his colleagues disabled the gene in mice. Without syncytin, mice developed deformed placentas, and their embryos died.

Syncytin started as a surface protein on retroviruses that fused them to cells. When mammals captured the gene, they used it in the placenta to create a layer of fused cells through which mothers can send nutrients to their embryos.

Dr. Heidmann and his colleagues have discovered that over the past 100 million years, mammals have repeatedly harnessed viruses to make syncytin. “Wherever we search for them, we find them,” Dr. Heidmann said.

But the syncytin genes we use today may have actually replaced an ancestral one that a virus bequeathed to the very first placental mammals. In fact, that infection may have made the placenta possible in the first place. “It was a major event for animal evolution,” Dr. Heidmann said."

Where is the intelligence behind this macro-evolutionary change?
None of this would make any sense without common descent, including HGT.

ETA: attribution and correction

Date: 2010/01/13 12:17:21, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (creeky belly @ Jan. 12 2010,16:00)
This looks like as good of a place as any to end this thread. Take us home, God's iPod!
Gods iPod
6:21 pm

In my view, and I know a little about vaccines, they should be avoided at all costs. Vaccines are the last vestige of quackery in modern medicine.

Fixed that for him

Date: 2010/01/20 21:03:07, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Bravo! Clap, Clap!  Masterfully done.

The question remains ...  Did you PM 'ras?

On the other topic - wavelength (frequency) is not quantized, so EM energy is not either.  There is no such thing as monochromaticity.  Measurement uncertainty in frequency is inversely proportional to the (time) measurement interval. A monochromatic wave must persist for infinite time.
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is simply an expression of that fact. (and that energy is proportional to frequency, the proportionality constant being  Plank's constant, h, in Joules/Hz)

ETA: units

Date: 2010/01/22 23:23:57, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Doodz! De Dawgs done did dere D-dayz! Do dem doobies!

Date: 2010/01/28 17:31:45, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Doc Bill @ Jan. 28 2010,11:49)
I've posted this before but the pattern keeps occurring!

1.  Hello, I want to learn about evolution.  Rather than buy a book or consult Wikipedia or any of thousands of science websites, I've decided to come to this friendly discussion group.  To learn, you see.

2.  Oh, where to start, there's so much to learn!  How about Lenski's experimental evolution research rather than something boring like comparative vertebrate anatomy?

3.  Gee, I don't know anything about chemistry/physics/math/statistics/history/geology or really anything, but I'm concerned that the conditional equilibrium according to the Framastat equation seems to conflict with the overall thermodynamic electron spin up-conversion at the photon wavelengths expected on the hypothetical Earth approximately 3.447 billion years ago.  Darwin failed to address this.

4.  Wes writes a 900 page reply on photon energy up-conversion.

5.  You guys are close-minded and mean, calling me a moron! But, I'll pray for you anyway.

If we're lucky, Ut will skip from stage 2 directly to stage 5 and put us out of his misery.



Date: 2010/02/05 09:34:54, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Peter Henderson @ Feb. 04 2010,04:12)
To a YEC this type of thing looks like peer reviewed science.

He forgot to add the conclusion:

"Now that we've found a factor-of-two discrepancy, then 5 orders of magnitude (500My to 5Ky) is a slam dunk, and Genesis is Truth!"

Date: 2010/02/05 14:34:30, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 04 2010,10:11)
This will tripple the mining shifts in Tardistan.

It's a main claim of our book that, when phenotypic traits are endogenously linked, there is no way that selection can distinguish among them: selection for one selects the others, regardless of their effects on fitness.

What crap.
Selection still applies, if only for a group of linked traits.  Think sickle cell anemia and malaria resistance.
A population can still exhibit all varieties and combinations of linked traits in varying degrees, and selection drives the percentages.

Apparently Jerry Fodor is no stranger to UD:
Fodor on NS

ETA: UD linky

Date: 2010/02/05 20:30:53, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Badger3k @ Feb. 05 2010,16:51)
Quote (khan @ Feb. 05 2010,12:28)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 05 2010,12:05)
Vox is now bringing his unique tard to sociology:

His new male hierarchy is in all his recent posts, he must be very proud.

What a loathsome POS.

I wonder which one old Teddy thinks he is....

And I can't wait to see him do one for women.  That'll be...interesting.

Alpha Fail, of course.

Date: 2010/02/08 14:25:55, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Quack @ Feb. 08 2010,04:17)
2. Wouldn't the Silence of the Socks (good film title, that) on UD be a giveaway? Can we the world of science afford the loss of these valuable counter-intelligence* assets?

Yes, that's a dilemma.

I'd suggest that the deep cover socks be granted an exemption, so as to not blow their cover.

(As long as they PM 'Ras)

Date: 2010/02/08 17:00:06, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Zachriel @ Feb. 08 2010,14:22)
CJYman thinks that big numbers make for big arguments, and titin is big as far as proteins go. Any time there's a gap in knowlege (scientific or personal), he inserts a uniform probability variable. That means the more ignorant he is, the longer the odds.

He's not the only one.  Dembski and Marks make essentially the same assumption in their latest conference paper, with "Bernoulli's Principle of Insufficient Reason" where ignorance is justification for uniform probability distribution and hence "tornado in junkyard" probability calculations.
Tom English has some choice comments on the (mis)application of Bernoulli's Principle to unbounded algorithmic search spaces: "wrong, wrong and wrong".
The way I see it, total ignorance of possible algorithmic pathways renders the search space infinite.

Date: 2010/02/08 17:22:12, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (J-Dog @ Feb. 08 2010,14:51)
Quote (sledgehammer @ Feb. 08 2010,14:25)
Quote (Quack @ Feb. 08 2010,04:17)
2. Wouldn't the Silence of the Socks (good film title, that) on UD be a giveaway? Can we the world of science afford the loss of these valuable counter-intelligence* assets?

Yes, that's a dilemma.

I'd suggest that the deep cover socks be granted an exemption, so as to not blow their cover.

(As long as they PM 'Ras)

You mean like "jerry"?

I'm thinking more like Joseph, or StephenB.  I mean, really! Nobody could be that dense, could they?

(Then again, I've learned from my time here and in the mines, never underestimate the prevalence of the stoopid.)

Date: 2010/02/11 19:38:00, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Doc Bill @ Feb. 11 2010,16:04)
I always thought it was "tow the lime" and had visions of Lilliputians dragging this giant lime across the sands, Egyptian-style, to a pitcher of margaritas.

Or was it a picture of Margaret Thatcher?

Man, I gotta lay off those mushrooms.

And here I always thought it had something to do with orthodontry.
You know "tooth align".

Date: 2010/02/12 23:09:31, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Joy @ Feb. 12 2010,09:27)
Methodological naturalism is the guiding axiom of scientific inquiry. It is the baseline presumption that all phenomena subject to scientific examination and quantification are natural. IOW, science can't investigate and quantify things like ghosts, pixies, angels or gods because such things are by definition not natural. Science can investigate and quantify biological phenomena because life is natural. IDers often conflate methodological naturalism with philosophical naturalism. Philosophical naturalism holds that all phenomena (known and unknown) must be entirely natural, not just the phenomena science can investigate.

I think the reason that investigation of "ghosts, pixies, angels or gods" and such are not considered science is not because they are defined as "not natural", but because they are notoriously un-repeatable, which makes experimentation and hypothesis testing extremely difficult, if not impossible.  If ghosts, miracles, etc. were  phenomena that could be produced on demand, they could, and would, be subject to scientific investigation, ala e.g. "Mythbusters".
 Even random, noiselike phenomena like radioactive decay, unpredictable for a single nucleus, are statistically predictable to a high degree of accuracy, and hence are amenable to scientific investigation.

Date: 2010/02/14 12:54:48, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Zachriel @ Feb. 14 2010,07:20)
SCheesman: Well, in fact, as the “Edge of Evolution” has demonstrated, the “evolutionary” optimization generally makes single steps in solution space (one mutation at a time). It is NOT good at taking multiple steps simultaneously, the reason being that the probabilistic resources are insufficient to pick the target from the exponentially increasing number of less fit solutions that involve two or more mutations. In other words, once it gets stuck in a local minimum, it demonstrably does not and cannot (except in the rarest instances of double-mutations) take simultaneous, multi-parameter modifications in order to jump to a new path. That behaviour is decidedly non-biological.

Recombination is quite capable of moving replicators off of local fitness peaks—and with a reasonable probability of viability. Indeed, single point mutations are necessary, but not sufficient for robust evolution.

And in that same vein:

How many simultaneous single-point mutations are involved in crossing over, gene duplication, and polyploidal events?

 By standard Behe/Dembski/ID calculation methods, we would take the probability of a single-point mutation, and raise it by the number of base pairs involved, to get 1 in 10 to the bazillion chances of it ever happening.

Date: 2010/02/20 09:15:07, Link
Author: sledgehammer
"The Batroom Wall" is always a good for a chuckle.

597126 viewers can't be wrong!

Date: 2010/02/20 14:20:52, Link
Author: sledgehammer
For me, I was convinced that consciousness was integral to QM reality when I started puzzling over as to exactly why the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) would form a perfect sphere around the earth:

Snort.  Chuckle....

What?!! He's actually serious??!!

... Guffaw!

Date: 2010/02/22 11:52:39, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 22 2010,08:20)

Way cool!  Lincoln and Joyce are on a roll.

Predictalbly from the comments :
And I tend to a agree with you, what have we really achieved here? I'll start believing its actually evolution when it starts to become something more than building blocks.
Submitted by Visitor on 21 February 2010 - 3:30pm.

Translation: Yawn.  But it's still a ribosyme.  Wake me up when it turns into a banana.

Date: 2010/02/22 15:19:14, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Dr.GH @ Feb. 22 2010,10:40)
Why, that would be pandering to students.

Pander.  Is that British for Panda?

Date: 2010/02/22 15:31:29, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (khan @ Feb. 22 2010,13:25)
Can you supply a link to the course requirements (I'm too lazy to look)?

Philo 4483

Date: 2010/02/22 15:44:14, Link
Author: sledgehammer
I see consciousness as a continuum.  Even plants exhibit a level of consciousness when they orient their leaves toward the sun. You could certainly say they do it for a purpose.  It is also a learned behavior, if you take evolution and selection as establishing a type of memory.  Purely mechanical response, you say?  Maybe so, but where is the line to be drawn?

Date: 2010/02/22 23:15:11, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Henry J @ Feb. 22 2010,16:38)
It is also a learned behavior, if you take evolution and selection as establishing a type of memory.

Not just a type of memory - it looks somewhat analogous to a neural network, with some of the properties that we associate with intelligence. (It also lacks some of those properties, though - it can't "remember" things to avoid in the future like some people do.)


Fixed that for you.
But yes, that does tie in with your previous comment:
I wonder if consciousness could be defined as an ability to predict (i.e., compute) likelihood of possible future events (perhaps outcomes of different possible actions), based on data acquired from previous sensory inputs?


which I don't necessarily disagree with, but it might set the bar too high.  e.g. It might deny consciousness to ants but allow it for Gil's checkers program.

Date: 2010/02/22 23:40:07, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 22 2010,21:29)
Your Straw man comments are most revealing;
Wallace (1856)-"Naturalists ...blah,blah,blahst...Supreme Creator... blah, blah blahations of a general system of nature, by a careful study of which we may learn much that is at present hidden from us..."

WTF? Total non-sequiter, as far as I can discern.  Enlighten me, please.

Date: 2010/02/22 23:47:45, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Trying to cut-and-paste his way to the 3000 word mark, I'm guessing.

Date: 2010/02/22 23:55:08, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (BWE @ Feb. 22 2010,21:48)
Ha. I beat you to it. :) ^^^

Gotta be quick around here. Snooze, u lose.
Those of us in the west coast time zone often get the last word, after everybody else has gone beddy-bye, and before the eurofolk have inhaled that first cup.

Date: 2010/02/23 00:29:07, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 22 2010,21:55)
Hayden / Chesterton quote / everyone take one sip of vodka..

We do not know enough about the unknown to know that it is unknowable.”
~G. K. Chesterton

Sounds vaguely Rumsfeldian

Date: 2010/02/23 00:37:20, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (khan @ Feb. 22 2010,14:52)
"Doctor Doctor give me the news, got a bad case of quote mining youse..."

"No pill's gonna cure that shill. Bill's got a bad case of Dover blues"

Date: 2010/02/23 00:51:57, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Ah, we've reached step 4.  All pretenses dropped.  Unsupported assertions spewed with abandon. Atheism is religion.  Evolution is false and evil.  Mockery ensues (step 6). Anything else?

Date: 2010/02/23 20:51:30, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Maybe Joe should try gargling with H2SO4.  It's got twice as much oxygen as H2O2.
Just a helpful suggestion.

Date: 2010/02/25 01:01:37, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (olegt @ Feb. 24 2010,16:21)
Bill Dembski sums up the creation-evolution wars of the last 20 years:
We don’t have to play nice with Darwin because our livelihoods are at stake. Moreover, it will make the ultimate victory of ID all that much sweeter.

Along with his bitterness and feigned over-confidence, he sure has a vindictive streak.  Creepy.  No wonder he never gets invited to the "Wine and cheese parties at the Templeton Foundation". Who would want to have to listen to this kind of whining?

Date: 2010/02/27 13:04:47, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (khan @ Feb. 27 2010,09:40)
Good a place as any to post this:

Large amounts of crazy

We might call it a 'historical' science, but this would be resisted because in our day and age calling something a 'historical' fact is like saying it isn't true at all but when people say something is a scientific fact, it is unassailable... except by the scientists themselves who reserve to themselves the right to change their interpretation on the fly as it suits them.

My translation:
Wah! The scientists won't let us YECs change the facts or even their interpretation of the facts, the big meanies. Wah!

Date: 2010/02/28 23:39:59, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Morals is how others tell you to behave.
Ethics is how you behave when nobody's watching?

Date: 2010/03/01 14:38:56, Link
Author: sledgehammer
All that is required to make sense of "Delayed Choice Quanntum Eraser" experiments is to discard/ignore the particle-like aspect of  photons (and/or matter in general).  A clue is that only entangled photons exhibit the "weird" behavior.
 Like most (but not all) of the "quantum weirdness" experiments, it is the particle assumption that creates the cognitive dissonance. By treating everything as complex-valued wavefunctions, it all makes causal and mathematical sense.
 Like the commenter in the link you provided says:    
Comment: To the physicist, the results "are all consistent with prediction." To the layperson, the results should be shocking....Ho-hum. Another experimental proof of QM. This is the way it works, folks.

 With all due respect to Penrose , I don't see where "quantum conciseness" is needed, or plays any role,  

Date: 2010/03/01 15:00:13, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (REC @ Mar. 01 2010,12:03)
O'Leary on Polyandry:

Words can't describe the dumb....


Most guys still want their own Eve, in the end.

Which end would that be, oral or ab-oral, I wonders.

... I'll get me coat.

Date: 2010/03/01 15:05:25, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 01 2010,12:55)
Is that quantum consciousness?

Possibly bushwacked by a spell checker?

I think maybe Freudian?  Definitely whacked, though.

Date: 2010/03/01 16:55:16, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (steve_h @ Mar. 01 2010,14:43)
According to Jerry Coyne, atheistic evolutionists and ID proponents have at least this in common — they can expect no bribes from the Templeton Foundation. Read Coyne’s post on the topic here.
IIRC, there was a time when almost any ID upstart in an oversize sweater could secure a $100,000 bribe by offering to write a book which used information theory to demonstrate that science and theology were mutually dependent. But as I remember it, they got burned - The ID guy took the cash and gave them nothing in return.

And yet he wonders why he's not invited to their wine and cheese parties anymore?

Date: 2010/03/01 17:08:03, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 01 2010,14:34)
5 nm. That's about the witdth of 50 hydrogen atoms?

and about 1/100th the wavelength of the photon.  i.e. the photon is several hundred times bigger than the protein itself, and we are surprised that it is coherent over this distance, regardless of the temperature?

Date: 2010/03/01 17:18:38, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Thought Provoker @ Mar. 01 2010,14:46)
Thank you for your comment.

...<snip> ...

However, there is the problem of that darn Schrödinger's cat (i.e. quantum measurement problem).  For some reason measurement choice by a conscious observer affects and causes Objective Reduction.

One way to make sense of this is if conscious choice is part of the superposition system at the quantum level.

I hope this helps explain how and why I see this as I do.

C'mon TP.  You yourself admitted that the consciousness of the "observer" is immaterial to the outcome of the quantum experiments. All that is required is that the measurement be possible in principle. What's different about this one?

Date: 2010/03/01 19:23:16, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Thought Provoker @ Mar. 01 2010,16:24)
Hi sledgehammer,

Quote (sledgehammer @ Mar. 01 2010,17:18)
You yourself admitted that the consciousness of the "observer" is immaterial to the outcome of the quantum experiments.

I'm sorry but I don't know what you are talking about.

Could you provide a link?

I misread your comment.  I see now that you, in fact, do buy into the "What the Bleep Do We Know", new-age woo, that the presence of consciousness in an observer has a material effect on the outcome of a quantum experiment.
 I remember thinking at the time  "well maybe he's not so far out in left field after all."
I was wrong.
My sincere apologies, and condolences.

Date: 2010/03/03 00:40:44, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 02 2010,12:23)
So if I'm understanding you correctly, you are asserting that quantum effects are "essential" to awareness, all the way down.

Not just as triggers to chemical processes, as with photons and light sensitivity, but somehow facilitating communication between bits of a cell, or even between cells.

EDIT to add:

And when you speak of quantum effects, you are speaking of something like entanglement, not anything covered by conventional chemistry?

While I  agree with TP that "free will" and consciousness are probably a macroscopic manifestation of quantum indeterminacy (e.g. thermal noise),  I don't believe that "quantum computation"(coherence, entanglement) is a requirement.
 A completely deterministic algorithm, such as a software program, can be made to exhibit anything from complete indeterminacy to quasi determinism with the addition of true randomness (as opposed to algorithmic pseudo-randomness) somewhere in the program.
 I'd even venture to guess that a sufficiently complex algorithm which included several sources of true randomness and sufficient memory, could be made indistinguishable from an intelligent agent exhibiting free will, and pass the Turing test with flying colors.
I also strongly suspect that we will see it within a decade or three.

Date: 2010/03/03 09:37:14, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Agreed.  The source of the randomness makes no difference in an evolutionary scenario. I maintain only that it is important in an algorithmic simulation of "free will".  I'm not sure what the definition of "strong pseudo-randomness" is, but an algorithm that includes simple pseudo-randomness will generate the same answer for the same input every time, as long as the seed for the PR generator remains the same.

Date: 2010/03/03 12:03:10, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (BWE @ Mar. 03 2010,08:42)
In the last 5 years, the world changed. Learning algorithms are commonplace, there are dozens of computer models of neural networks which function exactly as they would be expected to, and embodied intelligence has crossed the hurdle of creativity.

If you want a good place to start,

EDIT: No link on that page to her publications. If you actually care, here is that link:

this lady has some interesting math she has been working on for quite some time. The list however, is nearly endless.

Impressive. The work she's doing is real bioinformatics, with practical applications to real-world problems like addiction and circadian responses.  Her "Active Information" is on a completely different level from the crap produced by the Evolutionary Informatics "lab" of Dembski, Marks, Sewell and Dodgen.

Regards to randomness, from her 1998 paper "Neural Dynamics With Stochasticity"  
Randomness is a basic characteristic of large distributed systems. It may result from the activity of the individual agents, from unpredictable changes in the communication pattern among the agents, or even just from the different update paces ... Our particular stochastic model can be seen as an incorporation of the von Neumann model of unreliable interconnections of components to the area of neural networks: the basic component has a fixed probability for malfunction.

The last is a particularly apt description of my brain, except for the "fixed probability" part  :p

Date: 2010/03/04 09:33:33, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 04 2010,06:59)
William Dembski:    
Nakashima: If the point were to show that partial rewards can lead to success where their absence doesn’t, then you don’t need a program as sophisticated as Avida — Dawkins’s WEASEL does the job quite nicely, thank you. With the WEASEL, however, the teleology is blatantly obvious. With Avida, you actually have to do some analysis to see where the intelligence is being smuggled in. Avida is a “find the pea under the covers” game. The sophistication of the program is in fact a subterfuge. That’s why my paper with Winston et al. concludes: “To have integrity, computer simulations of evolutionary search like Avida should make explicit [such sources of intelligence].”

Interesting the fart-meister himself can talk about integrity when he himself does not seem to know what it is.

Knocked off any more animations recently Dr Dr?

How about:
"To have integrity, ID should make explicit [the source of intelligence] that it postulates"

Date: 2010/03/04 10:23:33, Link
Author: sledgehammer
From the NYT on the politics of linking AGW to EvoDenial:
The linkage of evolution and global warming is partly a legal strategy: courts have found that singling out evolution for criticism in public schools is a violation of the separation of church and state. By insisting that global warming also be debated, deniers of evolution can argue that they are simply championing academic freedom in general.

John G. West, a senior fellow with the Discovery Institute in Seattle, a group that advocates intelligent design and has led the campaign for teaching critiques of evolution in the schools, said that the institute was not specifically promoting opposition to accepted science on climate change. Still, Mr. West said, he is sympathetic to that cause.
“There is a lot of similar dogmatism on this issue,” he said, “with scientists being persecuted for findings that are not in keeping with the orthodoxy. We think analyzing and evaluating scientific evidence is a good thing, whether that is about global warming or evolution.”

Larry Krause weighs in:
“Wherever there is a battle over evolution now,” he said, “there is a secondary battle to diminish other hot-button issues like Big Bang and, increasingly, climate change. It is all about casting doubt on the veracity of science — to say it is just one view of the world, just another story, no better or more valid than fundamentalism.”

and the NCSE:
After that, said Joshua Rosenau, a project director for the National Center for Science Education, he began noticing that attacks on climate change science were being packaged with criticism of evolution in curriculum initiatives.
He fears that even a few state-level victories could have an effect on what gets taught across the nation.

Date: 2010/03/05 10:58:46, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (fnxtr @ Mar. 05 2010,07:36)
... I’d recommend the Ronald Reagan $20,000 bill as the appropriate way to go. $200 or $2,000 would be too common for the task. But a $20,000 bill would make sure that the people encountering the Reagan bill were truly among those who Reagan’s policies were intended to benefit most.

How about the 3 dollar bill.

How about the $20,000 promissory note from the game of "Life"?

Date: 2010/03/06 14:09:05, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (carlsonjok @ Mar. 06 2010,11:38)
So, I normally don't look at the ads on the Facebook sidebar.  But one caught my attention for Moore Liquor, which said "Come check out our excellent selection, low prices and friendly service. We're Cheap & Easy (like your Mom.)"  So, since Moore is just a bit up the road from me and that tickled my funny bone, I thought I'd check their website out.

Apparently, they have one of those portable lighted signs out front by the road and they have funny little messages that they change each week.  Apparently, someone didn't like one of their messages and sent them a peevish, but anonymous, postcard.

Here is the owner's response.

"P.S. and the horse you rode in on"

Too Funny!  I like his attitude.

Date: 2010/03/08 20:23:02, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Creo Math.  Maybe Dembski can offer a course?
From here
Jonathon Bartlett is giving Nick Matzke a math lesson on how to add bits.  It's hilarious!
“Even if NS can only add 1 bit of information at a time to a genome, just repeat for millions of years and you’ve generated lots of new information. “

Again, you need to actually take a look at the math.  If natural selection adds 1 bit of information at a time to a genome, and does so each day for 20 billion years, at the end of it you will have 42.7 bits of information (because it is an order-of-magnitude measurement).

Bartlett explains:  
Evolutionists often appeal to the vast age of the universe as justification for their improbable claims.  But the nice thing about mathematics is that you can use it to evaluate claims that would otherwise be incomprehensible.  While it might seem that adding 1 bit of information each day for 20 billion years would certainly add up to something past Dembski’s 500 bits, my trusty calculator calculates it to be 42.7 bits (the calculation is log2(365 * 20000000000) if you want to try it on your calculator).

Lessee, using Bartlett Math

1 bit+1 bit =log2(1+1)=1bit   (1+1=1)

2bits+2bits-log2(2+2)=2 bits  (2+2=2)

now it gets better:
4b +4b = log2(8) = 3

4b+4b=3b !!!! (Evolution destroys information. yay!)

A little math is a dangerous thing

Date: 2010/03/09 00:17:48, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (fnxtr @ Mar. 08 2010,16:53)
Carlson - you are my hero - you must have the World's Best Filing System!!!111 - to preserve and link to some outstanding past history.  

And if there are any new "onlookers",  perhaps from Dr. Dembski's Philo class - I recommend giving the links a good look.  There is some classic stuff, including the Rich vs DaveScot thread, where Brave Sir Davey ran away, and JAD exploded and took over the thread.

and BTW Carlson - thanks!  Good stuff.


The Dilliam Wembski link led me to "Devastatin' Dave, the Turntable Slave."

You guys are awesome (sniff).

And of course ... we love it so!

Date: 2010/03/10 13:50:35, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 10 2010,04:15)
Quote (didymos @ Mar. 10 2010,05:59)
Quote (someotherguy @ Mar. 09 2010,20:02)
Quote (didymos @ Mar. 09 2010,20:27)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 09 2010,17:57)
Quote (someotherguy @ Mar. 09 2010,19:33)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 09 2010,18:16)
Meanwhile equinoxe weighs in on Dawkins:
First, I can honestly say that I had engaged some of these questions in greater depth by the time I was ten lying in bed at night than Dawkins does here. I don’t mean that as a cheap shot.

No doubt he had a firm grip on the issues.

I chortled.

You chortled the chicken?

Which came first: the grip or the issues?

I think you mean "tissues."

Nope.  The issue goes in the tissue.

He says he wrapped his head around some slippery notions.

Have we reached the meat of this topic and beaten it sufficiently yet?

Date: 2010/03/23 23:20:45, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (afarensis @ Mar. 23 2010,18:57)
Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 23 2010,20:45)
Quote (afarensis @ Mar. 23 2010,18:23)
I think that thread has gone all brown and smelly.

Is it worse than the current BW thread stuff on PT?

Oh, you would have to get richardthugs all liquored up to get him to tell the whole sad "brown and smelly" story. It's very sad really.

As I recall, Rich's scatological reference that had him banished to "The Batroom Wall" was "BR^OWN and SM^ELLY", in honor of Batty77's nanny filter.  He must have moved from his mum's basement into the church basement, as he can now access "The GodTube".
Holy Righteous Shit, Batman!

Date: 2010/03/26 23:41:02, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Dr.GH @ Mar. 25 2010,16:02)
Quote (Tom Ames @ Mar. 25 2010,15:51)
Quote (Louis @ Mar. 25 2010,15:31)
Quote (Doc Bill @ Mar. 25 2010,22:24)
On average, I see what you mean.

Oh that's the mode of discussion now is it?


If there was any residual normality in this thread, you deviates have made it insignificant.

I find the standard devients are all posting today.

Well at least squares are, which would spline much.

Date: 2010/03/29 23:48:05, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (JohnW @ Mar. 29 2010,18:30)

What if we freeze the aardvark?

Hey! At the aardvark triple point, we have, simultaneously, liquid aardvark, solid aardvark, and a snootful of aardvark gas.
Barkeep - gimme a pint of that there aardvark!

Date: 2010/03/31 00:21:48, Link
Author: sledgehammer
What I want to know is when they're going to start colliding some LARGE hardons  :p

Date: 2010/04/04 12:10:53, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Mindrover @ April 04 2010,06:18)
Quote (Joe G @ April 03 2010,08:04)
1-The definition I provided is an example of specified information.

2-I then measured the information contained in that definition.

3- It was an EXAMPLE of how to measure SI to see if CSI is present.
Granting that SI can be measured, how much SI is required for CSI to be present?
Does CSI = Designed?

These are honest questions, I would hope for an answer devoid of invectives.

A legit question deserves a legit answer.  Joe can correct me if I get it wrong, but according to Dembski's "Design Inference" :

Information can be measured. (in bits preferebly).

"Specified" information (SI) can be measured unambiguously. (not proven IMO)

 the information is "specified"

 the SI exceeds the UPB (Universal Probability Bound)
of ~10^150 (approx 500 bits)

the information is sufficiently complex and Design (capital D) is inferred.

Date: 2010/04/04 13:42:57, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Oops. 10^120, 10^150,  what's 30 orders of magnitude between friends.  Chump change.  I wasn't even off by a whole dembski
Error in dembskis

That error might be measured in a unit called "dembskis" that scaled things in terms of orders of magnitude came up in discussion of errors in an essay by Marks and Dembski. The reference unit of error for the measure is taken from the case mentioned above in the M/N ratio calculation note, where Dembski had an error of about 65 orders of magnitude. "Dave W." formalized the notion with an equation, and W. Kevin Vicklund suggested using a rounded-off value of 150 as the constant in the denominator, based upon Dembski's figure of 10^150 as a universal small probability. Thus, the final form of quantifying error in dembskis (Reed Cartwright proposed the symbol ?) is

? = | ln(erroneous measure) - ln(correct measure) | / 150

There is not yet a consensus on what to term the unit, but two proposals being considered are "Dmb" and "duns".

ETA: Hat tip to Wes for link above

Date: 2010/04/05 00:14:25, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Oh no! We have fungus among us.

Date: 2010/04/05 09:39:58, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (k.e.. @ April 05 2010,07:13)
Quote (FrankH @ April 05 2010,14:29)
Quote (sledgehammer @ April 05 2010,00:14)
Oh no! We have fungus among us.

I'm not lichen your attitude there bud.....

Moss likely you're causing a fuss over a mere truffle

That's silly. (sigh)  Been there, done that.

Date: 2010/04/05 23:55:42, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (REC @ April 05 2010,20:10)
Stochastic Interference

I wouldn't think stochastic processes that contribute information would be something ID would want to acknowledge.

Well it seems BornAtwit77 is trying its best to divert attention with YouTube bombs.

Date: 2010/04/07 18:21:12, Link
Author: sledgehammer
The "primary" flight feathers at the tips of the wings.

Date: 2010/04/11 10:42:02, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Leleng ambai pa mbeng ku taipet i!

Date: 2010/04/11 14:10:55, Link
Author: sledgehammer
You don't say?

Parabens a voce.  Feliz aniversario.

Date: 2010/04/11 14:21:34, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Q: How much cause could the uncaused cause, if the first cause could uncause cause?

A: As much tard as the uncaused did cause, when at first, cause uncaused cause.

Because, because, because, because, Stephen's the wonderful wizard of T.A.R.D.

Date: 2010/04/11 21:01:55, Link
Author: sledgehammer
PT is baaaack  as of 4/12 1:00  GMT (for me anyway).

Date: 2010/04/16 00:13:31, Link
Author: sledgehammer
WingNutDaily has an article that gives a little more detail:
But the case alleges Coppedge's supervisors demoted and humiliated him for advancing ideas that superiors labeled "unwelcome" and "disruptive."

The situation reach a boiling point in 2009 when a supervisor angrily harassed Coppedge, claiming "intelligent design is religion" and that Coppedge was "pushing religion."

Coppedge's complaint about that harassment resulted in a retaliatory investigation and "severe limitations" on Coppedge's free speech rights, the case explains.

The actions against him continued, even though supervisors eventually admitted they had no complaints about him, and other employees were allowed to discuss whatever topics they chose, the case explains.

The complaint said, "Intelligent design offers scientific evidence that life's development is best explained as reflecting the design of an intelligent cause, citing mainstream research in biology, cosmology, and paleontology."

Anika Smith is all over this one:What you can do to help (Poor David Coppedge, that is)

Call and harrass Cal Tech, JPL and NASA, she says.  Phone numbers provided

ETA: I think I'll call and express support to them for doing their part to keep religious proselytizing out of the workplace.

Date: 2010/04/16 01:29:11, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Welcome bj.  It's late so just a few comments now.  More later.

Don't get too hung up on Charles.  Yes he started the ball rolling, but evolutionary biology has moved on considerably in the intervening 150 years. there are now evolutionary explanations for "irreducibly complex systems on the cellular level" that are accepted by the vast majority of biologists. If you do a little googling away from the ID sites you will find that the consensus view differs considerably from the views expressed by Behe.

I don't know of anyone who is praising Darwin for his work on "like how the earth was created using his theory of evolution", because, well, his theory isn't about that.

 The only one I see attributing anything like that to Darwin is the one "working out in my head is how can evolutionary proponents praise the man for starting something that he (Charles Darwin) never intended for his "theory" to do".
Got any quotes or references as to what you might be talking about here?

Date: 2010/04/16 19:11:59, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Not to mention that it isn't even necessary to prove that functional mutations on duplicate genes/genomes actually happened.  As long as it is possible in principle that  information in the genome (by whatever definition) can be generated by this process, than the "no significant info increase without intelligence" ID mantra is falsified, even with the "significant" caveat, since the process can be repeated as often as necessary to achieve "significance".

Ain't that right, Joe?

Date: 2010/04/25 11:33:41, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ April 25 2010,07:56)
Quote (Dr.GH @ April 25 2010,09:40)
I don't want a god into justice. I want one that is merciful, and with a good sense of humor.

You can't always get what you want.
But if you try sometimes well you just might find
You get what you need.

I can't get no satisfaction

Date: 2010/04/27 09:51:21, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (dvunkannon @ April 27 2010,07:21)
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ April 27 2010,09:13)
Posted by Joe G this morning on UnintelligentReasoning

Comment Moderation Enabled

However this is going to become a lonely blog because only on-topic comments- comments that demonstrate an understanding of what I post or comments that support the anti-ID position will be allowed

LOL!  Poor little Joey Gallien is tired of being picked on by the mean evos, so he's taking his ball and going home.  :D  :D  :D

Comments that support the anti-ID position?

As in:

"All you have to do to refute ID is provide evidence for your position"

Which, when provided, is promptly ignored.

Ya see, IOW, Joe's blog will look like JAD's, except he doesn't even have his own VMartin.

How do ya like them green apples?

I love it so!

Date: 2010/05/02 11:12:44, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Thanks for all the anniversarial acknowledgments.
Funny, you don't look a day over 90, sledge.
Thanks fnx, but after DethKlok,  
Happy Birthday
You're gonna die
You're running out of life...
I feel more like 900
So I decided to make like Noah and get drunk.  
So happy hangover day!
I'm feeling the pain.

Date: 2010/05/09 20:04:32, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Dembski on Alaya:  
In his book Darwin’s Gift to Science and Religion he calls me (a mathematician by training) a “sociologist.” Given his remarks below, apparently anyone who is not the right sort of scientist is, in Ayala’s view, a sociologist.

Alaya's term was "las ciencias sociales", the social sciences, not sociology.  Nice try.

Sorry Bill, but you've already proven just what kind of mathemagician you are, what with the EF, NFL, and especially Dawkins' Weasel. Tenth-rate, borrowing Gil's phrase, doesn't even come close.  As to those other degrees, I wouldn't even call theology a science. If it wasn't for the philosophy, you wouldn't even get make the science classification.  Consider yourself honored.
Great to see the Templeton Foundation supporting him.

Hurt's don't it?  No Templeton  whine and cheese parties for you anymore, either, you poor guy.  It's that vast TE conspiracy, I tells ya.

Date: 2010/05/10 09:47:15, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (BillB @ May 10 2010,06:45)
KF's zener noise generator as a 'metaphor' for pre-biotic chemistry would work better (but only slightly) if there were several trillion of these noise generators each passing their output to an HTML parser.  What is the probability of one of them, over the course of a few billion years, producing "<html></html>" - resulting in a valid, but blank page?

Even those figures don't come close to the 'search capabilities' of the universe over it's entire existence.

Or how about this one:  Random white noise (quantum fluctuations), when passed through a particular filter (the Hydrogen atom), results in the Lyman alpha lines.

 What are the chances that this particular spectrum would be produced by nature, acting alone, using a uniform probability distribution (justified by the Bernoulli Principle of Insufficient Reason) on all possible atomic resonances?  All the probabilistic resources of the universe would be woefully inadequate, therefore intelligent design.

Date: 2010/05/13 10:24:38, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Jkrebs @ May 13 2010,07:45)
from some guy named jon bailey good:

Could that be a pseudonym for the famous Johnny B. Goode?

Date: 2010/05/14 09:41:58, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Certainly the incestuous little group they have there.
 I was amused by Axe's reply to Gauger's paper. i mean, why doesn't he just walk a few steps to her desk and ask her his question?  It's obviously all for the show, not the substance.

Date: 2010/05/16 11:59:16, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (KCdgw @ May 16 2010,06:54)
How could Hunter get a PhD in Biophysics and be so honestly clueless about Bayesian statistics? Oh wait, I answered my own question.

Hunter's not the only one feigning clulessness.  Both he and DrDrD eschew Bayesian analysis because they know that any honest probabilistic comparison of naturalistic explanations with the "Designerdidit" hypothesis (if you could even call it a hypothesis) would not bode well for their preconceptions.
 It's no surprise, therefore, that the Nixplanatory Filter is strictly eliminative.

Date: 2010/05/16 23:04:59, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (REC @ May 16 2010,19:53)
Oh, and Gil has applied Behe's (mis)calculations of malaria resistance to falsify human evolution. Big number therefore impossible.

I'd like to see Gil or Hunter calculate the probability that a designing intelligence was around at the OOL, and was willing and capable of manipulating genomes on a regular basis.

 Oh wait, the probability is 1.00, of course.  How silly of me!

Evidence? We don need no steenkin evidence. Only atheistic, materialist, nihilistic Darwimps need to show evidence.

Date: 2010/05/17 19:27:10, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (SLP @ May 17 2010,15:43)
Has anyone else read any of Abel's papers and concluded, like I have, that
1. I am astonished at how such nonsense gets past peer review
2. question begging shoiuld not be considered a valid scientific endeavor?

Not only that, but when i read a paper  full of jargon of the author's own creation,    
“Physicodynamics cannot spontaneously traverse The Cybernetic Cut ”
using circular definitions (like CSI and IC: that which cannot be produced by natural causes) , followed by the challenge "prove me wrong! (but I get to make the rules)":  
A single exception of non trivial, unaided spontaneous optimization of formal function by truly
   natural process would falsify this null hypothesis.

I can only roll my eyes and  shrug.

Date: 2010/05/20 22:08:13, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Nowhere in the vast field of engineering is there any such
thing as "the percentage of the time that corrupted data is
helpful instead of harmful."

It's ALWAYS harmful. Always. Copying errors and data
transmission errors never help the signal. They only hurt

BZZZT! Wrong.
Random noise added to a signal before digitization by an Analog-to-Digital Converter actually improves the resolution of the resulting digital representation by "dithering" the quantization levels.
That's just engineering.  In physics, thermal noise can prevent a system from getting stuck in a local minimum (potential well) and significantly affect the outcome of a process by allowing it to sample a wider range of possible states.

Date: 2010/05/21 16:16:57, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (OgreMkV @ May 21 2010,12:20)
Quote (ppb @ May 21 2010,12:33)
Quote (midwifetoad @ May 21 2010,13:07)
He's asking me out on a date? How sweet.

Ask him if he's a top or a bottom.

Quark, that is.

He's definitely no charm.

But he is strange.

What  beauty!  I get a charge out of it, no matter which way you spin it.

Date: 2010/05/22 10:17:07, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Louis @ May 22 2010,06:50)
Quote (didymos @ May 22 2010,02:38)
Quote (Louis @ May 21 2010,15:48)
Quote (sledgehammer @ May 21 2010,22:16)
Quote (OgreMkV @ May 21 2010,12:20)
Quote (ppb @ May 21 2010,12:33)
Quote (midwifetoad @ May 21 2010,13:07)
He's asking me out on a date? How sweet.

Ask him if he's a top or a bottom.

Quark, that is.

He's definitely no charm.

But he is strange.

What  beauty!  I get a charge out of it, no matter which way you spin it.

The truth is he'll never show. The ID Guy/Joe pair won't split, between them they barely make 2/3 of a human. They're glued together. They'll never get their part on.


That was aces!

I thought it merely fine, man. These things have yet to gel, man.


To that I hoist ein stein to the new tone, Ian. I'll try not to be a Bohr.

Date: 2010/05/24 19:00:36, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 24 2010,08:07)

Wow! Thanks Rich. That's one entertaining pile of happy horseshit,  breathlessly presented in that multi-colored, let's-try-every-font-in-the-universe huckster style that all the cranks like to use.
Here's a tidbit from the "Irrefutible Complexity" page:          
The components of cilia are single molecules. This means that there are no more black boxes to invoke; the complexity of the cilium is final, fundamental. And just as scientists, when they began to learn the complexities of the cell, realized how silly it was to think that life arose spontaneously in a single step or a few steps from ocean mud, so too we now realize that the complex cilium can not be reached in a single step or a few steps. But since the complexity of the cilium is irreducible, then it can not have functional precursors. Since the irreducibly complex cilium can not have functional precursors it can not be produced by natural selection, which requires a continuum of function to work. Natural selection is powerless when there is no function to select. We can go further and say that, if the cilium can not be produced by natural selection, then the cilium was designed.
(bolding mine).
"The components of this computer are single molecules. This means that there are no more black boxes to invoke; the complexity of computers is final, fundamental."
  No mention of cooption anywhere.
The page concludes with this howler:          
Many evolutionists have attempted to deny Behe's contention that the flagellum is irreducibly complex, but every attempt fails to show how the flagellum actually could have been formed by Darwinian gradualism. Rather, all denials by evolutionists of irreducible complexity rely on non-confirmable, non-falsifiable, non-experimental assumptions to justify belief in unguided processes to produce such structures.
No, we don't project much, do we?

Date: 2010/05/24 23:20:15, Link
Author: sledgehammer
My solution is to not precipitate in this fraction.

Date: 2010/05/26 12:06:32, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (midwifetoad @ May 26 2010,09:50)

Here's the link: Ayala thread

But Nak, didn't you get the memo? Macro-evo is no longer set at the species level, it's now at the family level.  Neener-neener, can't catch my moving goalposts.

ETA: spellink

Date: 2010/05/27 15:41:59, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 27 2010,13:23)
Joe explains something to me:

< much snippage>
But in the end whatever survives, survives.

Do you not understand the theory, Richard?

THAT'S supposed to be evolution?  ???

Wow, Joe.  That's so profound.  Whatever lives lives, whatever dies, dies; whoever spews, spews.  I think I understand your theory now.  Thanks, Joe

Date: 2010/05/27 16:16:30, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Kristine @ May 26 2010,17:00)
Quote (Never Know @ May 24 2010,19:00)

(Now, what about the messages in DNA?)

What messages, pray tell, are we talking about? And will we "never know" who wrote those alleged things, either?

Must be the one that when translated from the original Hebrew reads:

"Made by YAWEH, © 4,162,358,626 B.C. all rights reserved"

ETA: or maybe (like in Venter's case)  "Patent Pending"

Date: 2010/05/28 12:55:08, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Batshit77 point us to this website "proving" that pi can be derived from the first words of Genesis.
Using a streamlined version of the procedure used there:

pi=# of letters/ # of words

applied to the phrese:

"I think BA77 is full of shit"

gives 22/7= 3.1429 which is pi to within a factor of 1.0004!


Date: 2010/05/30 16:47:36, Link
Author: sledgehammer
In a reply to Hunter's UD whinefest, paulbaird responds:
  But there are myriad barriers that ensure skeptics are filtered out at every stage. Everything from passing grades and letters of recommendation to tenure and funding are strongly contingent on conformity. Dissenters are blacklisted so they never have a chance to raise objections.

But you work at a University where, according to Wikipedia

   As a final guarantee of strict adherence to its theological and cultural worldview, the University requires every faculty member, when first hired and again upon application for tenure, to submit their understanding of and complete agreement with each item of the doctrinal and teaching statements to the Talbot School of Theology for evaluation.

Is that incorrect ? If it is correct then what’s the difference between that University’s enforcement of compliance and the alleged enforcement of compliance elsewhere ?

Touche.  I wonder how far an atheist, materialist, Darwimp would make it at Biola, Liberty, LeaderU, etc?  Think they'd make tenure?

Date: 2010/05/31 15:21:44, Link
Author: sledgehammer

Happy Quack Attack!

Date: 2010/06/04 15:36:28, Link
Author: sledgehammer
A telling quote friom the abstract:
Consequently, the fundamental laws of thermodynamics show that entropy reduction which can occur naturally in non-isolated systems is not a sufficient argument to explain the origin of either biological machinery or genetic information that is inextricably intertwined with it.

Has anyone ever claimed that thermodynamics alone can explain biological complexity?
The only argument I've heard is that thermo allows it.
Sewell claims that thermo forbids it.

Just another creato strawman argument.  <snore>

Date: 2010/06/04 17:30:00, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Venus Mousetrap @ June 04 2010,11:30)
Quote (Hermagoras @ June 04 2010,12:41)
ID Can Haz Peer Review!

Thoughts?  My university doesn't subscribe, so I can't get the full text.

Hmm, I know that name. :)

All science so far!

From Andrew McIntosh's endorsement of the edinburghcreationgroup :    
   "My knowledge of thermodynamics has shown me that all mechanical systems (such as an engine or fridge or aeroplane etc.) require not only energy but ordered machinery in order to work. Thus simply adding energy to a lump of matter will not turn this into a machine which can do useful work. Clausius and other great thermodynamic scientists of the past, demonstrated this in the precise expression of the second law of thermodynamics which states that some of energy for useful work will in any system always be lost irretrievably. It has been argued that with an open system, useful energy can be put back in, but this will only be of use if there is an existing machine! One can never get round the 2nd law even for open systems. ...
   Professor Andy C. McIntosh DSc, FIMA, C.Math, FEI, C.Eng, FInstP, MIGEM, FRAeS (Professor of Thermodynamics and Combustion Theory)

What does this (the bolded part) even mean?

Given the  alphabet soup of pretentiousness after his name, I don't know why I even bother with this loon, but a simple example easily refutes the first sentence:

What is "useful work"? One of the first uses of the steam engine was to pump water out of mines, so raising the gravitational potential energy of a mass of water is clearly "useful work" by any definition. Geysers perform this "useful work" using geothermal heat energy with the complex machinery of "a hole in the ground".  Hell, sunlight evaporated sea water transported to mountain regions to collect in natural reservoirs is useful work.  Where's the "ordered machinery" required for the "useful work" ?

Date: 2010/06/07 09:44:08, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Richardthughes @ June 07 2010,05:47)
Google thinks this thread is a good choice:

(well, better than his first book)

But lesser than "vox day idiot", I see.

ETA not fast enough. Never mind.

Date: 2010/06/07 20:34:42, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (iWalter276 @ June 07 2010,11:49)
It does not make me a prude; but why should I have to subject myself to it? It is called respect... Is that a dumb ass question? I don't think so.

Hey! Show some self-respect here.
I could care less what your belief system is.

Thanks for caring.

Date: 2010/06/10 11:21:36, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Bob O'H @ June 09 2010,23:55)
There used to be a Biologic Institute thread, but I can't find it. Anyway, here's the lost link. Axe declares Matheson wrong, because of a calculation based on a 747-in-junkyard model. Even wMad isn't that dumb any more.

It's telling that in his response, Axe correctly restates Matheson's criitique (that probability based on the size of the sequence space is irrelevant in a nested hierarchy), but doesn't even address that issue.  Instead, he throws out the usual "Gee, Look! BigNumber!" probability argument.
 Now Axe is not stupid, and I know that he knows very well what Matheson's argument implies, so I can only conclude that he knows or suspects that Matheson's argument is correct, he has no rebuttal, and is being purposely deceitful.
This is the same kind of intellectual dishonesty that Durston and Abel demonstrate whenever the subject of protein sequence space in an evolutionary context comes up.

Date: 2010/06/11 01:25:15, Link
Author: sledgehammer
I nominate OM for POTW for due diligence and thoroughly enjoyable running commentary!  (does this thread have a POTx? Is Jason Spaceman on earthly furlough?)

Date: 2010/06/12 11:09:47, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 12 2010,06:35)
A poster on pharyngula notes the Disco tute's 990 forms are also available.

Some sick amounts of money being paid out to Meyer etc.

Meyer proposes his own salary, board approves. Sweet deal.

Date: 2010/06/16 21:03:39, Link
Author: sledgehammer

Birthday for the John
(I thought the latex glove was a nice touch)

Date: 2010/06/17 00:29:57, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (skeptic reborn @ June 16 2010,21:46)

Wonderful stuff!  Studies like these are just the beginning.  One of these days, fifty years from now, we'll be able to tell our great-grandchildren (hopefully) that we once believed evolution was random.  As the famous chaos theorisist once said, "life finds a way."

Who is "we", kimosabe?  Random is not a word currently used to describe evolution, except by creato strawmakers.

Date: 2010/06/19 12:41:17, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Zachriel @ June 19 2010,07:50)
The whole thing is a silly strawman, beginning with his accusation concerning "the scientific community’s attention on its own tendencies toward overzealous metaphysical imagination bordering on 'wish-fulfillment'," the vague terminology and petitio principii associated with the "Cybernetic Cut," and the same said error as Behe's above encapsulated in the phrase "readily falsifiable," only Abel buries his fundamental fallacy in bouquets of sciency terminology.

I also note that both Behe and Abel allow themselves to set the criteria on the satisfactory falsification of what amounts to negative arguments (RM/NS cannot do this or that), and we know that if they were provided with the detailed, step-by-step mutational history, they would immediately set about calculating the 747/tornado probability that the given exact sequence of events happened by chance, and declare that it could not possibly have been an unguided process, therefore ID.

Date: 2010/06/20 11:05:19, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (khan @ June 20 2010,08:28)
watch us like hyenas

I am unfamiliar with this phrase.  What does it mean?

Predators, watching for signs of weakness, ready to take out those less fit, those who stumble, or the unprotected young and vulnerable?
 Or, maybe it's a reference to Laughing Hyenas, pointing and mocking, amused at the foibles of the prey species.

Date: 2010/06/22 16:46:37, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Methinks Sal's gunning for a summer intern job as the DI's assistant attack rodent.

Date: 2010/06/22 16:52:59, Link
Author: sledgehammer

Happy Happy Happy

Date: 2010/06/30 19:02:40, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Of course, Teh Trancendental, All Powerful, All Knowing Personal Designer specified when each nucleus was to decay.  Nothing random about it at all, you see.  There is no quantum uncertainty for The Big Guy In The Sky.

Date: 2010/07/07 01:31:12, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 05 2010,15:01)
Again, this is not science, but ideologically driven research.

I remembered reading that phrase somewhere recently:
John Hogan's "Cross Check" column in Scientific American titled: "Dubitable Darwin? Why Some Smart, Nonreligious People Doubt the Theory of Evolution"
In it he skewers ID, Fodor, Glenn Beck and anyone else in the crosshairs:          
The philosopher Daniel Dennett once called the theory of evolution by natural selection "the single best idea anyone has ever had." I'm inclined to agree. But Darwinism sticks in the craw of some really smart people. I don't mean intelligent-designers (aka IDiots) and other religious ignorami but knowledgeable scientists and scholars.
In Climbing Mount Improbable (W. W. Norton, 1997) Dawkins emphasizes that the vast majority of variants of a given species fail to propagate; there are many more ways to be a loser in the game of life than to be a success. Surely that is true of life as a whole. Of all the imaginable possible histories of life, what is the likelihood that it would persist for billions of years, long enough to produce toads, baboons and Glenn Beck?

Oh and the Popper quote that Poochy "borrowed":       
Early in his career, the philosopher Karl Popper (yes, cited by F and P-P) called evolution via natural selection "almost a tautology" and "not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research program." Attacked for these criticisms, Popper took them back. But when I interviewed him in 1992, he blurted out that he still found Darwin's theory dissatisfying. "One ought to look for alternatives!" Popper exclaimed, banging his kitchen table.

Suitable for many salacious quote-mines.

Date: 2010/07/19 23:21:19, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Another news item, for what it's worth:

Syria bans full Islamic face veils at universities
(AP) "- 3 hours ago"
AP - Syria has forbidden the country's students and teachers from wearing the niqab — the full Islamic veil that reveals only a woman's eyes — taking aim at a garment many see as political.

Date: 2010/08/02 00:43:23, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (sparc @ Aug. 01 2010,21:26)
Meanwhile GilDodgen invited you to join an open discussion:        
I have no interest in arguing with people who can’t think and don’t want to follow the evidence where it leads, because it’s a lost cause from the outset.

Also from the Dodgenator in that thread:      
The other consensus of “scientists” in the academy is that random errors screwing up computer code can account for everything in biology.

Who is thinking logically here?

Clearly not Mr. Dodge'em, if he thinks that consensus among scare quoted scientists is that evolution is all about "random errors screwing up computer code".

Grow up, Gil. You know better than that, so quit playing word games.  You're not fooling anybody except the fools.

Date: 2010/08/02 20:34:11, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Maya @ Aug. 02 2010,14:28)
I thought that tgpeeler was one of the more intelligent posters at UD, but it turns out that s/he can bring the stupid with the best of them:
If materialism is true, then I could not know of abstract things. But I do know of abstract things. Therefore, materialism is false.

ETA: This deserves a Babbage Honorable Mention.  "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."

sounds a lot like the Hovind quote in my sig line.
 TGP must be channeling Kent.

Date: 2010/08/07 14:50:55, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (didymos @ Aug. 06 2010,23:52)
Quote (DiEb @ Aug. 06 2010,22:24)
Fun for the weekend: The British are notoriously weak in mathematics

Ah, yes.  This is clearly true. Just consider, oh, say...Hardy, Russel, Turing, De Morgan, Newton, Boole, Lord Kelvin, Babbage, Stokes, Venn, etc.   Bunch of fucking amateurs.  Footnotes in mathematical history at best.

Lest we not forget:  the math/physicists:  Maxwell, Dirac, Penrose and Hawking

Date: 2010/08/11 23:59:05, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Any chance we could see some closeups? esp the seal and that feature at fret 12 looks interesting.

Date: 2010/08/15 11:52:18, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (CeilingCat @ Aug. 15 2010,02:20)
“The Vibrant Dance of Faith and Science” — Conference in Austin TX, Oct 26-28, 2010
William Dembski

Bill knows very well from whence the funding (fundying?) comes:
Young-earth creationism is a very widely accepted position among conservative Christians, so by not inviting any of its proponents, any attempt at theological unification will accordingly be limited.

Pandering to the base for political expediency, even if you know it's a load of crap, doesn't rate very high on the ethical scale of things, even in politics.

Date: 2010/08/19 10:14:31, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Live Science has an article on a sociologist study of Ham's creation.
Barton combined hours of observation and analysis of museum materials into an ethnography, a detailed narrative about a place and its culture that is often used in sociology. Unlike other research methods, the ethnography does not strive for impartiality; rather, the researchers recognize and reflect on their own reactions to what they see.

On her third trip to the museum, Barton took her undergraduate students, who found the visit unsettling. Several in the group were former fundamentalists who had since rejected that worldview. Several others were gay. In part because of these backgrounds, Barton said, the students were on edge at the museum. Particularly nerve-wracking were signs warning that guests could be asked to leave the premises at any time. The group's reservation confirmation also noted that museum staff reserved the right to kick the group off the property if they were not honest about the "purpose of [the] visit."

Because of these messages, Barton said, the students felt they might accidentally reveal themselves as nonbelievers and be asked to leave. This pressure is a form of "compulsory Christianity" that is common in a region known for its fundamentalism, Barton said. People who don't ascribe to fundamentalism often report the need to hide their thoughts for fear of being judged or snubbed.

At one point, Barton reported in her paper, a guard with a dog circled a student pointedly twice without saying anything. When he left, a museum patron approached the student and said, "The reason he did that is because of the way you're dressed. We know you're not religious; you just don't fit in." (The student was wearing leggings and a long shirt, Barton writes.)

Date: 2010/08/19 14:32:14, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Ignore him.  He's just and old coot with ruffled feathers.

Date: 2010/09/04 22:16:53, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Is it true that gun control brings our old friend DaveScot out of the woodwork?

Date: 2010/09/05 15:43:32, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Sep. 05 2010,09:34)
Quote (sledgehammer @ Sep. 04 2010,23:16)
Is it true that gun control brings our old friend DaveScot out of the woodwork?

That's an '07 post you've linked to.

Oops.  I realized that after I posted. Gosh, it seemed like just last Thursday.

Date: 2010/09/09 18:52:39, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Robin @ Sep. 09 2010,11:42)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Sep. 09 2010,11:05)

Random thought: I am still in awe that the Mésanges Charbonnières are refered to in english as Great Tits.

The wonders of languages...

Blame the English. They're the ones that came up with the bright idea to call any small passerine species a 'tit'. Though I must confess to the delight at the thought of explaining to other people in parks that the binoculars I carry are for looking for and at tits.  :D

And I just got back from vacation in "Les Grande Tetons".  They were big, beautiful and pointy.

Date: 2010/09/11 12:42:49, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Aardvark @ Sep. 10 2010,04:19)
I present the final disproof of evolution:

<snipped images>

Any of you fancy-pants evolutionists care to explain exactly how a chameleon knows what colour to change into thanks to only blind, undirected, chemical, atheistic and materialistic processes?

The chameleon just blends in with the plants or shrubs or trees and is hardly visible. But do you think the chameleon consciously does this? The answer is NO. In reality, the surroundings are not the influencing factor. The main causes of the skin-color change are the chameleon's emotional state, the sunlight, temperature etc...Now which are the occasions that cause the cells to expand? The following table gives a brief outline of the various color changes:

Influencing Factor
Color Change

Emotional State - Anger - Excitement or Fear
Skin becomes darker
Skin becomes paler and gets yellow spots

Sunlight - Bright light    - No light (darkness)   
Cells become dark, nearly black
Skin becomes creamish with yellow spots

Temperatures - High (without sunlight)    - Low
Skin turns green
Skin turns pale green

Since the chameleon is a fairly slow moving animal, this protective mechanism is of great benefit. The color changes is one of the factors that allows it to survive in any type of weather or environment.

Date: 2010/09/21 01:11:57, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 20 2010,10:08)
For sale, one moderate tard claim:

unmined, estimated moderate yield. PM me your offers.

Here is the position when it comes to the modern intelligent design movement…

1) The intelligent design movement doesn’t question evolution per say rather if it happened by “chance” or not.

2) The intelligent design movement accepts evolutionary conclusions on the age of the Universe.

3) It promotes “agents” not God as the source of information

4) It holds no value in explaining on what or who those “agents” are because they say it goes beyond the realm of science.

While there are major differences with creationism, intelligent design proponents have produced some great materials and arguments that are beneficial to Christians and non-Christians alike.

Oh Yeah. On the first page no less. So much for the "big tent" approach.

Date: 2010/09/28 19:55:47, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Zachriel @ Sep. 28 2010,10:12)
So if gpuccio is unaware of intermediates, he might calculate 10^150. But if someone points out a single plausible intermediate, we now have two gaps! His calculation changes by a factor of as much as ~10^75. As long as he remains unaware of intermediates, then the dFSCI will be a large number.  dFSCI is a measure of gpuccio's ignorance!

And as knowledge of the intermediate steps is gained, his "Intelligent Designer", (along with gpoochies intelligence), shrinks with the gap he's put them both in.

Date: 2010/09/28 23:38:46, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Genome-wide analysis of a long-term evolution experiment with Drosophila

Last week in Nature, a Lenski-style selection experiment  w/ (sexually reproducing) D.melanogaster by  Molly K. Burke, Michael R. Rose and Anthony D. Long at UC Irvine distinguishes "soft" selection of traits involving 100s of genes from "hard sweeps" of single allele frequencies.
 From the abstract:        
Signatures of selection are qualitatively different than what has been observed in asexual species; in our sexual populations, adaptation is not associated with ‘classic’ sweeps whereby newly arising, unconditionally advantageous mutations become fixed.

Nick Wade at NYT quotes Lenski and discusses discusses the study w/ Michael Rose:        
The debate about whether evolution proceeds by altering one or many genes started 90 years ago among the three founders of population genetics, Ronald Fisher, Sewall Wright and J. B. S. Haldane. Haldane favored the single mutation mechanism, but Fisher and Wright backed multiple gene change. The fruit fly experiment “is a total vindication of Wright and Fisher and a major defeat for Haldane and a lot of conventional geneticists who have sided with him,” Dr. Rose said.

The demise of the Haldane view “is very bad news for the pharmaceutical industry in general,” Dr. Rose said. If disease and other traits are controlled by many genes, it will be hard to find effective drugs; a single target would have been much simpler.

and includes this subtitle for Michael Egnor's benefit        
A new exploration of how evolution works at the genomic level may have a significant impact on drug development and other areas of medicine.

Date: 2010/09/29 00:04:11, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (OgreMkV @ Sep. 28 2010,20:14)
Quote (Texas Teach @ Sep. 28 2010,21:04)
Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 28 2010,11:11)
I can sympathize with agnostics, but atheists?  IMHO, the only reason one is an atheist is because of personal issues which can vary immensely from person to person.

For this atheist, it's the same personal issues that lead me to not believe in UFOs, astral projections, mental telepathy, ESP, clairvoyance, spirit photography, telekinetic movement, full trance mediums, the Loch Ness monster and the theory of Atlantis.

Actually, I think I agree.  In my experience, the reasons for atheism come down to one of two things.

1) No indoctrination as a child (i.e. children of atheists)

2) Indoctrination as a child that just didn't take (i.e. the child figured out what a sham religion actually is)

I'll take 2).
 Even at 7 years old, the talking snake and mind-altering apple were a bit much, but when my sunday school teacher insisted that it was literally true that all them animals were on that little boat for a year; that sealed it for me. I knew then that these people were lying to me.

Date: 2010/10/13 22:44:32, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (REC @ Oct. 13 2010,17:49)
JoeG has done more damage to that blog then Hunter's inanities and allowing thinking people to comment combined. Times a million.

Literally, no one is left but JoeG and people watching the train-wreck. Not even BA77 and the standard hallelujah chorus are showing up much.

If it were anybody but Joe, one might even think that the  thread hijacking was to actually prevent a serious discussion that wasn't going well for the disruptor.  But with Joe, I think it's like wrestling with a pig:  you get dragged into the mud, and the pig likes it.

Date: 2010/10/18 20:25:27, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Ask him if a single molecule of water is a solid, liquid or a gas.

Date: 2010/10/25 18:12:22, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Mine went through (in the "design" topic), but you have to open the topic (click on the header) to see the comments.  It looks like the underline on the "leave comments" goes away if a comment has been left.  Pretty clunky, but IANABlogger.

Date: 2010/10/25 22:37:57, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (keiths @ Oct. 25 2010,16:51)
Quote (didymos @ Oct. 25 2010,16:36)
Speaking of his True Name, does anyone know what the 'E.' in Gordon E. Mullings stands for?

Excessive? Excrescence?

I'll guess Ennui

Date: 2010/11/05 18:17:03, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 05 2010,15:38)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 05 2010,17:43)
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 05 2010,16:41)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 05 2010,14:21)
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 05 2010,16:15)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 05 2010,13:51)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 05 2010,15:46)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 05 2010,15:33)
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 05 2010,13:11)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 05 2010,04:42)
Wrong again occam's afterbirth- the assumed words are still there- meaning the one-wrod sentences are not one-word.











Date: 2010/11/05 18:23:53, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (didymos @ Nov. 05 2010,15:46)
Autocatalysis is a worthy topic and all, but I still want Joe to tell me what he thinks hail is made of first.  He could wrap that one up with a one-word sentence.

Whar ahm from, hail's made o' far n' braemstone

Date: 2010/11/07 23:39:48, Link
Author: sledgehammer
From the paper,      
Metaphysical naturalism is too small a perimeter to contain
all of the pieces. Naturalism is too inadequate a
metanarrative to be able to incorporate all of the observable
scientific data. And it cannot explain the integration and
cooperation of so many physicochemical interactions into
the holistic metabolism and true organization of life. Mere
constraints are simply not up to the task, starting with the
fact that constraints cannot pursue any task.

 © David L. Abel; Licensee Bentham Open:
Condensed version:  "It's so complicated! I can't figure it out, so it MUST be SUPER-natural."

   I notice he no longer lists any academic affiliation.  Just self-appointed "director" of his own corporation:
"Department of ProtoBioCybernetics/ProtoBioSemiotics, Director, The Gene Emergence Project, The Origin-of-Life
Science Foundation, Inc., 113 Hedgewood Dr. Greenbelt, MD 20770-1610 USA"

Date: 2010/11/08 08:32:03, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (keiths @ Nov. 08 2010,03:26)
Quote (sledgehammer @ Nov. 07 2010,21:39)
I notice he no longer lists any academic affiliation.  Just self-appointed "director" of his own corporation:
"Department of ProtoBioCybernetics/ProtoBioSemiotics, Director, The Gene Emergence Project, The Origin-of-Life
Science Foundation, Inc., 113 Hedgewood Dr. Greenbelt, MD 20770-1610 USA"

Has he ever listed an academic affiliation?

Hmm.  You're right.  For some reason I thought he was associated with Trevors, Durston and those other cranky loons at U of Guelph.
ETA: make that loony cranks

Date: 2010/11/08 23:36:22, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 08 2010,19:18)
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 08 2010,22:08)
This bit cracks me up. Notice how Casey defines whales:

But does he provide a cetacean for his source material?


Yes - consult the biolography.

He just keeps blubbering on about how it must all be a big fluke.

Date: 2010/11/09 15:19:03, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 09 2010,10:44)

It is just like my math was better when I didn't use a calculator all the time.

But I wouldn't expect a dipshit like you to understand that.

Calculators do arithmetic.    
Arithmetic or arithmetics is the oldest and most elementary branch of mathematics ...
 Seems fitting.

Date: 2010/11/10 17:45:02, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Robin @ Nov. 10 2010,14:03)

Quote (olegt @ Nov. 10 2010,15:57)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 10 2010,15:52)
Quote (KCdgw @ Nov. 10 2010,15:45)
Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 10 2010,15:41)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Nov. 10 2010,13:19)
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 10 2010,15:00)
Quote (didymos @ Nov. 10 2010,13:51)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 10 2010,12:49)
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 10 2010,14:41)
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 10 2010,13:34)
Quote (Zachriel @ Nov. 10 2010,20:24)
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 10 2010,14:20)
The modified salmon includes a gene from an eel. Any explanation has to explain that fact.

That requirement is apt to leave them floundering.

Cod happen.

Gentlemen, is this really the plaice for this sort of behaviour? Louis

Well, not if people are gonna carp about it!

I can't believe what I'm herring. LOLer-Skates.

I shall not be reeled into this undignified pun cascade.

So this then will be your sole reply on this matter?

You all have finally jumped the shark.

I knew something smelt fishy about this thread.

I'm getting a haddock over all this

Are you having a wet bream?

I am afraid this is eel-conceived.

I am dolphin*-ly not impressed. Methinks it's just time to clam up. * fish, not the mammal

It all smells of, ick, theology!

Date: 2010/11/12 20:17:22, Link
Author: sledgehammer
But, but,...not a single one of them is a mini-van.  So there.

Date: 2010/11/15 10:34:01, Link
Author: sledgehammer
To the "Information is neither matter nor energy" crowd: take note: "Maxwell's Demon" experiment converts information to energy  
For the first time, scientists have converted information into pure energy, experimentally verifying a thought experiment first proposed 150 years ago...The researchers describe their results in the Nov. 14 online edition of the journal Nature Physics.
In an accompanying essay in the same issue of the journal, physicist Christian Van den Broeck of the University of Hasselt in Belgium, who was not involved in the new study, called it "a direct verification of information-to-energy conversion."

I can't wait to see how some IDer will twist this into "Therefore God"

ETA: link to pdf

Date: 2010/11/16 16:22:58, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (fusilier @ Nov. 15 2010,06:24)
Quote (sledgehammer @ Nov. 12 2010,21:17)
But, but,...not a single one of them is a mini-van.  So there.

Check out the last pic.


Curses. Goalpost transport foiled again.

Date: 2010/11/16 16:33:29, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 16 2010,11:49)
E-coli solves suduku

From the article:  
"If you consider an ant colony, an individual ant isn't very useful," he told New Scientist. "But if you put millions of ants together they're suddenly capable of very rich, very complex population-level behaviour. That's what we're trying to harness."

Something Sal will, apparently, never understand.

Date: 2010/11/17 18:56:07, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Yes, by all means, do float one of the promising "initial claims of evo-devo" so we have a bit of an exposed edge or something to get purchase on.  A good chew toy has to have a ripped seam or frayed edge before it can be diligently torn open, exposing the internal wadding, and then shaken violently until the stuffing is spread all over the living room floor, and all that remains is an unrecognizable, slobbered, empty shell of its former self.

Date: 2010/11/18 18:45:17, Link
Author: sledgehammer
An excellent minute-by-minute, play-by-play, real-time blogging, w/ commentary and time-stamps here:

Date: 2010/11/19 14:50:00, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (khan @ Nov. 19 2010,12:13)
"Fool proof yes, idiot proof no." --Boris Badenov

Instrumentation designers have a similar adage:
"You can try to make it foolproof, but you can't make it damn-fool proof".

Date: 2010/11/21 01:30:27, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Doc Bill @ Nov. 20 2010,19:06)
My back yard is full of frolicking college students.

Long story.

Ah yes, one of my favorite species of wildlife.

Date: 2010/11/21 12:00:55, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (CeilingCat @ Nov. 21 2010,00:23)
Quote (Hermagoras @ Nov. 21 2010,00:27)
The Design Deniers post and comments have now been Expelled.

Retrieved from the memory hole:          

19 November 2010
Design Deniers

What follows is an edited science journalist’s account of scepticism of Einstein. Although serious scepticism seemed to last about 10 years, there are still traces of it today. I think that ID  is the new Relativity, and that it is Design deniers that best fit the role of the Einstein doubters. What do you think?
“Einstein’s sceptics: Who were the relativity deniers?  Milena Wazeck heavily edited
<snipped, exerpted below>

Wow.  No wonder they took it down.
The similarities of the description of the "Relativity Deniers" to the ID movement must have come too close to home.  
these exerpts were especially telling:
When people don’t like what science tells them, they resort to conspiracy theories, mud-slinging and plausible pseudoscience – as Einstein discovered...

Why does this sound like "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed"?
The group opposing relativity was much broader than many historians believed, and their tactics had much in common with those used by creationists and climate-change deniers today....

Need I say more?
A mysterious organisation called the Academy of Nations, whose title and letter-headed paper contrived to give it the aura of a scholarly academy, served as a home for an international network of Einstein’s opponents. Its founder was a devoted theist who attempted to reconcile religion and science. The Academy of Nations aimed to reconnect different branches of knowledge by integrating scientific findings into a unified, religious account of nature.

DiscoTute, almost to a "T", except for the reconcilliation part. "Overthrow" is closer to DI's policy.
Einstein’s opponents found themselves in the unenviable position of outsider. Scholarly journals and scientific associations closed their doors to them....

This sounds familiar.
Einstein’s opponents were also seriously concerned about the future of science. They did not simply disagree with the theory of general relativity; they opposed the new foundations of physics altogether...
The Academy of Nations therefore saw itself as directed not only against the theory of relativity, but also towards the salvation of what it considered to be real science. Gehrcke insisted that the Academy “must become an alliance of truth”...The 1920s was an unsettling decade and for Einstein’s opponents, relativity theory was endangering not only science but also culture and society.

Replace "Relativity theory" with "Darwinian Evolution", and "physics" with "biology", and you've got an apt description of the DI.
By the mid-1920s many of Einstein’s opponents simply gave up, and the Academy of Nations ceased to serve as the central organisation campaigning against Einstein.

Will history repeat itself?
Today the new generation of Einstein’s opponents have mostly moved their protests online. The conservative website Conservapedia allows people to document counter examples to relativity and claims that relativity is “heavily promoted by liberals” listing 32 reasons why the theory is wrong. Einstein’s critics continue to perceive relativity as a threat to their world view, and often invoke conspiracy theories to explain their marginalised position...

Waaaay too close to home for UD.
Like those who oppose Darwin’s theory of evolution, Einstein’s opponents back in the 1920s were impervious to reasoned criticism. But this will not resolve the controversy. The opponents’ understanding of the very nature of science differs so fundamentally from the academic consensus that it may be impossible to find common ground.”

Too true.
I'm guessing a note went to with something like "WHAT were you thinking!!"

Date: 2010/11/21 23:12:59, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (REC @ Nov. 21 2010,15:15)
The debate is up on Youtube.


I actually have a lower opinion of Dembski than before watching it.

It appears to have been taken down, (while I was in the middle of watching it).  Now I get a "This video has been removed by the user." for any of the 10 segments.  Anybody know if Prestonwood delivered on their promise to put up an unedited version?

Date: 2010/11/22 12:25:56, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (REC @ Nov. 22 2010,09:33)
"A forthcoming book titled The Myth of Junk DNA details these findings."

What is the argument-that there is no junk DNA at all, therefore design, therefore Jesus? The ENCODE  findings (every nucleotide is translated) are now not generally believed. Scientists have deleted vast swaths of non-coding DNA from a variety of organisms and often found little ill effect.

(1) “Junk DNA.” If Darwin got it right, then our genes are cobbled together over a long evolutionary history, accumulating lots of useless DNA (junk) because it’s easier for natural selection to keep copying such junk rather than edit it out. This sounds plausible, but it is subject to experimental test. In fact, recent findings show that much of this so-called junk DNA regulates gene expression. This is true even of repetitive DNA, the quintessential DNA junk. A forthcoming book titled The Myth of Junk DNA details these findings.

Good luck on that one.  I predict that "much" will be re-defined as "anything over 1%".

ETA: "If Darwin got it right"??
What is it about these creatos and their demonizing of that poor guy?  Darwin didn't know squat about DNA.
Neither does Dembski, apparently.

Date: 2010/12/01 16:14:29, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Louis @ Dec. 01 2010,09:50)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 01 2010,17:36)

That is an ironic post...

I suggest just finding the nearest billboard and putting up a sign that says something like

"Science works, bitch.  Why don't you ID people do any?"

Can't we just ban creationists of all stripes from benefitting from scientifically derived items?

At the very least it will make the internet a nicer place.

Louis (Tongue firmly in cheek)

But I don't know what I'd do without my daily dose of mock.

ETA: That is a noun, innit?  If not, it should be.

Date: 2010/12/03 17:13:09, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (CeilingCat @ Dec. 03 2010,01:30)
Guillermo is just remarkably resistant to anything smacking of common sense:            
The enhanced fitness of the organism in an arsenic-enhanced environment compared to other organisms comes from additional chemical machinery that makes the arsenic bonds more stable. This comes at an overall cost to the organism.
And what is the overall cost of not having the additional machinery?  Death.  I'd say that death is a remarkably high overall cost to the organism.

I suppose it would be pointless to ask G.G. from whence he thinks this "additional chemical machinery" comes, and if it is a result of Complex Specified InfoMiracles?

Date: 2010/12/03 17:21:53, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Wolfhound @ Dec. 02 2010,17:57)
 And I'm actually a swallower, not a spittler.

Blessed is the swallower. Rawr!

Date: 2010/12/05 18:31:55, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (fnxtr @ Dec. 05 2010,15:57)
Quote (sledgehammer @ Dec. 03 2010,15:21)
Quote (Wolfhound @ Dec. 02 2010,17:57)
 And I'm actually a swallower, not a spittler.

Blessed is the swallower. Rawr!


And cunnilingus is next to godliness.

Depending on how cunning is the lingus. Same goes for that fella named tio.

Date: 2010/12/07 11:41:53, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Makes me wonder what Stephen B thinks about having to use his urethra to procreate?  By his argument, all sex is evil, except of course, divinely ordained parthenogenesis.  My conclusion?  He's either celibate, or a hypocrite.

Date: 2010/12/09 20:22:53, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Evolution Texts Survive Challenge in Louisiana
John Roach writes: The theory of evolution has survived the latest attack in the struggle to insert creationism-flavored themes into science classrooms.
On Tuesday, a committee of Louisiana's school board recommended in a 6-to-1 vote that the state approve purchase of industry-standard textbooks on evolution, which have been attacked by Christian conservatives for failing to teach the "controversy" about evolution.

"That sent a strong signal from the Louisiana board of education that they want accurate science taught in the classrooms, and that publishers don't need to put in these creationists' critiques," Joshua Rosenau, the programs and policy director of the National Center for Science Education, told me.

Date: 2010/12/10 00:45:24, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (keiths @ Dec. 09 2010,21:55)
It is only in a teleological context that we can differentiate between good and evil sex acts. The relevant question is this: What does the natural moral law say about the purpose of sex and its legitimate expression. If the Creator designed sex for a purpose, then any sexual act that frustrates that purpose is evil.

So if facial hair has a purpose, then shaving is evil?

LOL. Love it! "Right Reason" according to SteveieB:
It is only in a teleological context that we can differentiate between good and evil sex acts. The relevant question is this: What does the natural moral law say about the purpose of sex hair and its legitimate expression. If the Creator designed sex hair for a purpose, then any sexual barberous act that frustrates that purpose is evil.

Date: 2010/12/10 23:11:56, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Hoppity Burpdaze ta both o' yews.

Date: 2010/12/20 16:24:40, Link
Author: sledgehammer
From Nick's NCSE link:  
If [Behe were] presented with the opportunity again, though, he’d  be back on the stand. Intelligent design supporters have to participate, he said, or “people will think we were afraid to show up.”

I'm guessing no-shows, double-D Dembski and little Stevie Meyer would do it all over again as well.

Date: 2010/12/21 21:07:05, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 21 2010,17:19)
Quote (Kris @ on the Behe Thread)
That love, compassion, and justice from the six sources are just pouring out of you, Mr. agnostic unitarian universalist hypocrite. LMAO!!

Oh well, what can one expect from someone who modifies their morals and belief system to fit whatever they want to get away with?

Ya know, you sound a lot like a catholic pedophile or a politician.

Ring any bells?

The double spacing between sentences is another dead giveaway.

Date: 2010/12/24 23:55:42, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 24 2010,19:32)
Merry Christmas everyone.

I had to brag about the best Christmas present ever.  My mom got me 500 minutes on one of NASA's 15inch telescopes (Australia, Canary Islands, and South America).

Is it tomorrow there already?  Congrats. I'm jealous. My daughter got me tickets to the Hubble show at the planetarium, which I'm looking forward to.

Happy Holidays to all.

Date: 2010/12/31 15:41:51, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (carlsonjok @ Dec. 31 2010,08:30)
Quote (sparc @ Dec. 29 2010,00:10)
For those obsessed with KF-Lewontin spotting.

Punch Bug!  Another Lewontin reference!

I'm impressed that you can actually read through Gordo's spewage.  I can't scroll though it fast enough, and I've got my scroll wheel set for 10 lines/click.

On another note: Goodbye 2010, and good riddance.
Here's hoping this new decade will be a damn sight better than the last one.

Date: 2011/01/01 20:21:11, Link
Author: sledgehammer
LOLZ!  Very clever Wes.  I love it!  
Dennis, he not luv it so much!

Date: 2011/01/03 18:49:13, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (olegt @ Jan. 03 2011,06:20)
Vox and I are having fun: Religious fitness and science education. Starting at 1/1/11 11:58 AM.

What happened to the comments?  I was reading them at lunch, and when I got home, they all disappeared. Is it operator error, or did they just dis-apparate?  If the latter, somebody must have said something unretractable?

Date: 2011/01/11 00:05:18, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (didymos @ Jan. 10 2011,18:25)
Quote (Hermagoras @ Jan. 10 2011,18:21)
Does JoeG say he's not ID Guy?  No two people could write like that so consistently.  IOW he is.

He did for awhile.  He claimed they were just "friends".  I don't know if he's still trying to maintain that pretense though.

Ya see, evotards, you have never offered any evidence for your position that JoeG and ID Guy are related by blind, undirected chemical processes.  God specially created them from the same "kind" through micro-evolution which is not disputed by ID.
IOW YOU ARE ALL A BUNCH OF ASSCLOWNS, just like your friend Eric the Blipster and RichTard.

Date: 2011/01/12 17:21:18, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 12 2011,11:30)
Quote (paragwinn @ Jan. 12 2011,12:53)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 12 2011,12:06)
Vox Day cites Telic Thoughts:

You mean he actually relies on someone else's first-approximation analysis without going to the source himself?

He's had a bee in his bonnet about PZ for a while now.

What's not to hate?  PZ's an atheist, PZ's blog is much more popular than Beale's, and PZ's sycophants are much more entertaining than Teddy's.

Date: 2011/01/14 23:44:38, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (carlsonjok @ Jan. 14 2011,20:07)
Quote (Hermagoras @ Jan. 14 2011,21:37)
WTF?  What did I miss?  Who gave Gordon the keys to the UD kingdom?  First Torley, and now GEM of TKI?  Whooo.  That's enough wind to power light gas a small city.



Date: 2011/01/18 10:23:43, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Dr.GH @ Jan. 17 2011,13:07)
Quote (KenGee @ Jan. 17 2011,06:06)
Don't you guys know anything Barry's kids are now Gay.

BTW I heard that Barry got a boner as his gazed lingered longly at the forbidden fruit. :D

I had the exact same thought. Poor Barry, and his poor poor wife thought the hard-on was for her.

Methink he doth proteth too much.

Date: 2011/01/21 20:58:37, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Badger3k @ Jan. 21 2011,17:34)
Quote (carlsonjok @ Jan. 21 2011,06:50)
Ahh, what would a UD thread be without Gil reminding us how smart he thinks he is?


Date: 2011/01/27 19:04:46, Link
Author: sledgehammer
If I'm not mistaken, I just saw FtK stand up to Beale and the Space-Case, and call them on their black-and-white, holier- than-thou, judgmental piousness.
I commend her for that.

Date: 2011/01/27 19:08:26, Link
Author: sledgehammer
I forgot to count to 30.  Turn the page already!

Date: 2011/01/27 19:16:31, Link
Author: sledgehammer
It's definitely my daughter's horse, but I get to pay for feed, farrier, vet and stabling, and for all that, he bites me if I dare try to ride him.

Date: 2011/01/27 19:34:47, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Texas Teach @ Jan. 27 2011,16:46)
Quote (Louis @ Jan. 27 2011,17:19)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 27 2011,18:16)
Quote (Wolfhound @ Jan. 27 2011,12:00)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Jan. 27 2011,11:45)
if you are looking callously use the other hand.  or some lotion

Aw, c'mon, now.  Louis doesn't need to use that stuff.  He's married, you know, and...oh...wait...nevermind.

Erm, as you were...

That's what married means.  You sleep together, but you can't get none.

That's not true. The good lady wife and I engaged in conjugal unpleasantness quite recently. Twenty eight months ago to be precise. I now have a nineteen month old son. You don't think we will be doing it again do you? Look what happened last time! Gadzooks, it's positively un-British!


Just wait.  My girls (2 and nearly 5) have reached the age when they develop an uncanny knack for interrupting any and all attempts at intimacy.  First, they are very careful never to nap at the same time.  If you try the middle of the night, they wake up and crawl in the bed.  If you try the middle of the afternoon, they find a way to get sent home from daycare.   The only option is to call up family/friends and beg them to take the little darlings for twenty minutes (cause it's all about her needs right?).

20 minutes? It takes me longer than that to undress.  Wait ... never mind, I get it..
Seriously, when my daughters were that age, it got so bad that we would go out to "dinner", and order room service from a hotel room.

Date: 2011/01/28 13:52:25, Link
Author: sledgehammer
13% of H.S. Biology Teachers Advocate Creationism in Class
The majority of high-school biology teachers don't take a solid stance on evolution with their students, mostly to avoid conflicts, and fewer than 30 percent of teachers take an adamant pro-evolutionary stance on the topic, a new study finds. Also, 13 percent of these teachers advocate creationism in their classrooms.

This is sad.  Not unexpected, but sad nonetheless

Date: 2011/01/29 13:59:19, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Very cool!
I always thought the "pitchers" looked like elongated chamberpots.  Apparently the bats do as well.

Date: 2011/01/29 14:12:05, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 28 2011,15:34)
What I find mysterious is where all these "moderate" Christians go on election day, and where all the (oddly equal in number) nutjobs suddenly come from.

Prop 8 didn't pass because of a small minority of nutjobs over the will of a vast majority of moderates. Boehner and Palin and Bachman didn't get elected by a small minority of nutjobs in spite of a vast majority of moderates.

Funny how this vast majority of moderate Christians seems to disappear on election day.

Or change their stripes in the privacy of the voting booth?

Nah. Couldn't be. That would mean there are hypocrites amongst them, and that's just not Christian.

Date: 2011/01/29 14:58:49, Link
Author: sledgehammer
So these moderate Christians aren't being hypocritical, they're just not thinking this whole thing through.

I agree what you described is not hypocritical at all.  Lou's point is that some (large) fraction of these "Gays are people too and god loves them and it's OK" types are voting to deny gays the same basic rights that all "gods people" deserve. namely:  life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

ETA:  Actually, i guess that was my point, as a possible answer to Lou's question.

Date: 2011/01/29 18:13:58, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Jan. 29 2011,14:53)

Egnor chimes in:

By the way, this comment section is great! I'm sure that it's labor intensive to filter out the inevitable Darwinist venom, but for people interested in civil discussion it's wonderful.

I didn't take the worst of his comment, don't want to break the internet...

Of course this comment by Egnor follows his venom-laced rant on how the pejorative use of "Darwinist" is justified because it pisses off the atheistic biologists.
 I don't suppose "IDiot" would be likewise justified?

Date: 2011/01/30 20:09:00, Link
Author: sledgehammer
So this "explosion" lasted, at a minimum, 1000 times longer than the age of the Young Earthtm!

Date: 2011/01/31 18:13:34, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Love and commitment, or just havin' fun to feel good.  Maybe one is "deeper" than the other, but there's good in both, and gender doesn't change that, sayeth I.

ETA: (as long as no one gets hurt permanently)

Date: 2011/02/01 17:59:26, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (olegt @ Jan. 31 2011,20:34)
There is a new post up at UD. Guess who wrote it? Here is the first sentence to clue you in:
In my work in aerospace R&D I produce computer simulations using what is arguably the most sophisticated Finite Element Analysis program ever developed: LS-DYNA.

So Gil's job is to run a canned simulation software tool?  Big whoop.

Date: 2011/02/02 19:36:15, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Ftk @ Feb. 02 2011,08:16)
I'm a "pack animal".

I've overly moody today, so I should probably not take another glance at VD's posts about women.  Sometimes, though, I take great joy in knowing that if we were ever to meet, I would physically tower over him.

Little Teddy would probably just chalk it up to "that time of month" anyway. ;)

Date: 2011/02/02 20:10:09, Link
Author: sledgehammer
What I find bizarre (and telling) is what Stephen B. accepts as axiomatically "clear", requiring no further justification:

1) It is clear that two entities possessed by the individual must be involved for the placebo effect to work.

2) If B [the changed state of an organ called the brain] is influenced, then it is also clear that B did not change itself.

Wow. Even if the above assertions were stated as premises, the circular logic that follows would nullify any conclusions.  "Right Reason" indeed.

Date: 2011/02/03 10:22:34, Link
Author: sledgehammer
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Lou FCD]

Bob/Kris/Joe concern troll:
I shouldn't even acknowledge your blatantly transparent agenda, but let me just state that science is a work in progress, and all I see here is progress being made.
Given the alternative of a-priori, immutable assertions, enshrined in dogma, dictated by fiat, based on ancient texts of questionable origin, I'll take the provisional, evidence-based alternatives provided by the scientific method any day.

Date: 2011/02/03 10:32:08, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Here's a link to the Nature article.

The mean velocity of -57.16 kms-1 is measured relative to the Solar System barycenter; compared to the local velocity dispersion of ~30 kms-1, this Galactic velocity suggests that Kepler-11 is a member of the thick disk of the Milky Way.

Here's a non-paywalled .pdf of Supplementary Data on the Kepler-11 system that might help.

Date: 2011/02/04 18:37:28, Link
Author: sledgehammer
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Lou FCD]

Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 04 2011,16:32)
(Yes, it is Kris according to Wes.  IP addy is the same.)

Well, color me shocked. Shocked, I tells ya!

Date: 2011/02/05 13:29:43, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 05 2011,10:23)
If you are going to try to escape from all these materialistic implications by...saying that the mind and brain are, in effect, the SAME THING, then you need to explain how one can influence the other. How does the mind change the brain if it is the same thing as the brain?

Now there is an indication that Stephen just DOESN'T get it, if ever there was one.

I guess it must be another of the  axioms of Right Reasontm that a thing absolutely can not change itself.  Right up there with "nothing can be and not be at the same time".
Undressing  and quantum state superposition are forbidden in the Land of RRtm.

Date: 2011/02/06 00:45:42, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Seversky @ Feb. 05 2011,17:46)
More Lewontinorrhea.
Unless you beg the question a priori, similar to Lewontin.


URL - fify

Date: 2011/02/07 23:34:41, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (fnxtr @ Feb. 07 2011,20:25)
Quote (keiths @ Feb. 07 2011,20:06)
batshit77 takes Byers to task

What is it about the long URL's that makes them work in preview but utterly fail when submitted or quoted?

ETA I had to edit it after submission to get it to work.

Date: 2011/02/08 17:29:46, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 08 2011,11:27)

It isn't just the zone you moron. The zone is one of about TWENTY criteria that have to be met to have a habitable planet capable of supporting complex metazoans.

You didn't read the book and don't have any clue as to what they claimed.

I recall that another one of the TWENTY criteria of privilege, is the ability to observe a total solar eclipse. Apparently, it is crucial to the development of human-like intelligence, that we have a moon that is JUST RIGHT to allow this.

Date: 2011/02/15 15:53:37, Link
Author: sledgehammer
I have evidence a pre-existing intelligence can write coded information. So now the burden of proof is on the naturalist to prove coded information can arise naturally.

You may have evidence that a human intelligence can write coded information, however, you presumably have zero evidence for a human or human-like intelligence existing at the origin of life on Earth.

 Tree rings encode information about the climate that existed when the rings were formed.
Orientation of the earths' magnetic field is encoded in the magnetic domains of crystals that solidified as the magma emerged and spread in the mid-Atlantic rift zone.
 Ice cores encode the annual snowfall and other climactic data that existed when the ice was formed.
 The fossil record encodes the morphology of plants and animals that existed when the sediments were laid down.
 Obviously nature can create complex, specified, coded information.
 Now, show us your evidence for the pre-existing human-like intelligence that you say is the best explanation for the genetic code.

Date: 2011/02/16 20:00:28, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (fnxtr @ Feb. 16 2011,17:15)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 16 2011,12:58)
I like




Which translates to "Gort, would you terribly mind retrieving klaatu's corpse and placing it on the resurrection table?" Change just one letter and Gort either uses his ray to prepare a delicious creme brulee or builds the fastest soap box derby racer ever seen in Akron.

Nyuk nyuk nyuk.

potd. :-)

I don't get it.  Could someone spell it out for me?

ETA actually I'd prefer a subtle hint so I won't feel so stoopid.

Date: 2011/02/21 13:11:35, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Zachriel @ Feb. 20 2011,06:18)
Second Law of Thermodynamics

Granville Sewell: we have to conclude that the second law has in fact been violated here.

From the preprint
“if an increase in order is extremely improbable when a system is closed, it is still extremely improbable when the system is open, unless something is entering which makes it not extremely improbable.” Thus unless we are willing to argue that the influx of solar energy into the Earth makes the appearance of spaceships, computers and the Internet not extremely improbable, we have to conclude that the second law has in fact been violated here.

Thus unless Sewell is willing to argue that the information contained in the blueprints for the spaceship and schematics for the computers entered the Earth through the boundary, he has to conclude there has in fact been no violation of the second law.

 I actually think he's willing to argue that the information came from outside, (ala Dembski and Marks).  And he wonders why he's ridiculed by his peers?

Date: 2011/02/22 18:29:34, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (JohnW @ Feb. 22 2011,11:12)
Bruce David has done something truly remarkable - making UD even stupider:
Bruce David
11:36 am
I believe that we have been receiving messages from aliens for some time. They’re called crop circles, and they appear all over the world, but mainly in England. If you look at them carefully and objectively, (there are many books and Web sites that cover them), including their shapes, their size and complexity, the biophysical effects on the crops themselves, and other measurable physical effects in and around them, it is quite clear that there is no known human technology that could produce them, particularly in the space of time in which they appear.

Sounds very Poe-etic to me.

Date: 2011/02/22 18:37:36, Link
Author: sledgehammer
In what I find to be a very fascinating discovery, it is found that photosynthetic life, which is an absolutely vital link that all higher life on earth is dependent on, seems to be designed right into the foundation of this universe. This is because photosynthetic life is found to actually use the foundational quantum mechanical principles of this universe to accomplish its photosynthesis. Once again it seems overwhelmingly obvious that the universe was designed with life in mind from its creation.

And hydrogen bonds to oxygen using the foundational quantum mechanical principles of this universe, therefore Jeebus.

Date: 2011/02/25 00:19:39, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Amadan @ Feb. 24 2011,09:04)
I truly appreciate the gesture, J-Dog. Sadly, I shall decline your offer of Baileys.

Kevin Myers (whose Densyesque ramblings I deplored here recently) has, in fairness to him, the occasionally marvelous turn of phrase. He once characterised Bailey's (a mixture of cheap whiskey and room-temperature ice-cream) as having "the appearance and texture of something that oozed from an old war wound."

How about this one?

Breithlá sona duit

Date: 2011/02/25 11:43:47, Link
Author: sledgehammer
There's something very sad about a purported super-genius who has done squat with his/her gift. CTMU is pure woo.

Date: 2011/02/25 15:00:00, Link
Author: sledgehammer
ETA: Comment moved to TBW, ... to help it's approach to the 500 page mark. woot!

Date: 2011/02/25 15:00:44, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (dvunkannon @ Feb. 25 2011,11:09)
Quote (J-Dog @ Feb. 25 2011,13:54)
     ...added in edit:  It's a good thing I'm done having kids, or I'd saddle the next one with "dvunk" as a name!

You can use it for a favorite pet, farm animal, plant or sexual practice.

Am I the only with a sudden urge to head right home and dvunk my significant other, or is it something better practiced alone?

Date: 2011/02/26 00:00:59, Link
Author: sledgehammer



9:08 am

Come to think of it, those big files have been available since last July, and this happened the day after I provided the link to the atheism file. This suggests that UD has a large readership, and lots of people were interested in my presentation!

UD admins: Does UD have some spare bandwidth?

It suggests that AtBC has a large readership, (>4 million views on the UCD threads alone) and lots of people were interested in pointing and laughing at your presentation.  I know I did!
 Thanks, Gil, for providing us the wonderful, if unintentional, entertainment.

Date: 2011/02/28 10:05:31, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 28 2011,04:45)
Why is it you have to attack ID with your ignorance when all it takes to refute ID is to actually step up and support your position with POSITIVE evidence?

That's right your position doesn't have any positive evidence for support so you are forced to attack ID.

So the take-away from this is that it bothers you a great deal that your position is a failure.

Date: 2011/03/01 17:15:44, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 01 2011,05:28)
"Islands of functionality" is one of those great metaphors being slowly strangled by facts.

 I see the bio-functional protein space as a hierarchical tree, where the trunk and major limbs are made up of the original polypeptide chains, the limbs and branches are the longer proteins, and the modern 100-300 aa proteins are the twigs way out at the periphery.
 The IDers, like Axe, Durston and Behe see only a horizontal, 2-dimensional slice through the tree. To them, it looks like the functional "islands" made up of the twigs and branches are very sparse and not connected to each other. The total area occupied by the twig's cross sections appears to be infinitesimal relative to the blank space between them.  Sort of like how a "Flatland" denizen would regard a complex 3-dimensional object.
 When the entire functional protein space is observed from a higher-dimensional perspective, it is easily seen that all the twigs are interconnected by the tree structure, and the "isolated islands of functionality " perspective is shown to be narrow and myopic at best.

Date: 2011/03/01 18:40:54, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 01 2011,15:34)
I like the metaphor, but the exact shape of the tree is probably an historical accident. It doesn't imply that the branches followed the only possible path.

Agreed.  Maybe more like a banyan tree, if we restrict the metaphor to only 3 dimensions.  Likely, the "tree"  has many more than 3 dimensions, so that even the "limbs" and "branches" are interconnected beyond the first branching point through the higher dimensionality.  The point of the metaphor is that looking at a lower dimensional slice doesn't show the interconnects.

Date: 2011/03/01 22:59:32, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (dheddle @ Mar. 01 2011,15:18)
Are ant colony algorithms examples of genetic algorithms?

I would think ant behavior is best described by cellular automata.

Date: 2011/03/13 18:14:59, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Mar. 13 2011,15:04)
John A Davison said, on February 9, 2008 at 6:27 am
I predict that within one year of this date, Pharyngula, Panda's Thumb, EvC, and Uncommon Descent will all have so completely degenerated as to become nothing but embarrassing footnotes in the history of internet communication. <snippage>

It is hard to believe isn't it?

Fortunately for them, by that date, February 9, 2009, the physical destruction of our civilization will have proceeded to such a degree that thinking people will no longer be concerned about intellectual trash like Richard Dawkins and P.Z. Myers.

It is hard to believe isn't it?  and that makes it science, based on the evidence

And of course, we love it so!

Date: 2011/03/15 10:09:04, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Parting shot from CJYman to MathGrrl
... you will need to provide an example where a program was written by law+chance — the laws and intitial conditions were chosen from a random source such as — and it either developed CSI from scratch or it designed an EA which then output CSI... Until someone shows that foresight is not required to build an EA, by providing evidence that answers the previous question [referencing a random set of laws -- law+chance -- producing CSI or an EA that produces CSI] in the affirmative, the present mathematical and observational evidence shows that evolution can only be seen as a process requiring intelligence.

Right.  The laws of nature are not random, therefore jeebus. Got it.
Actually, this is good. It appears that the concession here by CJY and Torley is that evolution can produce CSI  per Dembski. and when all they have to fall back on is "cosmological fine tuning" and OOL, then as far as I'm concerned, the evolution/creation battle is over, and the "Darwinistas" have won.
Viva la Evolucion!

Date: 2011/03/15 22:33:43, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Salvador sez:    
...But let us consider how long it takes to bury fossils on average if we assume the mainstream view of layers of dirt piling up over millions of years. A reasonable figure for the average rate at which dirt piles up over millions years is taking a representative height of all the layers of dirt involved in the history of life and dividing it by the number of years...

Congratulations Sal. You've provided justification that, on average, dead bodies don't fossilize.  I'll alert the Nobel committee.

Date: 2011/03/31 15:56:10, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (JohnW @ Mar. 31 2011,09:40)
Quote (k.e.. @ Mar. 31 2011,07:43)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 31 2011,17:29)
Dunno is anyone has brought this up but, presumably an apple on a tree has less CSI than an apple in space? How does that factor into calculations? Oh, wait..

Wrong metric try

Complete Stupidy Index
Couple Snake Issue
Corporate Slow Intake
Caught Sliding Interstate

Crock of Shit, Innit?

Computational Spewage, Indeed

Date: 2011/04/16 10:48:29, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Zachriel @ April 13 2011,09:45)
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ April 13 2011,11:09)
Thanks for pointing this out and thanks especially to OlegT for trying to teach a pig to sing, because while the pig doesn't learn anything, the macaw on the fencepost is learning plenty.

Here's olegt humming another nice tune; on squaring neo-Lorentzianism with Relativity.

OlegT on TT:  
Although neo-Lorentzians like to claim equivalence between their interpretation and standard special relativity, it's a stretch.

Date: 2011/05/07 12:57:11, Link
Author: sledgehammer
What Lou said.  Belated thanks to all of our well-wishers.
I've been in the Hinterlands for the past few weeks, blissfully un-ensnared by the web, but it's good to be back in touch.

Date: 2011/05/13 08:58:28, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (OgreMkV @ May 12 2011,21:44)
Thanks guys.  She did good work.  (

Anyway, in other news... a challenge for you (no fair for Wes to play)

There are two telephone poles. Each one is 100-feet tall. They are parallel and some distance apart.

Attach a 150-foot rope to the top of each of the poles. This rope will droop down somewhat. That drooping rope is called a catenary, from the Latin word for chain.

What is the distance between the two poles, so that the lowest point of the catenary is 25-feet above the ground?

first correct answer gets a cookie...

ETA answer:
The arc length, measured from the origin, is s = (H/w) sinh (wx/H), which shows that the slope is proportional to arc length. The total length of the chain is S = (2H/w) sinh (wL/2H), and h = (H/w)[cosh (wL/2H) - 1]. We can use these two equations to find that H = (w/8h)(S2 - 4h2), in terms of the total length of the chain and the sag. Then, the span L = (2H/w) sinh-1 (Sw/2H).

Date: 2011/05/14 02:31:26, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Ptaylor @ May 13 2011,20:50)
Mung [URL=

/#comment-380229]daydreams[/URL] about putting darwinism on trial:            
Can you imagine Charles Darwin on the witness stand, trying to explain the differences between his various editions?

Err, Mung...

Edited: The link above doesn't work. If you hover over it you will see a <br> tag in the url, which does not belong, and reappears after I edit it out. Any suggestions?

Try a Munge

Date: 2011/06/20 00:42:29, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Seversky @ June 19 2011,21:03)
I don't think StephenB's quite got it yet.  He needs to study the words of the prophets, such as:

...And the bezan shall be huge and black, and the eyes thereof red with the blood of living creatures, and the whore of Babylon shall ride forth on a three-headed serpent, and throughout the lands, there'll be a great rubbing of parts.

Yeah, though I walk through the Valley of O'Leary, the words of Saint Montague of Python shall be my sword and the Holy Book of Brian shall be my buckler against which the most complex and specified of information shall break in sunder and all IDenizens shall be cast down in most uncommon descent!

See?  A bit more fire and brimstone, that's how it's done.

LMFAO!  I like!


Date: 2011/06/24 01:00:18, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Be Great, Full, Dead, man.

Date: 2011/06/29 00:27:58, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Seems to me that the common theme here is science denial:
"It's those know-it-all, arrogant scientists trying to tell us what's what. They are the source of all our problems, and the reason the world is going to Hell on a Harley. Life was so much simpler when we were all ignorant and easily manipulated by those in power, and it's so much more comforting to be sheep, and place our trust in the anointed shepherds."

Date: 2011/07/04 00:52:15, Link
Author: sledgehammer
app E bidet 2 UU's

Date: 2011/07/14 18:30:46, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (noncarborundum @ July 14 2011,16:18)
Quote (keiths @ July 14 2011,18:01)
Quote (OgreMkV @ July 14 2011,14:22)
Quote (JohnW @ July 14 2011,15:55)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 14 2011,13:50)
Quote (damitall @ July 14 2011,16:43)
Quote (Freddie @ July 14 2011,14:48)
Quote (keiths @ July 14 2011,14:05)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 14 2011,04:45)
Unpleasant Blowhard, wordsmith:
It seems as though you asked for an operational definition, then got one, then later found out what kind of dynamic structure would be required for such a phenomenon to exist, and have since gone on a rant to eviscerate yourself from the position you are in.

Apparently, it wasn't clear to her what his argument entrails.

That's my gut feeling as well.

Is that colon intentional?

I hope there's not going to be another nested pun-fest. I couldn't stomach that

(Here incorporate AtBC policy on nested puns as an appendix to the above.)

That would be quite a tract.

I villi think this is not a good idea.

Butt colitis get on with it.

My reflux is not to ruminate on this tripe.

Is this the right time to point out that the ID folks should spend less of their time in theorizin' and more intestine?

Maybe we should spleen that to them.

Date: 2011/07/24 17:47:07, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ July 24 2011,15:09)
Quote (paragwinn @ July 24 2011,16:42)
vjtorley, master dis-illusionist:
Just as the properties of stone building blocks do not determine their arrangements in buildings, so too, the properties of biological building blocks do not determine their arrangements in DNA, RNA and proteins.

is this a legitimate comparison?

Err, no.  The forces are directional and reliant upon their structure, unlike those holding stones together.

In fact, it is precisely the properties of stone blocks that determine the arrangements that allow the structures to be built in the first place.
 Methinks Mr. Torely is building temples out of jello.

Date: 2011/07/24 21:20:53, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (ReligionProf @ July 24 2011,18:17)
Fish with fingers and custard... I'm going to have to come up with a Dr. Who + evolution signature of some sort...  :-)

Maybe something along the lines of:

TARDIS never having to admit to error?

Date: 2011/07/29 23:50:41, Link
Author: sledgehammer
BorkedAgain77,,, my favorite nutso YEC biblical literalist,,, throws this tidbit out to the wind in a Copy'n'Paste orgy:  
As well as the universe having a transcendent beginning, thus confirming the Theistic postulation in Genesis 1:1, the following recent discovery of a ‘Dark Age’ for the early universe uncannily matches up with the Bible passage in Job 38:4-11.

For the first 400,000 years of our universe’s expansion, the universe was a seething maelstrom of energy and sub-atomic particles. This maelstrom was so hot, that sub-atomic particles trying to form into atoms would have been blasted apart instantly, and so dense, light could not travel more than a short distance before being absorbed.
This 400,000 year old “baby” universe entered into a period of darkness. When the dark age of the universe began, the cosmos was a formless sea of particles. By the time the dark age ended, a couple of hundred million years later, the universe lit up again by the light of some of the galaxies and stars that had been formed during this dark era.

and then posts the relevant scripture:    
Job 38:4-11
“Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell me if you have understanding. Who determined its measurements? Surely you know! Or who stretched a line upon it? To what were its foundations fastened? Or who laid its cornerstone, When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? Or who shut in the sea with doors, when it burst forth and issued from the womb; When I made the clouds its garment, and thick darkness its swaddling band; When I fixed my limit for it, and set bars and doors; When I said, ‘This far you may come but no farther, and here your proud waves must stop!”

So,,, You see??? Perfect correspondence  between science and scripture.  And all this in the first few days,,, give or take 400,000 years or so.

Date: 2011/08/05 23:03:53, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (sparc @ Aug. 05 2011,19:51)
This is exactly what Kairosfocus once described as the        
rising flood of free -- much of it amateur [or pseudo-amateur] -- Internet pornography, just a simple Google search away. All you have to do is make a simple mistake in a search and the links to the most graphic, "hard core" porn sites will start to come up.

Thus, we are being lured into a world of graphical, aural and verbal stimulation, designed to pull us into an addiction to not only watching but participating in anything-goes action, and to eventually join the fun by (a) taking and posting public pictures of your "equipment" or adventures, or even (b) advertising in pop-ups on the same sites. And, since it is fairly easy to identify the location of a given PC on the net, even in very small territories, © invites will pop up for LOCALLY available, willing "partners."

Sure sounds like Gordie has been doing some in-depth research on internet porn,  especially w/ regards to targeted porn ads appearing on personal PCs that have been flagged as likely consumers of said product/service.

Date: 2011/08/07 19:47:04, Link
Author: sledgehammer
KF: "Some things are logically inconsistent"

EL: "Could you give an example?"

Followed by:     



8:39 am

“Can you give me an example?”

An example of passive-aggressive intellectual dishonesty.

Good example, Idiot.
Kindly step away from that poker that seems to be firmly embedded in your orifice.

Date: 2011/08/10 21:29:48, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Elizabeth Liddle:    
Your insistence that I lack integrity remains unfounded and unsupported.
You’re belief that HGT occurs by breaching the cell membrane was a big clue that you hadn’t read the book.
 IOW, I had a reason to believe that what I was saying was in fact the case, unlike some folks around here who will just say anything.
Elizabeth Liddle:  

Mung, as a general guiding principle: if you think you know what I’ve said, it’s something else.

We all know what you say.
It’s what you mean by what you say that has many of us puzzled.
More Mung:    
Yes, I could ask Dr. Liddle what she means by what she says, but then she would say something else, and then I’d have to ask her what she means by what she says…

Best to avoid all that and assume she means what she says.

Then after we point out the meaning of what she has just said, she can deny that she meant it, and assert that we misunderstood.

I should try that. We all should try that. Think of the meaningless conversations we could have, void of all misunderstanding!

Here's what Lizzie actually said:    

Elizabeth Liddle


7:36 am

There are indeed some walls in bacterial evolution (breached by HGT however).

These walls are not present in sexually reproducing populations, in which mutations can propagate independently of the rest of the genotype.

So Darwinism is in no danger from Lenski, even if your interpretation were correct.

But you are not correct, because you are equivocating with concepts developed for sexually-reproducing species applied to cloning populations.

Mutations don’t “fix” in a bacterial population, because they don’t jump lineages. What you get is competition between one lineage bearing a mutation and another that doesn’t, and that competition occurs within a specific environment in which “beneficial” is defined only within that environment.

So, Munge, who's being dishonest here?  Or is this a case of: "never attribute to malice that which can be explained by sheer stupidity"?  My bold.

Date: 2011/08/10 21:40:39, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Speaking of stupidity, here's Ilion's irrefutable reasoning on the J-C god:    
 Reason itself shows any intellectually honest person that both atheism (the explicit denial that God is) and agnosticism (the mealy-mouthed denial that anything at all can be known, as being the “best” way to deny that God is) are false and untenable positions.
Reason itself shows any intellectually honest person that, at a minimum:

1) there is a God, who is the Creator;
1a) he is uncaused and is the cause of all that is not-God;
2) he is personal (he is not an impersonal “force” or “principle”);
2a) he is an agent: he knows, and wills, and he acts freely;
3) he is good;
3a) the goodness we grasp comes from, and has its meaning in, his character and being;
4) he intentionally caused/causes “the universe” to be;
4a) he is “outside” time-and-space;

Reason itself shows any intellectually honest person that even if the specifically Christian doctrines about God were false, atheism always was and always will be false.

I guess bald assertion is what Ilion believes passes for Reason itself.

I say it's Reason enough to believe that Ilion is an idiot.

ETA: punctualizationism and boldinessism

Date: 2011/08/12 00:57:12, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Gildo's response?



9:35 pm

Pardon my frustration, and Lord forgive me for what might seem like an ad hominem response.

Have any of these clowns ever considered the probabilistic resources that would be required?

Apparently not, otherwise they wouldn’t propose such transparently stupid stuff.

Have any of those clowns ever considered anything other than a "Tornado in a Junkyard" approach to probability calculations?

Apparently not, otherwise they wouldn’t propose such transparently stupid stuff.

Date: 2011/08/12 23:43:06, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Thanks for that very entertaining compilation, RB.

As I recall, StephenB's entire theology hinges on the premise that "everything that has a beginning has a cause", therefore Prime Mover, Uncaused Cause, etc. etc.

 So when QM comes along with virtual particles, zero-point fluctuations, vacuum energy, and random, macroscopic events popping out of the quantum noise, he's forced forced to do the semantic two-step to protect his chain of reasoning.

 I almost feel sorry for him. It must be hard when you build your theology from a single premise, only to have science come along and pull the rug out from under it.

 That's probably why the provisional nature of the scientific inference is so difficult for him to embrace.

Date: 2011/08/21 20:30:58, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (fnxtr @ Aug. 21 2011,16:50)
Heh. The Four Yorkshiremen of the Apocalypse.

Date: 2011/08/22 22:36:00, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Hermagoras @ Aug. 22 2011,16:44)
Who the fuck is Eric Holloway anyway?   Is this a deep cover sock?

An illustrious member of Caroline Crockers' crock o' crackpots

Date: 2011/08/22 23:45:56, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (sparc @ Aug. 22 2011,20:45)

Who the fuck is Eric Holloway anyway?   Is this a deep cover sock?

It seems he's the one Eric Holloway of Carolin Crocker's Amercian Institute for Technology and Science Educaction misrepresentation

Ha! beat you by 10 whole minutes.

If Holloway knows anything about bioloogical evolutionary algorithms, then he must realize that:

1) biological evolution is not a search for a specific target, or even an "optimum" like targeted GAs.

2) "averaging over all possible fitness functions", as in NFL, is a ridiculous comparison, since most fitness functions are random noise.

3)  The only important fitness function for biological evolution is the one represented by the local environment, and selective inheritance does a great job of improving fitness for that type of function.

If he doesn't, either he is avoiding the obvious, and/or he's blinded by the same thing as the rest of his fellow crackpots

Date: 2011/08/27 19:58:09, Link
Author: sledgehammer
They’ve earned Ph.D.’s in something that never happened, and earn their salaries in academia “teaching” others to pursue a dead-end, archaic, 19th-century philosophy that has nothing to do with legitimate science.

Much better to earn a Dr of Divinity degree in something that never happened, amass a fortune by exhorting rubes to send you money, while pursuing a dead-end, archaic, 2000 year old philosophy that has nothing to do with legitimate science (or anything else, for that matter).

Irony, thy name is Dodgen

Date: 2011/09/02 21:05:44, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Bill 'n Dave.  Dave 'n Bill.  Hmm... where have I heard of that pair before?

Yes! It was Bill and Dave's excellent adventure!

Good times were had by all!

Date: 2011/09/04 09:27:08, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Quack @ Sep. 04 2011,03:42)
It may be my own stupidity but even if I have been able to search the forum before but today I am unable to find any of my own posts this month or year no matter what search words and options I chose.

I got some threads when searching 'Jesus' though...

Click on your name, and an author search box will appear w/ a pull-down menu of all authors, but if you just wait a bit, your name will appear.
I agree, though,  search in ikonboard is just plain wierd.

Date: 2011/09/04 09:58:07, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (sparc @ Sep. 03 2011,22:31)
I am a software/aerodynamics/mechanical/artificial-intelligence/information-processing/integrating-all-of-these-engineering-disciplines engineer
says the one time piano player who owns three college degrees in foreign language, literature, and music who otherwise spent a consiiderable time of his life hanging around without any further formal education.

And let's not forget:
" I once took a class to learn how to run LS-DYNA, a simulator engine developed by some other really smart folks.
Now I are a both an engineer and a scientist!".

Shows how little you need to know to be a simulator jock:

1)  take a guess, based on what has worked previously.
2)  run the sim,
3)  tweak a parameter or two,
4)  re-run the sim.
5)  continue trial and error until it works.

Hmm,  where have I seen this mindless procedure work before?

Date: 2011/09/05 15:17:23, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Bob O'H @ Sep. 05 2011,12:51)
Quote (Amadan @ Sep. 05 2011,06:25)
Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 05 2011,04:13)
Most people have two souls.

One on each foot.

... which is presumably why IDiots have developed their own ToE?

(I'm such a heel for saying that. An utter tarser)

I meta tarsier once.

Groan.... Talus you won't do that again, or I'll have to put my foot down.  You're just tap-dancing around the issue.

Date: 2011/10/01 17:08:30, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Patrick @ Oct. 01 2011,13:36)
Petrushka has been landing some heavy body blows recently at UD:
Unlike ID, sciences that posit mechanisms require research to validate conjectures about the mechanisms. that could take decades or even centuries.

If your mechanism is the assertion that some unspecified entity having unspecified capabilities did some unspecified things at unspecified time and places, then you are worry free.

markf, DrRec, and DrBot have also been pointing out the vacuity at the core of intelligent design creationism.  I wonder how long they'll be allowed to discuss the emperor's nudity.  The regulars aren't even bothering to mount a defense -- they don't seem to see the lack of empirical evidence, a testable theory, or predictions that suggest new research to be problems.

That's because, in their minds,  they believe all those questions have been answered:

Who:  The Almighty, of course, (but it could also have been Space Aliens, wink, wink, nudge, nudge.)

What:  Created and/or modified genomes.

When:  At OOL, the Cambrian, and Humans, In a few days, a week, or a few billion years.  Details.  It's all the same to the Almighty Space Aliens inside the Big Tent.

How:  It doesn't matter.  "Poof" works just fine.  We're talking about the Almighty, after all.

Details? We don' need no steenkin details. It's not ID's job to match your pathetic demand for details. Your details stink anyways.

Date: 2011/10/01 22:38:19, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 01 2011,15:54)
Details? We don' need no steenkin details. It's not ID's job to match your pathetic demand for details. Your details stink anyways.

Then why not just say that the "Almighty" did it in whatever the way it was done, even if that is consistent with evolution as described by science, and be done with it? After all, if they say that some method or other was impossible, they're directly implying that the "Almighty" couldn't have done it using that method, which contradicts what I thought was their base assumption. Or am I missing something here?


 Because that would mean that humans are just another animal, a filthy, stinkin' ape no less, with no Greater Purpose, and that would also mean that the Fall never happened, and therefore we didn't need to be Saved, and so The Scriptures might not be the Revealed Truth.
  Once you start down that slippery slope,  it can only end in one place:  the possibility that the atheists were right all along in that when we die, that's it, which can't possibly be the Truth because He is Risen.
 So all that other sciency stuff must be wrong.  Simple as that.  QED.  End of story.
Besides, everyone knows that Darwinism leads the innocent to Atheism and materialism, which is far, far worse than Islam, Naziism, and Communism combined, and so must be stopped at all costs.

Date: 2011/10/02 19:10:11, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Yes, I can see by your avatar picture that you have a fine long jaw with lots of beautiful, fully erupted molars.  Nice canines too! :)
 Unfortunately, not all of us can count ourselves so lucky.

Date: 2011/10/03 23:06:34, Link
Author: sledgehammer
I appears that Joe's rather un-civil response was taken down.  If so, good for them.
 Then Batty77 chimes in accusing DrRec and Lizzie of "first responder damage control".  Jealousy, obviously because that's Batty's usual role, and he proceeds with his own damage control Lit bluff by citing, get this, Bozog himself (along with CreationSafaris, Axe, EvoNewsandSpews, IDpodcast,  Abel, and Royal Truman).

Date: 2011/10/11 20:03:43, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Oct. 11 2011,09:32)
for fucks sake will one of you please tell me which one of you was jerry?

Jerry, you magnificent bastard!  PM 'Ras.

Date: 2011/10/26 20:47:39, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 25 2011,04:20)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 25 2011,06:07)
Again, as soon as one of ya explain to me whats currently accepted

,,,and I will read these soon and right after I read another article that Jeannot provided for me.


If/when I start seeing links to YouTube quantum woo, the design inference will become compelling.

Date: 2011/11/04 23:16:39, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Robin @ Nov. 03 2011,12:03)
Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 03 2011,13:49)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Nov. 03 2011,13:42)
Apologies if that makes me look like I think only women can be experts on Feminism, but that would at least limit the risk to attract "faux-feminists"...

No worries. We need more chickadees around here anyways.


Chickadees happen to be one of the most territorial passerine species and some of the most violent birds! Couldn't we attract some...say...turtle doves?

(/nerd off)

Either one is better than a bunch of old cockatoos and turkeys.

 Present company excepted, of course

ETA: and loons!  Can't forget the loons.

Date: 2011/11/05 23:00:05, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 05 2011,15:43)
Professor or Hobo?

If I am not mistaken Professor Steve Steve makes a guest appearance.

I got 10 of 11.  Missed the Cal CS prof.  He must be from Hoboken, NJ

Date: 2011/11/15 20:16:31, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Welcome, GB, to the merry band (banned).  Well Done.

Date: 2011/11/16 01:02:35, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Robin @ Nov. 07 2011,06:50)
Quote (sledgehammer @ Nov. 04 2011,23:16)
Quote (Robin @ Nov. 03 2011,12:03)
Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 03 2011,13:49)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Nov. 03 2011,13:42)
Apologies if that makes me look like I think only women can be experts on Feminism, but that would at least limit the risk to attract "faux-feminists"...

No worries. We need more chickadees around here anyways.


Chickadees happen to be one of the most territorial passerine species and some of the most violent birds! Couldn't we attract some...say...turtle doves?

(/nerd off)

Either one is better than a bunch of old cockatoos and turkeys.

 Present company excepted, of course

ETA: and loons!  Can't forget the loons.

How 'bout boobies?

Oh c'mon! Blue Footed!! This is a classy thread people!

Boobies! Yes! Of course!

Boobies are good, blue-footed or tan-lined.

Old coots favor boobies.

Date: 2011/11/16 08:37:29, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Nov. 16 2011,00:57)
Quote (sledgehammer @ Nov. 16 2011,07:02)
Quote (Robin @ Nov. 07 2011,06:50)
Quote (sledgehammer @ Nov. 04 2011,23:16)
Quote (Robin @ Nov. 03 2011,12:03)
Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 03 2011,13:49)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Nov. 03 2011,13:42)
Apologies if that makes me look like I think only women can be experts on Feminism, but that would at least limit the risk to attract "faux-feminists"...

No worries. We need more chickadees around here anyways.


Chickadees happen to be one of the most territorial passerine species and some of the most violent birds! Couldn't we attract some...say...turtle doves?

(/nerd off)

Either one is better than a bunch of old cockatoos and turkeys.

 Present company excepted, of course

ETA: and loons!  Can't forget the loons.

How 'bout boobies?

Oh c'mon! Blue Footed!! This is a classy thread people!

Boobies! Yes! Of course!

Boobies are good, blue-footed or tan-lined.

Old coots favor boobies.

I once saw this couple of Great Tits.

One had a worm in its beak to feed its newly hatched youngs.

I'm heron ya! I'll quit tit now.
Nevermore, quoth the raven.
Gulls just wanna have fun.

Date: 2011/11/20 16:42:33, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Gpoochie sez:
It looks like a wonderful book. Abel, Durston, Chiu… Great team!

I have already ordered it.

Yes.  Three men on a mission.
 Seeking Truthtm in science, no matter where the evidence leads.

Date: 2011/11/20 17:07:23, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Gordo's brain on T.A.R.D.:  


Pop, pop, pop, pop, POP, pop, pop, POP, POW . . .

Log in to Reply

Date: 2011/12/02 21:38:45, Link
Author: sledgehammer
From UCLA Life Sciences:
Powerful mathematical model greatly improves predictions for species facing climate change

Date: 2011/12/04 22:59:16, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Wolfhound @ Dec. 04 2011,09:27)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Dec. 04 2011,09:37)
Quote (Wolfhound @ Dec. 03 2011,21:58)
Quote (fnxtr @ Dec. 03 2011,12:59)
My ex with CAIS (complete androgen insensitivity syndrome) and a friend who switched from outie to innie really brought that home to me... especially when -- let's call the new her "Deirdre" -- originally said she'd be a lesbian but later had a boyfriend.

James, my 6'4" ex-fiance with the sepulchral voice, now goes by the legal name of "Nova".  And she's married. To another woman.

your powers are amazing, are you a wizard?

Hey, now, *I* wasn't the one waving the wand!

I think we know who was casting the spells, though  :D

Date: 2011/12/08 21:37:53, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quiz time:
Who is being quoted here, and who is the speaker referring to?


... That's what often happens when people who are adamantly opposed to an idea publicize their own definitions of its key terms—the terms are manipulated to wage a PR battle.

...If they want to show their theory can account for it (good luck!), then they'll have to do so by relevant experiments and detailed model building—not by wordplay and sleight-of-hand.

...This is clearly not a fellow who wants to look into the topic too closely.

Let's see... Dawkins talking about Dembski?  PZ, about Meyer?  Miller on Behe?
Those would be  wrong.  But the last one is close.

Date: 2011/12/11 23:36:38, Link
Author: sledgehammer
BornAgain Physics from BatLand:            
A rock is composed of three basic ingredients; energy, force and ‘truth’. From Einstein’s famous equation (e=mc2) we know that all matter (solids, liquids and gases) of the universe is ultimately made up of energy and therefore the entire rock can “hypothetically” be reduced to energy.This energy is “woven” by various complex, unchanging, transcendent, universal forces into the atoms of the rock. The amount of energy woven by these complex interactions of various, unchanging, universal forces into the rock is tremendous. This tremendous energy that is in the rock is clearly demonstrated by the detonation of nuclear bombs.
 So, how much truth was converted to energy by this rock-bomb?          
This woven energy is found in each and every individual “particle/wave” of every atom, in the trillions upon countless trillions of atoms in the rock. While energy can be said to be what gives “substance” to the rock, energy in and of itself is a “non-solid” entity. In fact, the unchanging, transcendent, universal constants/forces, that tell the energy exactly where to be and what to do in the rock, can be said to be the ONLY solid, uncompromising “thing” in the rock.
Exactly? No uncertainty in BatLand?  So, what makes this Bat-rock solid? Bat-force?  Bat-energy? or are they one and the the same in BatLand?           
Yet there is another ingredient which went into making the rock besides constants/forces and energy. An ingredient that is often neglected to be looked at as a “real” component of the rock. It is the transcendent and spiritual component of truth. If truth did not exist the rock would not exist. This is as obvious as the fact that the rock would not exist if energy and/or unchanging force did not exist. It is the truth in and of the logical laws of the interrelated unchanging forces of the universal constants that govern the energy in the rock that enable the rock to be a rock in the first place.
So, in what units is this fundamental quantity of BatLand physics measured in?
 micromiracles per megamessiah?
decibytes per bonehead?
ark-angels per cubic cataclysm?            
... Energy and force must always obey the truth that is above them or else the rock can’t possibly exist. Since truth clearly dictates what energy and/or unchanging force can or cannot do, it follows that truth dominates energy and unchanging force. ... It has also been scientifically proven, by quantum non-locality, that whenever something becomes physically “true” (wave collapse of entangled electron, photon) in any part of the universe, this “truth” is instantaneously communicated anywhere/everywhere in the universe to its corresponding “particle”.
Maybe in BatLand. Sounds a bit woo-zy to me            
Thus, truth is “aware” of everything that goes on in the universe instantaneously. This universal instantaneous awareness of a transcendent truth also gives truth the vital characteristic of being omniscient (All knowing). This instantaneous communication of truth to all points in the universe also happens to defy the speed of light; a “truth” that energy and even the unchanging force of gravity happen to be subject to (I believe all fundamental forces are shown to be subject to this “truth’ of the speed of light). This scientific proof of ‘instantaneous’ quantum non-locality also proves that truth is not a “passive” component of this universe.
I guess there is no such thing as de-coherence in BatLand.            
Truth is actually scientifically demonstrated, by quantum non-locality (and quantum teleportation), to be the “active” dominant component of this universe. ... Truth is in fact a tangible entity that enables and dictates our reality in this Bat-universe to exist in a overarching non-chaotic form so as to enable life to exist (Extreme Fine -tuning of constants)).
So measure it already and report back.  I suspect you will find it an extremely rare commodity in BatLand            
Truth, which is shown not to be subject to time in any way, shape, or form, by quantum non-locality, has demonstrated foresight and purpose in the extreme fine-tuning for this temporal universe and, as such, can be said to be “alive” from the fact that a “decision” had to be made from the timeless/spaceless dimension, that ‘truth’ inhabits, in order for this temporal reality to become real in the first place.

 A strange place indeed, this BatLand.  It appears to have little or no connection with the reality of this universe.

Date: 2011/12/17 15:03:45, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Thank you Hitch, for showing the rest of the world that an atheist can lead an honest, purposeful life based on reason.

Date: 2012/01/13 23:23:26, Link
Author: sledgehammer
And don't forget the side of smoked red herring!

Date: 2012/01/15 20:23:38, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Woodbine @ Jan. 15 2012,14:33)
(quoting Dembski)  
The Discovery Institute (and by that I mean both its fellows and its administrators) has been my best friend these last 15 years.

Yeah...  as in:
"they pay me to do nothing but kick back and write books."

Berlinski certainly figured out how to suck that teat for all it's worth.

Date: 2012/01/21 17:38:00, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (sparc @ Jan. 19 2012,21:16)
It is quite long, not new but does anybody understand the comments from the audience during Robert Marks' talk on information, genetic algortims, Avida and weasel?

I suspect it is another manifestation of Bob Marks' juvenile sense of humor.  He is not giving this lecture to a live audience, so he's probably filling in what he imagines is going through the minds of his target audience.  If so, he obviously doesn't think much of the intellectual capabilities of his audience, or maybe those are the thoughts that go through his mind.
It kind of follows along the lines of those disturbing drawings of "people" that he populates his slides with.  I have a very hard time looking at those. The artwork is so starkly ugly, they remind me of adolescent male pen-and-ink doodling.  And then he puts the same cartoon on several successive slides, like he's proud to show them off.  They make me wince, and want to look away.

Date: 2012/01/29 21:23:22, Link
Author: sledgehammer
O'Leary quoting TBS interview w/ Dembski
TBS: You have stated that “design theorists oppose Darwinian theory on strictly scientific grounds.” But then why is the ID movement so heavily populated with religious believers? Could we not expect more of the scientific community to support ID if your statement were true? Why do the majority of the world’s leading scientific bodies oppose ID and claim that it does not qualify as science?
  Good question.  But will Dembski answer it?
WD: The quote needs context. I’ve also written that intelligent design, besides being a scientific program, has a theological dimension, in trying to understand divine action, and a cultural dimension, in trying to overturn naturalism. So intelligent design is a number of things. But at its core, it is a scientific program. Indeed, unless there is good science to back it up, all the cultural and theological superstructures that people build on it will be in vain.
  Apparently not.

WD: As for why religious believers tend to be associated with design, I could turn the question around. If Darwinian evolution is strictly scientific, then why is that field so heavily populated with atheists?
  Why is this even a question when the answer is so obvious?

WD: I see a scientific core to both intelligent design and Darwinian evolution. And I see no merit in questioning their scientific status by the company they keep. The character of the proposals that both approaches make is what really ought to count.

  It should. And it does.

Date: 2012/02/02 23:19:20, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Feb. 02 2012,02:53)
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Feb. 01 2012,17:53)
And now an insane interlude:          
Joe [...] UFO

Bruce David agrees:
Or the substantial evidence that the vast majority of the more than 10,000 crop circles reported since the ’80s could not have been produced by any known human technology.

My favourite 'crop rune' consisted solely of the following symbols, in order: "GREETINGS EARTHLINGS". This is widely felt to be some kind of message.

This site is clearly part of an elaborate conspiracy to cover up the fact that aliens DO routinely visit agricultural regions at the height of the growing season. There is no known human technology that can flatten corn. None.

Not to mention the highly advanced technology required  to make, OMG, circles!!.  Clearly beyond the reach of even the most advanced civilizations in existence today.

Date: 2012/02/11 16:25:18, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 11 2012,09:31)
ROFL: Gordo:
... my gorge rises just to remember that this sort of exploitation is going on...

Meodramatic much Gordo?
I have seen far more than I want to speak of here, and none of it good.
<snip image>

Watch out! Gordo's "gorge" is on the rise, and that can't be good, his getting engorged and all.
 Whatever turns him on, I suppose.

Date: 2012/02/20 11:40:40, Link
Author: sledgehammer
From Sean Carroll's Cosmic Variance  blog:

Toward a general theory of evolution: Extending Darwinian theory to inanimate matter  
Addy Pross

Though Darwinian theory dramatically revolutionized biological understanding, its strictly biological focus has resulted in a widening conceptual gulf between the biological and physical sciences. In this paper we strive to extend and reformulate Darwinian theory in physicochemical terms so it can accommodate both animate and inanimate systems, thereby helping to bridge this scientific divide. The extended formulation is based on the recently proposed concept of dynamic kinetic stability and data from the newly emerging area of systems chemistry. The analysis leads us to conclude that abiogenesis and evolution, rather than manifesting two discrete stages in the emergence of complex life, actually constitute one single physicochemical process. Based on that proposed unification, the extended theory offers some additional insights into life’s unique characteristics, as well as added means for addressing the three central questions of biology: what is life, how did it emerge, and how would one make it?

Quoting Sean:  
It’s a paper by a chemist, published in the Journal of Systems Chemistry, but doesn’t seem to require much in the way of specialized knowledge in order to read it, have a look. The central idea seems to be something called “dynamic kinetic stability.” A stable system is one that doesn’t change over time; a dynamic-kinetically stable system is one that doesn’t change in some particular features, but only by taking advantage of some other kind of change. The water in a river flows, but what we think of as “the river” remains fairly stable over time; an organism metabolizes, but maintains its structure for an extended period; individuals within a population come and go, while the population itself can be stable.

ETA: Also check the "comments" section, where Larry Moran and John Wilkins weigh in.

Date: 2012/02/20 12:46:32, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (OgreMkV @ Aug. 16 2011,11:15)
If you need any help with Wordpress, let me know, I'm an old hand at it.

Hey Ogre - wp question:
Over on TSZ, I seem to have lost the ability to edit, even when logged in to wp.  All I see on the dashboard are spellcheck and expand-window icon.  I used to have edit buttons, html tags and all sorts of other stuff.
 What me doin' rong?

Date: 2012/02/20 22:54:45, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Moar from the Dr.Dr's  TBS interwiew, posted on UD:
We’re not saying that evolution doesn’t happen. We’re saying that even if it happens, it requires an information source beyond the reach of conventional evolutionary mechanisms.

So when did the environment become "beyond the reach of conventional evolutionary mechanisms"?
Given that he's already admitted,on UD no less, that the environment is the source of "active information" in biological evo, he seems to have conveniently omitted that little fact in the interest of making  a grandiose, unsupported generalization ( otherwise known as "lying for Jesus" ).

As I recall, he was backed into that particular corner after claiming that the  "active info" in GA's was "sneaked in" via the fitness function. When it was pointed out that obviously the environment provided that function in biological evo, his comeback was,  "and where did the information in the environment come from? (wink, nudge)" and then launched into his "search for a search" smokescreen, and immediately shut off comments.
I pretty sure that was the last time he allowed comments on any of his OPs on UD.

Date: 2012/02/20 23:15:32, Link
Author: sledgehammer
As I recall, the edit function had a "timeout" feature after the post was entered which I thought was a good way to prevent another Chris Doyle or FtK "incident".
 Heck, I'll forgo an edit function if I can have a "preview" function instead.  I'm always screwing up the quotes, tags, and anything requiring code-based protocols or semantics.

Edited, to make sure I still <b><i><u>can!</u></i></b>

Date: 2012/02/22 08:42:35, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Wow!  That's fucking beautiful.

Date: 2012/02/23 23:27:34, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Felicidades, e muito mais!

Date: 2012/02/26 02:34:30, Link
Author: sledgehammer

ETA   clip off the ellipses after the first /wp

Date: 2012/02/26 16:18:05, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Lou FCD @ Feb. 26 2012,06:42)
Quote (REC @ Feb. 26 2012,00:09)
JUst got home from a depatmental party (took a cab_....some of the faculty were discussing some presubumission draft paper with some inexplicable results.

Apparently is circulating far and wide seeking approval/comments before submussion-but the conversation got quiet on the details.

Anyone know awht this is about? Have a copy?

No, but I'm pretty tight with my P.I. and he shed some light on it. Check your inbox.

Well, are you guys going to share, or do I need the secret handshake and decoder ring?

Date: 2012/02/26 18:43:28, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Whew!  I was just posting a reply when it went down.  I thought I broke it.

ETA:  Fortunately, I've learned from experience to compose my posts in a text document, and then cut-n-paste into the post edit window.

Date: 2012/02/27 01:15:13, Link
Author: sledgehammer
It appears to be back up again.   Only obvious post missing is Conch

Date: 2012/02/29 00:09:27, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Dr1/2 Dodgen weighs in on Barry's butthurt thread:                
As an engineer in multiple engineering disciplines (software, aeronautical, mechanical) I just try to use simple logic to figure out if stuff can work. The notion that “there is no way to compute the probabilities of evolution” may be true, but one can easily recognize when a proposed engineering solution makes absolutely no sense.

First of all, Gil, you have no formal training as an engineer, only music and language, which is fine, until you start trying to get mathy, and show the world how little formal training you actually have.  Like when you say:      
I don’t need to provide a detailed probabilistic analysis in defense of my proposition. I can just use simple logic in two steps:

1) Converting a Hello World computer program into a word processor is a far less daunting project than converting a bacterium into a person who can write Hello World computer program and convert it into a word processor.

2) I’ve demonstrated with simple mathematical calculations that even with the entire probabilistic resources of the universe available, and even with intelligent, purpose-driven selection with a goal in mind, the goal of converting a Hello World computer program into a word processor could not possibly be achieved through random errors filtered by purposeful selection.

So why wouldn't you demonstrate this simple mathematical calculation on Lizzie's blog for everyone to see and criticize?
 Because it's bullshit, and you might actually realize this.
Here's a simple mathematical calculation that shows it's bullshit:
I start with your "Hello World" program and duplicate it until I get 100Mbytes, or the size of a given  word processor source code, (or I could just as well start with 100M of random ASCII characters). Using KF's latching weasel algorithm, I compare that random code to the actual WP code, and surprise, surprise, 1/64th of the (6-bit ASCII) characters match! I keep those and randomize the remainder.  Again 1/64th of that random remainder matches the target, so I keep those as well.  How many times do I have to do this until all the characters match and I have a WP program?
 Simple math.   T, the starting 100Mbytes times 63/64 is the unmatched remainder after 1 generation, and 63/64 raised to the power of N, the number of generations, is the unmatched fraction of the original 100MBytes after N generations. When this fraction is less than 1/T, all the characters match. Even an engineer with a little training in engineering math could tell you that this series converges for r<T, and happens when N exceeds:


        where r is the alphabet size, and T is the target size.

 For T=1e8, r=64, N~1170, so the computer that runs the word processor could find the match in a few microseconds, which is a little less than the ~1e17 seconds you allow, and the universe is spared.  Praise the Lord.

Now I know that you will probably try to move the goalposts and claim that it was my intelligence that solved the problem, even though yours was obviously not up to the task, but you should be relieved that your error of 1e23 is a few orders of magnitude less than 1 Dembski (1e27).
And finally, you say:                
In my view, Darwinists are living in a fantasy world, completely disconnected from reality, evidence, and logic concerning the creative powers of their proposed mechanism...
As a final note: I was influenced to a great extent by Phillip Johnson, an attorney. One might ask, What does an attorney have to contribute to the design debate? What a good attorney has to offer is cutting through the fluff, getting to the logic of the argumentation, and pointing out rational inconsistencies.

The most obvious rational inconsistency to me is the proposition that a by-definition purposeless process was purposed.

But then, I’m just an engineer, who tries to use simple logic.

Well, we've done enough damage to the already poor reputation of engineers, so maybe your logic is a little too "simple"?  NB I might have been a little nicer on Lizzie's blog, but you made your choice.

Date: 2012/02/29 01:14:17, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Feb. 28 2012,22:30)
Quote (sledgehammer @ Feb. 29 2012,00:09)
Now I know that you will probably try to move the goalposts and claim that it was my intelligence that solved the problem, even though yours was obviously not up to the task, but you should be relieved that your error of 1e23 is a few orders of magnitude less than 1 Dembski (1e27).

Slight correction.  A Dembski is an error of 1x10e65, or 65 orders of magnitude.

Give Dr.Dr.Dr. credit where credit is due

Thanks. I stand corrected! I really thought about checking w/ Wesley first, but I figured if my error (of 1e42 it turns out) was still less than 1Dmb, I was good. and the Dr3 would be vindicated.

Date: 2012/03/01 08:32:16, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 29 2012,15:50)
Quote (blipey @ Feb. 29 2012,17:49)
While you're here, Joe, could you calculate the CSI of something?  Anything will do.

I have asshole and I even showed you ...

and I even  ...  fuck up.

Joe tells truth!

ETA:  John W beats me ... punch.  Great minds think ...

Date: 2012/03/02 14:30:19, Link
Author: sledgehammer
LMAO!!  I wondered what that little color streak in his avatar was, given it's strategic location but I didn't have the courage to magnify it.  Too funny!

Date: 2012/03/13 23:02:34, Link
Author: sledgehammer
I am the only physicist leading a team of engineers in instrumentation design.  For most of them, it's "don't bore me with the science, just tell what I need to know" so they can go off in a corner with their little piece to write some code or run a simulation to solve the immediate Problem Du Jour. And when things go south, I'm the one looking for the root cause, while they're looking for a band-aid to patch the thing together long enough to get through the next phase of testing. With only a few exceptions, most engineers I know are not interested in the science or physics behind the phenomenon that the instrument we're designing is used to investigate. This is especially true of the more overtly religious ones, who tend to be more cocksure of their abilities, while the exceptional ones tend to be younger, know when to ask questions,  and are eager to learn.

ETA: correctizationing of the grammaficationaries

Date: 2012/03/14 01:10:53, Link
Author: sledgehammer
DU-  I could tell from your previous post that you are one of the "exceptionals" that are a joy to work with. Your job sounds like a lot of fun, and I'm jealous. I also know of what you speak when you describe the more academically oriented scientists that have little appreciation for the art of engineering, and how to make things that work.  My undergrad degree is BSEE, but I've done a lot of ME as well (had to pay off those student loans).  I once had an engineering tech that loved the science and had been a tinkerer all his life, and he knew how to get things done.  He was worth his weight in gold.  Alas, after he got his engineering degree, he was lured away by one of my former colleagues who knew and valued his talents more than the company I was working for at the time.  I was so upset with the short-sightedness of the CEO, that I left as well.
 This is straying from the topic at hand, so I'll PM from here on out.

Date: 2012/03/14 01:46:57, Link
Author: sledgehammer
My favorite statistic was

"the average porn site visit lasts 6 minutes and 29 seconds"


Date: 2012/03/14 01:55:24, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Not sure what "z scores" are , but for normal (Gaussian) distributions, that would be errfc(sigma)
(error function) where sigma is std dev.

Date: 2012/03/17 01:15:00, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Mar. 16 2012,06:17)
fucking drunks

Hey now...  I resemble that remark :angry:

Date: 2012/03/17 11:27:22, Link
Author: sledgehammer
I guess the Pharangulates are more fun than we are. I has hurt (sniff).  Maybe we should offer some gelato?

Date: 2012/03/18 19:37:40, Link
Author: sledgehammer
"Anarchic Harmony: The Spirituality of Social Disobedience [Paperback]
William J. Murray (Author)

13 used from $0.36"

A bit steep, that. I think I'll pass.

Date: 2012/03/19 08:45:59, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 19 2012,03:44)
Hey Joe,

Which mutations did your designer do?

Well, somebody has to say it:

"But they're still Drosophila"

I want to see frikkin' laser beams.  Is that too much to ask?

Date: 2012/03/19 23:31:22, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Mar. 19 2012,12:20)
Quote (sledgehammer @ Mar. 19 2012,08:45)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 19 2012,03:44)
Hey Joe,

Which mutations did your designer do?

Well, somebody has to say it:

"But they're still Drosophila"

I want to see frikkin' laser beams.  Is that too much to ask?

Yeah!!! Frikkin' Laser beams.  

Now how about some Narwhals!! Fuck Yeah!!!! Narwhals!!  Stab  STAB!!!  YEEEAAAAHHHH!!!!!!

(Kudos.  Masterfully done)

Date: 2012/03/19 23:42:10, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Gil Dodgen.  Simulation engine monkey extraordinaire!

Date: 2012/03/21 01:41:26, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Amadan @ Mar. 20 2012,10:45)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 20 2012,18:20)
street-corner preaching in a labcoat

Creationism in a stolen lab coat.

Test-tube theology

2nd Law of Theodynamics:

With God, All Things Are Possible,

  naturalistic evolution
       evolved flagella
         anthropomorphic global warming
           moral atheism
             etc ...
               etc ...
                 etc ...

Date: 2012/03/26 19:49:55, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Badgers?? We no need no steenking Badgers.

Happy B'day BadgerBoy

Date: 2012/03/27 09:18:36, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Joe the Bozorg is a troll?  How can that be?  Say it ain't so!

Date: 2012/03/27 16:21:00, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Louis @ Mar. 27 2012,14:05)
Every time I think I'm out, they drag me back in.


... he said sheepishly.

Date: 2012/04/01 01:07:27, Link
Author: sledgehammer
comment moved to Biologic thread
link added

Date: 2012/04/01 01:12:17, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Spiffy new webpage.  The alpha helices don't look much like the assorted hardware strewn around...

but the wingnut is appropriate.

Date: 2012/04/02 02:03:28, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (midwifetoad @ April 01 2012,15:26)
Bad news for evilution. Half life of samarium off by 30 percent. Therefore Jebus.

OMG!!!!  The solar system, instead of 4500My is only 3800My!!!
Do you know what this means!!! .   Radiochronology is doomed I tells ya!  Doomed!!  
Coppedge, with his ASS=0.0065My, was almost right after all.


Date: 2012/04/04 17:12:53, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Damn!  358 days late again!  HBDuu

Date: 2012/04/05 21:34:06, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Henry J @ April 05 2012,07:27)
Yeah, you can be present here all eight of those days! :p

And your presence will be felt.

And with felt you can make your birthday hats.

Date: 2012/04/10 21:26:26, Link
Author: sledgehammer
hapi bday bubu
Nem bilong yu i mas i stap holi.

Date: 2012/04/14 02:24:35, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (k.e.. @ April 13 2012,23:26)
Quote (paragwinn @ April 14 2012,07:02)
Quote (JohnW @ April 13 2012,14:21)
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 13 2012,14:18)
Quote (Freddie @ April 13 2012,16:15)
Quote (Henry J @ April 13 2012,16:07)
I guess some photographers develop earlier than others?

Only when stored in a dark room ...

Snap out of it guys. Its not flashy, it just lens credence to the view we can't focus.

Stop being so negative.  Just let it slide.

Wait for Lou to f-stop here in f/4...f/2.8...f/2...

I shutter to think why.

Canon get better than this.  I Leica!  
How  I hate to owe Pentax forms every April 15th  It's such a Hasselblad.

Date: 2012/04/18 01:01:13, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Lou FCD @ April 17 2012,17:10)
Quote (Patrick @ April 17 2012,16:34)
Quote (Robin @ April 17 2012,14:42)
Quote (Lou FCD @ April 17 2012,12:36)
Side note:

Lou is now f-stopping at f/1.2.

Show off...


I just hope he doesn't accidentally leave the lens cap off.  That thing could suck all the light out of a room.


I'm still doing my happy dance. We should probably get back to talking about the dumbasses at UD, though.

And I'll do a happy dance, of sorts, when I see that piece of hardware used to capture a candlelit scene involving sensuous curves of the female variety.  My birthday  is the same as yours, hint,hint

Date: 2012/05/02 00:51:17, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Thanks everyone.  Funny, I don't feel 102 y.o.
 Thought I'd share this LOLkitteh someone sent:

Happy bidet Lou!  Where's that f/1.2 NSFW photo you promised, huh?

Date: 2012/05/05 12:55:23, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Farewell cranky ol' crank.  I will definitely miss your entertaining invective, your tirades, and your unique quirkiness.

Your ideas on evolution, not so much.

Date: 2012/05/10 19:49:36, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Dembski sez:    
Many definitions of miracles exist, but the one central to this discussion treats them as events beyond the ordinary powers of nature. Men dead and buried for three days don't rise again simply through the ordinary forces of nature (Mary Shelley's Frankenstein notwithstanding). Likewise, it is an open question whether purely natural forces are able to produce the information-rich structures that we find in living things. To say that Darwin or his naturalistic successors have solved this problem is delusional.
{emphasis added}

However, believing that a dead guy became alive just because a 2000 year old legend based on scant hearsay evidence provided by someone with an agenda says so is not delusional?

 Skeptical, I am.

Whose delusion is better supported by the scientific method?

Date: 2012/05/11 23:39:20, Link
Author: sledgehammer
My dog has five pads, so I suspect felis, rather than canis

Date: 2012/05/12 13:09:47, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (J-Dog @ May 12 2012,06:29)
Holy Dembski's Douchenozzle!  I am sorry I am late to the party, I just noticed that you two are now older and wiser by a year.

Well, older anyways, and at least I have Lou beat on that score.

Date: 2012/05/12 13:17:32, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Lou FCD @ May 12 2012,05:30)
The track is a little hard to see, but Imma gonna disagree with the sledgehammer.

Here's why. See the X?

Great link! I stand happily corrected.

Date: 2012/05/12 20:31:51, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (dvunkannon @ May 12 2012,13:54)
10^14 free floating planets per galaxy, harboring life??

Sir Fred Hoyle is popular with the ID crowd for his "tornado in a junkyard" phrase, and the implied fine tuning argument in the stellar nucleo-synthesis of carbon that supposedly made him a Deist.

His panspermia ideas, not so much.

Here, Hoyle's longtime collaborator continues to work on the panspermia concept, hypothesizing that a huge number of free floating planets formed early in the life of the universe. These planets could host life, and as they transit through solar systems could be responsible for mixing the biological component of the entire galaxy.

Of course, all this has done is push back the difficulty of the origin of life question to a remote time and place in the universe.

True that, but it could also more than double the time available for OOL, and provide more options for chemical environments and energy sources.

Date: 2012/05/13 11:26:13, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Quack @ May 13 2012,05:16)
Since reading the Playboy Magazine in the 1960's,  I've always thought of that as beaver shots, a great excuse when you're taking a gun along when going hunting.

Not to put too fine a point on it ( but this is the JoeG thread after all) in the 60's, we would have classified JoeG's contribution as "split beaver" (to over-extend the hunting analogy, what happens after the beaver was spotted and bagged).
Playboy, in the 60's, rarely showed pubic hair as a matter of policy until the early 70's, and never showed "split beaver".  Nowadays, you rarely see pubic hair at all, even on split beaver, except possibly as a "Brazilian" (beaver with a Mohawk).
 IMO, a pelt-less beaver in just another rodent, i.e. a naked mole-rat.

Date: 2012/05/17 17:18:07, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ May 17 2012,09:58)
My thoughts. If you really want to get good at creation science or ID, there are other disciplines than biology where you can still study biology. Get your BS, MS, or PhD in a field where the Darwinists will be hard pressed to hold your finances, your career, your wife, kids, and loved ones hostage to the Darwinist inquisition. Maybe it is wise to go where you can be free. If you really want to do the biology thing, perhaps consider double-majoring or something, just so you have an out. Even the Apostle Paul was known to flee at times despite being quite eager to be martyred. There is a time and place for everything.

As far as specific non-biology disciplines, consider the founders of the modern ID and modern creation science movements:

A.E. Wilder-Smith : Chemistry and Pharmaceuticals
Henry Morris : hydraulic engineering
Walter Brown : Mechanical Engineering
Duae Gish : Bio chemistry
Charles Thaxton: Physical Chemistry
William Dembski: Mathematics and Theology
Michael Behe: Bio Chemistry
Michael Denton: Bio Chemistry
Fred Hoyle: astro physics
Walter Bradley : materials engineering
Roger Olsen: geo chemistry
Phil Johnson : Law

The astonishing thing, the minority discipline is biology.

Furthermore, almost all diciplines in biology are agnostic to evolutionary ideas, so even in some cases it never becomes an issue. But perhaps a little caution is always wise. Don’t go around looking for trouble, especially if you have family that might be counting on you for their food and shelter.


Waa!  The meany biologists always call me on my bullshit. Waa!
Oh me, oh my, the terrible, terrible sacrifices that must be made by the faithful.  Just martyr me now.

Hmm.  Very few creationists study biology, and very few biologists are creationists.
Hardly astonishing in either case.

Date: 2012/05/17 17:23:49, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Hey, better late than never. We saved you some leftover cake and beer.  The cake is a little stale and the beer is a bit flat and warm, but I hear the Brits like it that way.

Date: 2012/05/17 17:38:57, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Occasionally, (just now, actually) when I enter AtBC from the anti-ev discussion page, (which recently started popping up when tabs reload after restarting firefox 12.0, even though it was pointed to AtBC)  it starts me at some random thread page, even though I have "most recent" checked.  Drove me nuts for a bit, but now I just shrug and click the appropriate numbered page.
 It started a few months ago.  Don't know if it's ikonboard, my browser, or both, but I've gotten used to it.

Date: 2012/05/28 12:20:13, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Head of the "Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention", Richard Land, caught plagiarizing?  Who'd a thunk it?

From Sarah Posner, Religious Dispatches:    
   Richard Land, currently under investigation by his employer, the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, told the group, "We must all be willing to stand up and tell the government 'no.' Secularists don't like people of faith because the ultimate authority for us is not the state. The ultimate authority is God."

   Aha! That explains everything, doesn't it? If all those state-worshipping liberals would just let the conservatives put God in charge, we wouldn't have all these problems with health insurance coverage for ladyparts and gay people getting married and whatnot.

   Land, as you may recall, said some really racist, spiteful things on his radio show about the Trayvon Martin case. He apologized for those comments, but Baptist scholar and blogger Aaron Weaver called it a "non-apology apology" and questioned Land's assertion that "I have been committed to the cause of racial reconciliation my entire ministry."

   Weaver also caught Land plagiarizing, specifically reading from published work of others and passing it off as his own on his radio show. For that, the ERLC is investigating him, but lo and behold, the head of the committee in charge of the investigation just stepped down to spend more time with his church. (The resigning trustee, in a you-can't-make-this-up-twist, is the Rev. Steve Faith.)  His replacement, the Rev. Richard Piles, tells the Tennessean's Bob Smietana that Faith's departure did not signal any dissension within the committee. Piles added, "I am a fan of Dr. Land. I am in his corner through this process and want to see him succeed and hope that he can continue in his ministry." So I guess there won't be any surprises when the investigating committee issues its report June 1.

(underlines are additional links in original)

Date: 2012/05/28 12:58:56, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (DiEb @ May 28 2012,06:43)
Quote (Nils Ruhr @ May 28 2012,12:43)
What exactly is your problem? The erratum is in their paper!

What's my problem? The very moment, my humble efforts have (somewhat) succeeded in driving one of my points home, they abandon the section on their home-page where they would have to announce them. It's understandable that they don't want to stress their mistakes: if you look at the list of their main publications, errata have been added to four out of eight articles. IMO a sign that the other four articles haven't been scrutinized closely enough....

Nice work Dieb. You did a very thorough analysis of "Search  for a Search", and pointing out where NoFreeLunch is completely misapplied to evolutionary "search".
I'll have to give Ewert credit for reading your review, and acknowledging the error.  He even thanked you for pointing it out.  His boss(es), on the other hand, don't appear to be so ethically inclined.
I think Nils meant to be sarcastic.

Date: 2012/05/31 08:37:57, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Lou FCD @ May 31 2012,03:14)
It's all well and good to make grand pronouncements of the rampant sexism and misogyny running amok at all these conventions, but at some point, someone really needs to point out an actual, real live example of said sexism and misogyny that amounts to more than "somebody told me..."

Otherwise, nothing gets done other than to create a lot of sound and fury on the internet. Blog drama. Might as well fart in a hurricane and post the picture to facebook.

Yes, but that wouldn't generate blog traffic.

Date: 2012/05/31 11:16:46, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Yay!   Party!!!!!!!!

Date: 2012/05/31 11:34:39, Link
Author: sledgehammer

Happy 21+20+20+20!

Date: 2012/05/31 11:45:53, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Starbuck @ May 31 2012,08:57)
Whenever i go to it takes me to an error page. I can probably fix that for you.

That link takes you to the setup page.

Try this

Date: 2012/06/04 10:39:39, Link
Author: sledgehammer
It would be highly cynical of me to point out that all the parties involved (RW, PZ, AS, etc) have blogs that pay based on traffic, so I won't.

Date: 2012/06/04 14:11:49, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Robin @ June 04 2012,10:11)
Quote (JLT @ June 04 2012,10:59)
Which means that according to Dembski's EF Jesus himself designed this:

Praise be the Lord!

I don't know why the UD folks don't agree with me here. I'm pretty sure I followed the approved "How to calculate shit to arrive at some meaningless number with a lot of zeros to impress the rubes" method of ID math.

Uhhh...that's not Jesus. It's Tommy Iommi from Black Sabbath. The image even shows his iconic left-handed Fender. Here's a pic that's nearly identical to the mold image:

Now THAT'S scary coincodink! So...uhh...what the heck are they doing in that shower anyway?

And here I thought it was one of the Three Musketeers:

Date: 2012/06/04 20:20:59, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (afarensis @ June 04 2012,18:07)

Evidence for a purely Darwinian account of human origins is supposed to be overwhelming. But is it? In this provocative book,  three scientists challenge the claim that undirected natural selection is capable of building a human being, critically assess fossil and genetic evidence that human beings share a common ancestor with apes,and debunk recent claims that the human race could not have started from an original couple.

So now Casey is a scientist?  That's rich.
More like two lyin'tists and a shyster.

Date: 2012/06/07 20:49:23, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Texas Teach @ June 07 2012,18:40)
Someone get Woodbine a PotW pronto.


Date: 2012/06/12 14:49:16, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Kristine @ June 12 2012,11:31)
Free buffet? Will there be mashed potatoes? ;)

Mashed Potatoes?  Pardon my obtusity, but I don't get it.  Pray tell! (or at least a hint for the culturally challenged?)

Date: 2012/06/12 14:56:48, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (BillB @ June 12 2012,07:36)
Yes, I seem to remember a report or study about how a more biblical approach to sex ed had led to more anal sex - as a way of avoiding breaking the pledge.

I mentioned this to my wife, who mumbled something about silly religious folk, the bible and not understanding the relevant passages...

Yes, I said - relevant passage is the operative word.


It took her quite a long time to stop laughing . ..

Ah, but the passages to happiness are many and varied.

Date: 2012/06/13 14:45:43, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Richardthughes @ June 13 2012,10:53)

The Choice of (and for) Your Life

June 13, 2012

Posted by Barry Arrington under Intelligent Design

No Comments

Suppose your enemy is trying to frame you for murder.  He does a good job of fabricating evidence, and you are arrested and charges are filed.  Of course you are not guilty, so you refuse all plea offers.  But being innocent does not guaranty you will win at trial, and your “no plea” position is very risky.  Indeed, the stakes could not be higher.  Under the law of your state the only allowable penalty for murder is life in prison without possibility of parole.  Your case goes to trial, and the DA’s entire case against you comes down to the testimony two witnesses.  Even though you are not guilty, it is clear to everyone that if either of these witnesses testifies against you, it is CERTAIN you will be convicted.

Suppose the DA is feeling magnanimous and says to you, “I don’t need both of these witnesses.  If either of them testifies against you, I will get a conviction, so I will call only one of them and what’s more, I will let you choose.”  

Finally, suppose that all you know about the witnesses is that one of them is an orthodox Christian and one is an atheist and that your enemy has offered each of them ten million dollars to testify falsely against you.

Two questions:

1.  Do you have enough information so that you would be other than indifferent about which witness to choose?

2.  If the answer to the first question is “yes,” which do you choose and why?

What about if one was a Muslim and the other a Christian, Barry?

What a joke!  I'd choose the atheist, of course, because based on the polls, the atheist would have far less credibility with your average American jury jury than just about anybody, even a Muslim.
 Besides, since I know I'm innocent, the christian must be a lying sack, just like Barry.
 What a sad fuck Barry is.

Date: 2012/06/26 22:49:45, Link
Author: sledgehammer
PPS: Do I need to translate that into German, gedankenexperiment, to get the point through to the dismissive objectors at Anti-Evo?

pompous bloviation does not an argument make.

Date: 2012/06/26 22:53:22, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (J-Dog @ June 26 2012,14:21)
We need to update Gordon E Mullings' of Montserrat's Profile - He's not a MONSTER... HE'S A CHICKEN!


Date: 2012/07/02 23:48:12, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Quote (Amadan @ July 02 2012,10:55)
Act 1
Scene: A wall divides the stage in two. On each side a blogger sits at a table on which there is a keyboard and screen. The floor on one side is littered with crumpled copies of unwholesome magazines, discarded fast-food containers and beer cans. The other side has been kept ruthlessly tidy for years and the porn is only referred to, but never taken out of its folder. A cloying scent of sanctimony and long-gone cheese-poofs emanates from it.

Bloguno He's typing something again!

Blogoduo He's typing something about me typing something! Tard!

Bloguno Onlookers! Behold the bile-soaked pusillanimous spawn of God-denying frrrrrrrrr-VUNT sparticulatum gashwogga informatic ggggnarrrrr as conclusively shown in Chapter 9, 37, and 58 - 84 of my book.

Blogoduo TARD!!!

[Repeat 18 times

Act 2

[The same as Act 1, but the audience may hold mackerel in their left hands]

Love it! Thanks for the laugh.  POTD.

Edited for moar snippage.

Date: 2013/05/02 01:11:57, Link
Author: sledgehammer
Thanks everybody.  Haven't posted in a while. I'm running about a week behind in my reading, so the topics have moved on by the time I get to them. Still lurking. Still entertained. Carry on, all.