The Bathroom Wall

They covered these walls to stop my pen...

For a good time, call PZ.

Then I saw this post... now I'm a belieeever...

http://acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/miracles.htm

Really, I can't think of a better symbol for ID than The Monkees. On many albums, they didn't play their own instruments. They were a Beatles derivative, but ended up commercially successful.

"It would be foolish to pretend, however, that they were a band of serious significance, despite the occasional genuinely serious artistic aspirations of the members."

Read more at http://www.vh1.com/artists/az/monkees/bio.jhtml

What's the difference between hope and wishful thinking?

Until science produces the first living organism from nothing Intelligent Design will continue to be the theory of preference for your average human, though he or she will probably never have heard of ID. So it will be a hard slog to keep to the old curriculum. I don't think it's possible because the old curriculum is so full of holes and the "protesteth too much" approach is maybe an inevitable but still poor defense. We're not talking about a revision of science on the order of a flat earth here, we're talking about a valid debate. And kicking and screaming won't make it go away.

Science claimed to have killed God but God wasn't listening. Nor was most of the human race. Belief in God fulfills a deep human need. It's so universal that it could almost be considered an instinct. Science is often portrayed as the opposite of myth but it's really just another form of myth. Science's claim to be the bastion of hard fact, unshifting truth, is an illusion. Very few scientific principles have proven immune to revision as more detail is uncovered about the world we live in. Even the limiting velocity of light has gone the way of all flesh. We garland Nature with facts but she still reigns supreme and mysterious. We took pride in the "human invention" of masers and lasers and now find that stars pump light in exactly the same way. We derided the "music of the spheres", planetary harmonies, as medieval superstition and now we find out the Crab Nebula is singing away, a basso profundo in B flat and all the other stars, including our sun, join in the chorus. Science is ultimately just another belief system, and like every other belief system it does not have an infinite shelf-life. The glory days when people were willing to believe that science would cure all the world's ills are gone. We have seen science create as much misery and devastation as it has created health and ease. It's kind of amusing to see hard evolutionists suffering the same onslaughts on their precious beliefs as all the other great world religions have suffered. Science is doomed, like every other human endeavour, to the limits of being human. We're not as intelligent as we think we are. We're just scratching in the dust for clues.

Jack Shea wrote... a comment, I guess. But what did it have to do with the post it was supposed to be commenting on?

We derided the "music of the spheres", planetary harmonies, as medieval superstition and now we find out the Crab Nebula is singing away, a basso profundo in B flat and all the other stars, including our sun, join in the chorus.

Science is doomed, like every other human endeavour, to the limits of being human.

Jack Shea: Until science produces the first living organism from nothing Intelligent Design will continue to be the theory of preference for your average human

I agree, for many an appeal to ignorance seems appealing and until science catches up with our knowledge people may find hope in the gaps of our knowledge. Personally, as a Christian I find more hope in what my Designer is showing me. The glory of His Creation through some exciting natural processes.

Science is ultimately just another belief system, and like every other belief system it does not have an infinite shelf-life.

There are so many things wrong with the previous post, it's hard to know where to begin--or if beginning is worth the "slog."

First up, though, hard pronouncements like the above cut both ways. Replace "science" with "every other belief system," say, ID or Christianity, and what do we have? Nothing lasts. Jack Shea, nihilist in disguise?

And I thought the po-mo critique of science had gone out of style after the Sokal Hoax.

http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/

If the current scientific consensus were just another philosophy like Democritean atomism or Cartesian dualism, nobody would spend so much money and effort opposing it. But evolution is not just somebody's opinion.

Modern skepticism differs drastically from ancient skepticism. People used to dispair that we could acquire reliable knowledge. Now they're unhappy because we can. Hence the incredible displays of special pleading one regularly hears from Creationists and ID folks.

Wesley:

Excuse me? "Off topic?" How so? Your topic is a current conflict between science and religion. My thoughts were perfectly in line with such a discussion. Your reaction sums up the problem you hard-Evs are going to have, are having with supporters of ID. You don't make people go away by trying to throttle them. That attitude should be the antithesis of the scientific method. If you don't let falsity die by its own hand it will snap back and bite you in the butt every time. But thank you for the honour of Bathroom Wall placement. I must have really struck a nerve. Russell didn't even dare quote its innocuous, almost self-evident generalizations fer C---sakes. You certainly prove my attestations. This type of behaviour is a tea-cup rendering of the attitude of the Catholic Church to a heliocentric solar system. Again showing the rigidity of the scientific belief system. Check your mental mirror, Wes, before you pin this up on your Bathroom Wall, if you dare.

Sorry, Pim. We'll have to continue this discussion in the toilet. Wes gave me a red card for kicking the ball with my left foot.

Yerz in incredulity,
Jack

Jack Shea:

The "current topic" was Paul Nesselroade's "Wedge Update" and how trying to make a distinction between "wedge strategy" and "wedge document" simply did not fit the facts. This is quite a bit more specific than "a current conflict between science and religion".

I'm not throttling anybody. I'm simply keeping the comments associated with the entry post topical, and your more general remarks have been preserved in a more general area.

Raving (e.g., "I must have really struck a nerve.") and wish-fulfillment fantasies (e.g., "You certainly prove my attestations.") also aren't topical to the original entry post, and thus Jack's second comments joins his original off-topic comment. It is ironic, though, that Jack puts on such histrionics about not quoting his "self-evident conclusions" , given how thoroughly Jack avoided trying to make even a minimal defense of Paul Nesselroade's "Wedge Update". I guess Jack wasn't up to quoting my self-evident conclusion that there is no distinction between "wedge strategy" and "wedge document". Consistency is something that ID advocates are often found to lack.

First up, though, hard pronouncements like the above cut both ways. Replace "science" with "every other belief system," say, ID or Christianity, and what do we have? Nothing lasts. Jack Shea, nihilist in disguise?

Hence the incredible displays of special pleading one regularly hears from Creationists and ID folks.

The "current topic" was Paul Nesselroade's "Wedge Update" and how trying to make a distinction between "wedge strategy" and "wedge document" simply did not fit the facts. This is quite a bit more specific than "a current conflict between science and religion".

I note that they did not suggest bringing along a copy of Futuyma's "Evolutionary Biology", though it is likely that the attendees (and, for that matter, the presenters) will be far less familiar with its contents than they are with those of the Bible.

given how thoroughly Jack avoided trying to make even a minimal defense of Paul Nesselroade's "Wedge Update".

Science is doomed, like every other human endeavour, to the limits of being human. From you: I guess you've found your limit. The rest of us would like to try to learn more. The process of science as a means of discovery is not showing any signs of slowing down nor losing its ability to fascinate and enlighten.

...for many an appeal to ignorance seems appealing and until science catches up with our knowledge people may find hope in the gaps of our knowledge. Personally, as a Christian I find more hope in what my Designer is showing me. The glory of His Creation through some exciting natural processes.

So I've found my human limitations but you and your pals are going to learn much more with your superhumanity? I thought "super" anything was off the scientific agenda?

Was I indicating that science was unique? No, I was challenging science's view of its own uniqueness.

Okay, then, science isn't unique, except in its own eyes.

Is science unique? Yes, it is a belief system which bases its tenets on proven fact.

No, wait, science is unique, and bases its tenets on proven "facts" which are also mutable.

I'd suggest a scientist's perspective, maybe Perakh's "Science in the Eyes of a Scientist," from Unintelligent Design, as a better definition of "science." Otherwise, you're hacking at a straw man.

Pim,
You posted in reply to Jack Shea...

Jack Shea: Until science produces the first living organism from nothing Intelligent Design will continue to be the theory of preference for your average human
I agree, for many an appeal to ignorance seems appealing and until science catches up with our knowledge people may find hope in the gaps of our knowledge. Personally, as a Christian I find more hope in what my Designer is showing me. The glory of His Creation through some exciting natural processes.

...Pim, as a Christian, I agree with you, ie. God created all things. That's Intelligent Design, no matter what natural processes He used to do the Creating.
I am assuming that you use the word "ignorance" to refer to some of the Creationists theories, and from some of what I have heard of these theories, that is fair. But the gist of the Creationists theories is this, God created all things. That is all that is important for anyone to know. I have no problem with anyone, scientist or not, trying to learn more about the natural processes involved. But like Jack says, Science (and men) must accept their human limitations. Science (and men) can never disprove the existence of a Creator. So the real ignorance is displayed by the (as Jack Shea called them in this thread) "hard-Evs" (which I am assuming stands for Hardline Evolutionists) who claim that their theory proves that God doesn't exist. (What is that quote?...something like, "The theory of Evolution has made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.)

Pim,
You posted in reply to Jack Shea...

Jack Shea: Until science produces the first living organism from nothing Intelligent Design will continue to be the theory of preference for your average human
I agree, for many an appeal to ignorance seems appealing and until science catches up with our knowledge people may find hope in the gaps of our knowledge. Personally, as a Christian I find more hope in what my Designer is showing me. The glory of His Creation through some exciting natural processes.

...Pim, as a Christian, I agree with you, ie. God created all things. That's Intelligent Design, no matter what natural processes He used to do the Creating.
I am assuming that you use the word "ignorance" to refer to some of the Creationists theories, and from some of what I have heard of these theories, that is fair. But the gist of the Creationists theories is this, God created all things. That is all that is important for anyone to know. I have no problem with anyone, scientist or not, trying to learn more about the natural processes involved. But like Jack says, Science (and men) must accept their human limitations. Science (and men) can never disprove the existence of a Creator. So the real ignorance is displayed by the (as Jack Shea called them in this thread) "hard-Evs" (which I am assuming stands for Hardline Evolutionists) who claim that their theory proves that God doesn't exist. (What is that quote?...something like, "The theory of Evolution has made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.)

So the real ignorance is displayed by the (as Jack Shea called them in this thread) "hard-Evs" (which I am assuming stands for Hardline Evolutionists) who claim that their theory proves that God doesn't exist.

— john

John:
So the real ignorance is displayed by the ... "hard-Evs" ... who claim that their theory proves that God doesn't exist.

Me:
Hear, Hear! That would indeed be a ridiculous claim.

John:
(What is that quote? . . . something like, "The theory of Evolution has made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.)

Me:
Richard Dawkins wrote something like that. He is an outspoken atheist, but this hardly amounts to a claim that ToE disproves the existence of god. I'll be surprised if anyone can show me a quote from him that does make that claim.

John: Science (and men) can never disprove the existence of a Creator. So the real ignorance is displayed by the (as Jack Shea called them in this thread) "hard-Evs" (which I am assuming stands for Hardline Evolutionists) who claim that their theory proves that God doesn't exist.

Science can never claim that it disproves the existence of a God or deal with the supernatural. But perhaps you can quote some of these hard-Evs words to see what they are claiming?

Yahoo!!! 100,000 visitors

Pim and Wesley,
From the www.talkorigins.com FAQ's...

Philosophical Materialistic Evolution
Philosophical materialism says that the supernatural does not exist. It says that not only is evolution a natural process, but so is everything else.

* Richard Dawkins

* William Provine

Now Pim and Wesley, I did not accuse either of you holding this view, in fact I acknowledged Pim's claim to be a Christian. Here's exactly what I said...

. . . Pim, as a Christian, I agree with you, ie. God created all things.  That's Intelligent Design, no matter what natural processes He used to do the Creating.
I am assuming that you use the word "ignorance" to  refer to some of the Creationists theories, and from some of what I have heard of these theories, that is fair.  But the gist of the Creationists theories is this, God created all things.  That is all that is important for anyone to know.  I have no problem with anyone, scientist or not, trying to learn more about the natural processes involved.  But like Jack says, Science (and men) must accept their human limitations.  Science (and men) can never disprove the existence of a Creator.  So the real ignorance is displayed by the (as Jack Shea called them in this thread) "hard-Evs" (which I am assuming stands for Hardline Evolutionists) who claim that their theory proves that God doesn't exist.  (What is that quote? . . . something like, "The theory of Evolution has made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.)

And by the way, Pim, you never did acknowledge what you meant by the word "ignorance", so I will assume that I was right in my assumption, that the word, ignorance, referred to Creationism. All I was asking you, Pim, was to also state that this view of evolution, which I mistakenly termed "Hardline Evolution", but should be termed, "Philosophical Materialistic Evolution" and which does CLAIM that God does not exist, was the true ignorance.

So Pim and Wesley, you believe in both God and evolution, so I have no problem with you. Perhaps you're not even aware that the theory of evolution is being taught in high schools and colleges all over this country, (probably all over the world), improperly, that is, it is being taught as a theory which at least eliminates the need for the existence of God, and at worst as a theory which "proves" to students that God does not exist. Of course in this country, to even mention God in school, is unconstitutional. I have a big problem with that. Evolution should be taught as the theory that it is; a theory that we all should be able to agree upon, can not disprove the existence of God the Creator. That is the truth; the way we are now teaching evolution is ignorant!

John writes,

[quote[ Perhaps you're not even aware that the theory of evolution is being taught in high schools and colleges all over this country, (probably all over the world), improperly, that is, it is being taught as a theory which at least eliminates the need for the existence of God, and at worst as a theory which "proves" to students that God does not exist.  Of course in this country, to even mention God in school, is unconstitutional.

John, both of these things are untrue.

Science teachers do not teach that evolution is a "theory which at least eliminates the need for the existence of God, and at worst as a theory which "proves" to students that God does not exist." A high school teaching that would be rightfully reprimanded for doing so. I really doubt that you can show evidence that science teachers teach that evolution eliminates the need for God, or disproves him. (Of course there are a few famous scientists who have made remarks like this about their own personal beliefs, but those beliefs are not science, and they are not taught in science classes.)

Of course, your other remark that mentioning God in school is unconstitutional is blatantly false. Schools, as an institution, can not promote one religion over another, or religion over non-religion. Students, however, have a large amount of freedom to discuss their religious beliefs in school, and students regularly find references to God and religion in their literature and social studies classes. The only thing unconstitutional is for the school itself, in its official capacity, to endorse a particular religious viewpoint.

Does an Elizabethan concept of cosmological harmony represent the limit of what you want people to learn about the universe?

You seem to be supporting an anti-science (or possibly anti-education) movement.

Your cuteness lies in the way you broadcast your complete ignorance of the philosophy of science. Could someone please knock a hole in the bathroom ceiling so Jack can hear the stars singing to him?

The only specific person referred to by Jack as a "hard-Ev" in the above was me, and I believe God exists.

So the real ignorance is displayed by the (as Jack Shea called them in this thread) "hard-Evs" (which I am assuming stands for Hardline Evolutionists) who claim that their theory proves that God doesn't exist. (What is that quote? . . . something like, "The theory of Evolution has made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.)

Smokey: I will join Jack Krebs in asking you to document any cases in which high school biology teachers are teaching that evolutionary theory has any implications whatsoever to the existence or non-existence of God/god.

Me too. Even more - when you find examples of such misdeeds, I will sign a petition demanding that they cease and desist.

I was indicating that a cosmological belief which science "invalidated" for hundreds of years has now been returned to the fold by science.

You seem to have a penchant for strayin'.

central question of my rather, small observation is whether you can determine design, without knowing the designer, in the same way you can determine murder, without knowing the murderer.

Smokey said

[What I do believe, and what the quote you cite means, is that the theory of evolution by natural selection has made God unnecessary, at least as an explanatory mechanism for life.]

I might add that even without the "Darwinian" theory of evolution, God is not *necessary* to explain the existence or evolution of life. It's easy to imagine other theories, even worthless theories, without invoking the Bearded Guy up in the Clouds.

You're welcome. Don't forget to remind your mommy to wipe you.

Do you speak like this to people in person or only thru the safety of cyberspace? Seems like you wouldn't make many friends.

You know, Johnnie, you don't have to follow me around on Panda's Thumb. There's probably enough room not to cross paths:)

Cheers, Navy Davy

Do you speak like this to people in person or only thru the safety of cyberspace?

It's interesting how the Bathroom Wall can sprout some significant issues. I like Russell's idea: if someone finds a science teacher teaching in a public school science class, as a conclusion of science, that science in general or evolutionary theory in particular eliminates the need for God or disproves the existence of God, I will sign (or write if need be) a petition stating that that position should not be taught as science and asking that that person be asked to refrain from so teaching.

Navy Davy: resident, churlish troll at the P.T. Did he pay for the franchise? Why bother responding to him UNLESS he happens to raise, without his knowledge, an interesting point?

I needed no more proof that anyone still in favor of the creationist or creationist-lite ID nonsense after going through even the lay evidence is completely insincere. And yet I receive such wherever I chase this topic.
How it pains, and angers, me to be unable to even basically respect an opponent.

I like Russell's idea: if someone finds a science teacher teaching in a public school science class, as a conclusion of science, that science in general or evolutionary theory in particular eliminates the need for God or disproves the existence of God, I will sign (or write if need be) a petition stating that that position should not be taught as science and asking that that person be asked to refrain from so teaching.

— Jack

If you liked the idea, you shouldn't have altered it.  Russel said nothing about the "need" for God. 

Does science directly address the existance of God?: No. 2) does a competent scientific theory "need" a supernatural being to manipulate reality? No.  This is similar to Laplace's retort to Napoleon regarding the absent God in his analysis of planetary movement, "I have no need of that hypothesis."

1) the psychological well being of some people seems contingent on their belief in the supernatural.  This is an issue available to scientific study by specialists in psychopathology.

No, but the poster named john did - he was the one who first brought this phrase up, and it was he that I was quoting (See the post before mine on June 3.)

"Perhaps you're not even aware that the theory of evolution is being taught in high schools and colleges all over this country, (probably all over the world), improperly, that is, it is being taught as a theory which at least eliminates the need for the existence of God, and at worst as a theory which "proves" to students that God does not exist. Of course in this country, to even mention God in school, is unconstitutional. I have a big problem with that. Evolution should be taught as the theory that it is; a theory that we all should be able to agree upon, can not disprove the existence of God the Creator. That is the truth; the way we are now teaching evolution is ignorant!

— john

I broke the rules. I prayed in a public school. I'm such a menace to society.

It's no use trying to pretend that you're sincerely trying to hold a rational discussion. e.g. JACK: I was indicating that a cosmological belief which science "invalidated" for hundreds of years has now been returned to the fold by science. VIRGE: You know as well as we do that the belief in perfectly circular orbits of planets locked in crystal spheres centred on the earth hasn't been restored to scientific credibility.

John's "need for the existence of God" in the sense that Laplace used it is certainly eliminated by evolutionary biology as an explanation of the origin of species.

Jack:
Because certain effects are observed at a microevolutionary level it is assumed that the entire genome is affected in the same way, despite evidence to the contrary.

(1) I can see "micro"-evolutionary changes with my own eyes, within my own (admittedly short) attention span. Now it's up to the evolution-deniers to demonstrate to me what is the upper limit of that sort of change over millions of years.

(2) At the risk of sounding like a broken record, what - specifically - is that "evidence to the contrary"?

(2) At the risk of sounding like a broken record, what - specifically - is that "evidence to the contrary"?

Please enlighten.

OK - but you have to promise to really think about this. You may "feel" that there's not enough time, not enough genetic plasticity, or whatever; but that doesn't count. You have to come up with something more explicit, more quantitative, than "obvious limitations"

All the Drosophila experimentation. Why no appearance of any significant branching into something other than Drosophila?

And I thought I had a short attention span! Before you can even start thinking about "macro"-evolution, you have to really get down and dirty with the concept of deep time. I suspect this is the number one hurdle for evo-deniers. How long have we been experimenting with fruitflies? A few decades? What kind of form-changing selection have we imposed?

...dogs stay dogs... I'm missing the link between undeniably observed limitations to the shape-changing abilities of living creatures and the rejection of these observations in order to maintain a theory which flies in the face of these observations

Probably you followed the post here on dog breeds. Let's do a little thought experiment. Take a couple of chihuahuas and leave them on a tropical island with lots of whatever it is chihuahuas can eat in nature. Now take a couple of Norwegian elkhounds, leave them on some arctic island with lots of caribou. Come back in, say, 5,000,000 years. What undeniable shape-changing limitations must I concede - even in the short time we have been breeding dogs (maybe 5000 years?) What will happen to those limitations when I allow 1000X as much time? By what definition are these island canines 5,000,000 years hence likely not to have "speciated apart"?

...obvious physical, scientific evidence... suggests a profound genetic homeostasis...

Not so obvious to me. But then, having spent a lifetime in a laboratory studying biology, I may not get out as much as you do. Can you quantify the profundity of this homeostasis?

... even in microscopic organisms where random effects and natural selection should be having a field day

Oh, they are! Are you familiar with the details of antibiotic resistance genetics? (Depending on what level of evo-denial we're dealing with here, this next one might not be meaningful) - How about all those microbes exquisitely adapted to recently emerging host species?

It [evidence as to the limits of evolutionary change] never flies on this site...

I've tried to show you why.

I appreciate the response or two to my question, Why argue with the creationists? Perhaps there weren't many replies because it was offtopic. I think it's a valid and important question, though, so I'll ask it again.

Obviously there are reasons they must be fought publicly and politically, but since so many if not most of the creationists either 1) are liars or 2) would refuse to accept that the sky is blue if their bible says it's plaid, what's the point? I don't want to argue it, I just want to know why you guys do it. I'll discuss evolution with evolutionists or people who are intelligent and open-minded, but force myself not to debate creationists, because I think it's pointless. But many people do not. So what are the reasons? I'm really curious.

thanks,
Steve

Before you can even start thinking about "macro"-evolution, you have to really get down and dirty with the concept of deep time. I suspect this is the number one hurdle for evo-deniers. How long have we been experimenting with fruitflies? A few decades? What kind of form-changing selection have we imposed?

5000 years of animal breeding. How many millions, billions of generations does this represent?

Geez my brain is busted. I started with horses but switched to dogs but didn't finish my edits. Jack, you can choose horses or dogs.

My apologies for the confusion.

I'm still waiting.

Why argue with the creationists? .... I think it's a valid and important question,... so I'll ask it again. Obviously there are reasons they must be fought publicly and politically, but since so many if not most of the creationists either 1) are liars or 2) would refuse to accept that the sky is blue if their bible says it's plaid, what's the point? I don't want to argue it, I just want to know why you guys do it... So what are the reasons? I'm really curious.

Why argue with the creationists? .... I think it's a valid and important question,... so I'll ask it again. Obviously there are reasons they must be fought publicly and politically, but since so many if not most of the creationists either 1) are liars or 2) would refuse to accept that the sky is blue if their bible says it's plaid, what's the point? I don't want to argue it, I just want to know why you guys do it... So what are the reasons? I'm really curious.

Let's say 100 million generations of fruit flies over 70 years. I bet it's more.

5000 years of animal breeding. How many millions, billions of generations does this represent?

Texas Republican Party Platform:

The Party believes that scientific topics, such as the question of universe and life origins and environmental theories, should not be constrained to one opinion or viewpoint. We support the teaching equally of scientific strengths and weaknesses of all scientific theories--as Texas now requires (but has yet to enforce) in public school science course standards. We urge revising all environmental education standards to require this also. We support individual teachers' right to teach creation science in Texas public schools.

see http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/ for more info

Let's say 100 million generations of fruit flies over 70 years. I bet it's more. Not a whisper of anything except mutations resultant from reshuffling the existing genome and the effects of radiation, chemicals, etc. This seems pretty "deep time" to me.

5000 years of animal breeding. How many millions, billions of generations does this represent?

Genomic variation is clearly visible in superficial animal characteristics but the essential animals remain unaltered. All dogs, despite wild differences in size, etc, have the same number of spinal vertebrae! I call this profound homeostasis.

Duh -- note that I posted the 2000 platform, thinking it was the 2004 platform. Not that I expect the 2004 platform to differ substantially ...

All:

I'm estimating the total number of generations of Drosophila observed in laboratory experiments over 70 years, obviously. A lot of simultaneous generating. So, in all the labs in all the world do we have 3 fruit flies bearing fruit every minute? I think so. Apologies to Bogart.

Now at the risk of inciting a lynching check this out. I'm also counting each individual fly as a "generation" since each fly has an equal chance of producing the kind of "new information" mutation characteristic(s) which would indicate a branching out into something that is not a fruit fly. Random mutation is never going to initially emerge in an entire population, otherwise it can in no way be seen to be a random effect. So we're looking for mutations of a "non-fruit fly nature" in individuals, not populations and the generational calculations must reflect that. I'm assuming that at least some of the characteristics randomly derived would (a) be noticed by the lab team, (b) prove beneficial for survival and that these would be (c) protected by the lab team for their novelty and therefore (d) amplified both mutationally and by selection and that, given the numbers, we would eventually see something emerge that is at least vaguely unlike a fruit fly. Nope, never been seen. In all the labs in all the world over 70 years 100 million generations is conservative. So yes, that's "deep time" because our true scale of measurement is not time but generations. We've observed 100 million fruit fly reproductions with nothing diverging from fruit fly.

Same for horses and dogs. I'm not talking about population generations but individual generations. Random mutation will not be observed initially in populations but in individuals. Each individual generation has an equal chance of producing a mutation which would be selected for or against. If selected for, the trait has a chance of spreading throughout a population. So again, millions of generations.

Hell, while we're at it let's apply the calculation to humans. How many individual human generations have there been in 10,000 years? Billions. How many humans on their way to becoming something else do we see walking around?

Thanks for the info on human vertebrae, Andrea. Not a lot of variance though. With dogs, from what I've read, it doesn't vary from (I think) 37.

Oh, a little fruit fly PS: I remember reading that the little buggers have a kind of built-in genetic "memory effect" and that no matter how badly they get blasted out of shape, as long as they are able to reproduce after a few generations the population reverts to a "normal" state. If anyone has this article I'd appreciate its URL. If not I'll search for it again.

Didn't Dobzhansky, the great grandaddy of Drosophila genetics, register his despair that after a lifetime spent breeding the little critters he had never witnessed anything that qualified as "evolution"? In the grand sense of course.

Geez, Jack, you are either a giant lying sack of horse manure or you are a complete moron.

Okay, so if we take your bogus definition of "generations," and we take your bogus calculations at face value and assume 100 million "generations" in 70 years, then we've got 1.4 x 10E13 "generations" over 10 million years to work with (note: I'm giving you a big break in assuming that there are no more fruit flies in the wild than in the lab).

That's a lot of generations, Jack. Given that it takes a very minor mutation to turn a fly (order Diptera, having one pair of wings) into a non-fly (with two pairs of wings), I'm thinking it's likely that such an event probably happened over the course of 1 x 10E13 "generations". Or it happened the other way around. Or both. Several times.

Bottom line, Jack, is your argument is bogus. Just because you've never seen a fruit fly change into a chimpanzee doesn't mean that God made fruit flies or chimpanzees. That is particularly true when a much more likely, predictive and useful theory has been developed and explored for a 100 years in the face of critics who are much much more intelligent and clever than you.

Lastly, please note that I am revolted by your lying and hypocracy (or saddened by your handicap, whichever is the case).

Well, as a matter of fact, the number of vertebrae, and their distribution in the various "segments" (thoracic, lumbar, etc) are quite variable within species (except for cervical vertebrae). In fact, only a minority of humans (~30 %, if I remember correctly), have the "standard" number or distribution of vertebrae. The generally listed number of vertebrae in humans is 33, but having as many as 35 is not totally uncommon. Whether this shows that people with missing or extra vertebrae are not, to use your jargon, "essential" humans, I'll leave to you.

There is no more dramatic proof of human evolution than those tails, I think.

Jack Shea,
I concede. You've won your argument.

You've proven through your responses that you have the wit and the words to:
- exploit the lack of definition in any written statement,
- redefine your terms as you progress by honing your generalisations to particular instances that can be twisted or reworded to seem relevant, and
- making appeals to evidence that is either non-existent or unsupportable.

I'll work by a process of induction (even though I'm sure you'd find a Humean reason to dispute my approach) to conclude that no matter what anybody writes here, you will find some way to respond that forces the argument to continue.

I consider it most likely that you are here purely for the joy of frivolous intercourse and roisterous remonstration. It's also possible that your intent is more sinister--that you hope to render the Panda's Thumb discussions incomprehensible by your prolific and obfuscated arguments. Unfortunately I still cannot discount the sad possibility that you believe your own arguments.

Regardless of your motives, I expect you'll respond yet again. I may choose to read your responses at some time.

Thanks for the info on human vertebrae, Andrea. Not a lot of variance though. With dogs, from what I've read, it doesn't vary from (I think) 37.

Oh, a little fruit fly PS: I remember reading that the little buggers have a kind of built-in genetic "memory effect" and that no matter how badly they get blasted out of shape, as long as they are able to reproduce after a few generations the population reverts to a "normal" state. If anyone has this article I'd appreciate its URL. If not I'll search for it again.

Didn't Dobzhansky, the great grandaddy of Drosophila genetics, register his despair that after a lifetime spent breeding the little critters he had never witnessed anything that qualified as "evolution"? In the grand sense of course.

(specifics & quantitation):(creationist arguments)::(water):(wicked witch of the west)

Jack Shea: "I'm meeeeeeelting, I'm melting! Oh, what a world! Who woulda thought, a microbiologist like you...!"

very many thanks for the photos. There's just no way to deny what that tail means. Wow. this image in particular http://www.aetheronline.com/mario/images/Evolution/humans%20with%20tails2.gif is just incredible. Creationists can say that's not a real tail, but only fools would believe them.

And by the way, Pim, you never did acknowledge what you meant by the word "ignorance", so I will assume that I was right in my assumption, that the word, ignorance, referred to Creationism.

All I was asking you, Pim, was to also state that this view of evolution, which I mistakenly termed "Hardline Evolution", but should be termed, "Philosophical Materialistic Evolution" and which does CLAIM that God does not exist, was the true ignorance.

— John

Creationist: "Verily I say, the fixity of Human, Features such as the Vertebral Bones, insofar as they are never found to vary in Number, testifies to the Divine Providence which has imbued Life with it's Design."

Evolutionist: "People have varying numbers of vertegbrae."

Creationist: "Uh...The numbers of Vertebrae don't vary too much...uh. (Stupid biologist assholes)...uh anyway The Fixity of the Fruit Fly after husbandry of some three score Years testifies..."

Just out of scientific curiosity...Dr. Bottaro - does the varied number of vertebrae have any effect on or correlation with height? Or does that depend more on the size of the vertebrae (and other bones)? I'd be interested to know how my vertebra count (at a measly 5'6") compares to my friend's vertebra count (he's 6'5"!).

ID: Let's test it before we feed it to our children

Joe P:
To be honest, I have no clue. As far as I am concerned, the variation in human vertebrae is just a factoid I learned in anatomy classes and never gave another thought to. Who would have known vertebrae are so central to species homeostasis for Creationists? ;-)

But, to hazard an answer, I'd expect that, all other things being equal, vertebral number variation would indeed make a difference height-wise (i.e. the size of each vertebra in people with missing or extra vertebrae is unchanged). However, since human variation for height is already quite extensive, I think overall it contributes quite little to it.

Much more likely than not, you can't blame your short stature, or your friend's tallness, to vertebrae.

where i'm from, a little redneck town in north florida, the creationism's a simpler brand than that found here. At the local community college, I remember the anatomy and physiology instructor patiently explaining to a girl that no, the skeleton in class was not a fraud, men aren't missing one rib where god took it and made woman. Not any dumber, but simpler.

Vertebral factoids: height (5-foot 6-inches versus 6-foot 5-inches) is due to growth in the long bones of the legs, not the vertebrae. Ken Saladin's ANP text has a nice photo comparing a typical college student to one with achondroplasia, the proper name for what used to be called dwarfism.

Head and torso sizes are pretty much the same, it's the arms and legs, hands and feet which are different.

Woman aren't "underrepresented" in science. Science isn't some UN delegation. Woman are just bad at science. Most men are too. It's a boring, tedious discipline that attracts many geeks. Posted by: Navy Davy at January 16, 2004 10:56 AM | PERMALINK

Man, what a dumbass.

About the "Adam's Rib" thing...

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=200310132001.h9DK1lOT061665%40vangogh.fdisk.net&output=gplain

Great White:

Geez, Jack, you are either a giant lying sack of horse manure or you are a complete moron.

Thanks for giving me two options. I'm looking for the truth. You're looking for someone to throw stones at.

Okay, so if we take your bogus definition of "generations," and we take your bogus calculations at face value and assume 100 million "generations" in 70 years, then we've got 1.4 x 10E13 "generations" over 10 million years to work with (note: I'm giving you a big break in assuming that there are no more fruit flies in the wild than in the lab).

Don't give me anything bogus. My meaning was that we have witnessed 100 million fruit fly reproductions in 70 years. Studied each little fly meticulously. Gene shuffling, recombination, no genetic information not composed of different versions of what is already there. If that doesn't impress anyone with the homeostatis of the fruit fly then we agree to differ on conclusions. The FACT, however is that no mutations leading to anything other than a morphologically different fruit fly has been observed in many years of genetic experimentation.

I'm thinking it's likely that such an event probably happened over the course of 1 x 10E13 "generations". Or it happened the other way around. Or both. Several times.

"I'm thinking it's likely. Now that's science!

Just because you've never seen a fruit fly change into a chimpanzee doesn't mean that God made fruit flies or chimpanzees.

Who said anything about God? You people are so religious. You always assume God is the purported answer. I'm exploring observed homeostasis in fruit flies. It is PROVEN to exist. What does that mean?

Lastly, please note that I am revolted by your lying and hypocracy (or saddened by your handicap, whichever is the case).

Another perceptive scientific comment. Do you even know the meaning of the word (sic) "hypocracy"?

Posted by: Great White Wonder at June 7, 2004 03:57 PM

From Stevie

(a) Creationism's not testable, so not science

Same is true of neodarwinism.

b)creationism is clearly a religion/philosophy, so not a science.

Like neodarwinism. I've posted on this elsewhere but you wouldn't be interested.

c) the overwhelming consensus among biologists does not merely support evolution, but says there's currently no scientific alternative.

"There's nothing else so this must be it"

d) there are thousands of papers, books, even entire journals, supporting/using evolution, none for creationism

See "Geocentric Universe". The evidence is owned by no specific group. ND and ID are different conclusions based on the same evidence. Neither are yet "science".

In short, I believe it's not even necessary to get into any biological details to refute that religious nonsense is science. I suspect it might even be an error, because it causes the lay audience to start evaluating the scientific merits of the details of evolution, which they're not capable of doing.

Poor dumb laymen. Let's keep them in the dark because they're too stupid to understand what we scientific geniuses are up to.
-------------------

From Virge:

I concede. You've won your argument.

Thank you.

You've proven through your responses that you have the wit and the words to:
- exploit the lack of definition in any written statement,
- redefine your terms as you progress by honing your generalisations to particular instances that can be twisted or reworded to seem relevant, and
- making appeals to evidence that is either non-existent or unsupportable.

One definition of "generation" is: ""The offspring of a certain parent or couple considered as a step in natural descent". I was not outside the bounds of the English language but should have been more specific.

I consider it most likely that you are here purely for the joy of frivolous intercourse and roisterous remonstration. It's also possible that your intent is more sinister

I just wanto to know how 100 million individual generations of fruit flies exhibit genus homeostasis. I REALLY, TRULY want to know. No one can tell me, not even you, Virge.

-------------
Andrea

LOL, Jack, if you seriously believe that evolutionary biology predicts one speciation event every 10^8 new individuals, which is about 2.5 events in the genus Homo per generation in the US alone, and about 50 events worldwide, you do need to do some serious basic reading on the subject.

I'm not looking for an entirely new species. I'm looking for evidence of a single morphological occurrence in Drosophila which can be definitely said to be the result of something other than the existing genetic information in the creature under study. Goldschmidt didn't find it, Dobzhansky didn't find it, no one has found it. Here are quotes:

"In the best-known organisms, like Drosophila, innumerable mutants are known. If we were able to combine a thousand or more of such mutants in a single individual, this still would have no resemblance whatsoever to any type known as a [new] species in nature."-Richard B. Goldschmidt, "Evolution, As Viewed by One Geneticist," American Scientist, January 1952, p. 94.

And here's Dobzhansky:
"Most mutants which arise in any organism are more or less disadvantageous to their possessors. The classical mutants obtained in Drosophila usually show deterioration, breakdown, or disappearance of some organs. Mutants are known which diminish the quantity or destroy the pigment in the eyes, and in the body reduce the wings, eyes, bristles, legs. Many mutants are, in fact lethal to their possessors. Mutants which equal the normal fly in vigor are a minority, and mutants that would make a major improvement of the normal organization in the normal environments are unknown."---*Theodosius Dobzhansky, Evolution, Genetics, and Man (1955), p. 105."

Please do indeed find a reference (genetic memory effect in Drosophila), as I am quite certain you're remembering wrong.

Still searching.

-------------

Russell:

In the discussion here, I think I've just learned a useful lesson, that could be summarized thus:

(specifics & quantitation):(creationist arguments)::(water):(wicked witch of the west)

I think my work here is done . . . [flush] . . .

See you back at the bar!

See ya Russell!

Joe:

In honor of Russell:

Jack Shea:
"I'm meeeeeeelting, I'm melting! Oh, what a world! Who woulda thought, a microbiologist like you . . . !"

With apologies to Jack Shea. Who still unbelievably said there would be 100 million generations of fruit flies in 70 years. And then tried to redefine what a "generation" is. Hmm. Maybe no apologies. ;)

Why apologize? I clarified. Deal with the arguments posed by the clarification. Interpret the implications inherent in the observations of Goldschmidt and Dobzhansky. Please don't just say "we need more time".

A little melting never hurt anyone.

----------------
Stevie

Creationist: "Verily I say, the fixity of Human, Features such as the Vertebral Bones, insofar as they are never found to vary in Number, testifies to the Divine Providence which has imbued Life with it's Design."

No, it goes: "Experimental evidence and observations of animal husbandry prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that species seem to possess a profound homeostasis with only minor superficial variations from their original morphology observed in all offpsring over millions of individual generations".

------------------------

Virge:

Here's my contribution to a possible list of Anti-ID sound bites:

ID: Let's test it before we feed it to our children

Neodarwinism: "We believe. That's enough"

I have been trying to keep an eye on this thread for the past few days, because I too am interested in seeing a detailed answer to Jack Shea's specific posts concerning
fruit flies and genus homeostasis.

So far, there seems to be a lot of artful dodging going on, while Shea has established his point clearly.

I would think that somebody could put aside the dodging and get on with a definitive, direct, detailed rebuttal.

(Or if not, at least to simply honestly acknowledge that Shea has got a point there after all.)

Exactly how does 100 million individual generations of fruit flies exhibit genus homeostasis, anyway?

FL :-)

FL:
So far, there seems to be a lot of artful dodging going on, while Shea has established his point clearly.
I would think that somebody could put aside the dodging and get on with a definitive, direct, detailed rebuttal.

Artful dodging??? Established his point clearly????? Sorry to break up this mutual reinforcement of ignorance meeting, but Jack had said "Please enlighten". I said "OK, but you have to promise to really think about it". I took him at his word, and he broke my heart. The subsequent discussion established this undeniable fact (understated here for brevity):
#fruitflies observed in labs in 70 yrs

#fruitflies observed in labs in 70 yrs <<<<<<<<< #fruitflies in history of earth

selective pressure in lab <<<<<<<<<< selective pressure in real life

Exactly how does 100 million individual generations of fruit flies exhibit genus homeostasis, anyway?

In case it wasn't clear... It seems in his zeal to cheerlead everything that Jack writes, FL failed to notice that Jack accidentally shot himself in the foot here. See, it was Jack who claimed that the lack of surprises in lab flies demonstrated "genus homeostasis" in the first place. No serious biologist would ever think that.

I think Jack's confident belief that evolutionary theory would predict at least one major mutation causing a macroevolutionary transition every 10^8 individuals might make sense, assuming his main reference source for mutation genetics is X-Men comics...
;-)

In fact, a main point of my chapter on the four winged fruit fly is precisely that DNA (through RNA) does make proteins---but that proteins alone are insufficient to specify the body plan of of an organism, just as building materials are insufficient to specify the floor plan of a house. Defective 2 by 4's can produce a deformed house, and mutant proteins can produce a deformed organism. Mutant proteins might even explain how some organisms might have lost previously existing features. But they do not account for changes in body plans. When it comes to the evolution of new morphologies or body plans, the question remains: Where is the evidence that DNA mutations can alter anatomy in beneficial ways and thereby provide raw materials for evolution? It seems to me that this is a reasonable question.

Jack: Because certain effects are observed at a microevolutionary level it is assumed that the entire genome is affected in the same way, despite evidence to the contrary. Me: (1) I can see "micro"-evolutionary changes with my own eyes... Now it's up to the evolution-deniers to demonstrate to me what is the upper limit of that sort of change over millions of years. (2) ... what - specifically - is that "evidence to the contrary"?

However, what I'd been hoping to see from you or others, was some specific evidence that shows whow, after (for example) 100 million generations of fast-breeding genetic fruit fly lab gigs over seven decades, we honestly KNOW (not merely conjecture or speculate, but know) that X million years of real-life selection pressure and X zillion fruit flies later, we would actually find something other than the seven-decade lab results which could be summarized as "at the end of the day, a fruit fly is still a fruit fly."

...Goldschmidt and Dobzhansky quotations which helped make Shea's point clear and which nobody addressed.)

Well, enlighten me. Show me.

There is one other question I'd like to bring up and see addressed, btw. [...Jonathan Wells stuff]

FL, here's one (of many hundreds of possible) answer to the stupid question posed by Wells above.

A single point mutation in a protein can increase the activity of the protein. Let me know if you need evidence for this.

Such point mutations can be observed in individuals in just about any significant population of living organisms (e.g., a city of humans; a bacterial culture).

A point mutation in an enzyme which is involved in the deposition of a tissue, e.g., a bone tissue, can lead to stronger bones. Let me know if you doubt this is true. Stronger bones can be beneficial. Let me know if you doubt this is true.

Similarly, a point mutation in a receptor in a cell can cause the receptor to be more sensitive to agonists, e.g., molecules which are associated with food. Let me know if you doubt this is true. A more sensitive receptor can be beneficial. Let me know if you doubt this is true.

So much for "the evidence that DNA mutations can alter anatomy in beneficial ways." Please let me know if you are so ignorant of the scientific literature that you need me to do a PubMed search for you.

Also, please let your hero Mr. Wells know he can start fxxxing himself anytime.

I think that the timing of this fly spec, err speciation rap could not have been better. I saw this posted to No Answers in Genesis:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3790531.stm

Since this is the 'bathroom wall' and you are discussing flies, you might enjoy the origin of the phrase "off the wall." It comes from jazz slang for a melody so strange it was said to be played "off the wall" meaning: charted from the fly specs (feces) on the wall.

GWW, if I remember correctly one of the best examples of very tiny mutations producing beneficial effects is the one that produces sicle-cell trait. I seem to remember there's just like one or two base pair changes from the part that codes for hemoglobin (B?) which causes a change in frame which causes sickle-cell. Beneficial because, of course, people with sickle cell trait are much more likely to survive malaria.

When it comes to the evolution of new morphologies or body plans, the question remains: Where is the evidence that DNA mutations can alter anatomy in beneficial ways and thereby provide raw materials for evolution?

It doesn't fail to meet the standard. The single point mutation for sickle-cell drastically alters the anatomy and physiology of the blood, which, remember, is an organ. The variant form of hemoglobin polymerizes in the RBC, entirely changing the shape of the RBC and affecting the uptake of oxygen, the infectability of the cell, and the way it interacts with the blood vessels, spleen, etc. This alteration is very beneficial for people in high-malaria environments, and is now found in a majority of people who inhabit those areas. This is a clear example of genetic and morphological differences resulting from almost the simplest possible mutation, altering the anatomy in beneficial ways, and environmental selection pressure causing the mutation to spread within the affected population.

About the creationists, I'm sure they can find some words to string together which they think negates the example somehow, but some people will always refuse to understand, and that's their problem.

Nowhere and everywhere (#40) Navy Davy (User Info) Posted on: Thu Jun 3rd, 2004 at 11:00:33 AM EST ***Hey, ND! Where ya been*** Moe, I've been roamin' the countryside, like Caine, in Kung Fu, cogitatin' over worldly matters and contemplatin' my feeble existence in this vast game, we call life...... or some sh$t like dat! No divorce, no health problems, no nuthin' -- just took a break from the internet.

I think if I'd been outed as an HIV-denying creationist, I'd probably slink away for while too, and come back under an untraceable assumed name like Barley Zagner, Lamie Jamie, or LF.

I would think that somebody could put aside the dodging and get on with a definitive, direct, detailed rebuttal.

Jack's response - that 70 years of fruitfly experiments is a reasonable approximation of "deep time" - was rightly and roundly derided. Relative to numbers relevant to evolution(#years, #flies), Jack's numbers don't even approach infinitesimal.

That's because we're all ashamed to admit that there really is no answer. Seriously: why in the world don't we just let G&D speak for themselves??? You'll notice they didn't conclude that there was any need to abandon evolutionary theory.

Jack:
we actually have a very good idea of mutation rates, fixation times, selection coefficients, oftentimes by direct measurement. Needless to say, they are not compatible with the kind of evolution you say would be expected. Indeed, what is empirically observed fits quite well the expectations based on existing gradualistic models, from which the meaning of "deep time" (in terms of actual generations as well as geological time) can be measured quite reasonably, and are found to be compatible with the fossil record.

For you to insist with a straight face that instead evolutionary theory predicts openly absurd scenarios, as several dozens incipient human speciations on the planet right now, is either a good old-fashioned strawman argument trick, or it's frankly plain loony.

You seem to be impervious to reasonable criticism. More than telling you that your stated expectations for macroevolutionary change are the product of your imagination, or of your ignarance, and have nothing to do with modern evolutionary theory, I don't think we can do. If you think that this argument scores you some points in the debate, think again: you are making a fool of yourself.

If you think that this argument scores you some points in the debate, think again: you are making a fool of yourself. Posted by: Andrea Bottaro at June 11, 2004 05:29 AM

we actually have a very good idea of mutation rates, fixation times, selection coefficients, oftentimes by direct measurement. 

Needless to say, they are not compatible with the kind of evolution you say would be expected. 

Indeed, what is empirically observed fits quite well the expectations based on existing gradualistic models, from which the meaning of "deep time" (in terms of actual generations as well as geological time) can be measured quite reasonably, and are found to be compatible with the fossil record. 

People who understand evolution notice that nearly all of the anti-evolution things they hear are based on misunderstandings so basic that you wouldn't expect them from a sophomore bio major.

Jack,

Hox genes - great things, absolutely fascinating. So many new discoveries and bits of the puzzle being filled in at an ever increasing rate. If you haven't read it, try "Sudden Origins" by Jeffrey H. Schwartz, copyright 1999. It was my introduction to the little buggers.

Isn't it a shame the ID folks don't spend more time in the lab? Who knows, they might could even come up with some real science.

The first Icon I will explore is the Icon of the Explanatory Filter being reliable, or in the words of Dembski "No false positives"

Hey Charlie,

Did you ever get your "Nelson's Law" published? You assert that it is this rule that governs the universe, but I don't see a single reference to it in the scientific literature. All I see are a bunch of posts on TO and PT.

Did you ever get your "Nelson's Law" published? You assert that it is this rule that governs the universe, but I don't see a single reference to it in the scientific literature.

No. There are no such references. The validity of a scientific law is not dependent upon whether or not it is published in some book.

— Charlie

If you think you can falsify it, be my guest.

Actually it is.

It is not my job to falsify your "law."

As I have seen occur on PT, if any evidence contradicts your law, then you argue that the evidence is wrong because of the law and not that the law is wrong because of the evidence.

Nelson's Law states clearly that complex, highly organized systems in which multiple structures support multiple processes and wherin these structures and processes are integrated in such a way that they support each other and they support the overall function of the system, cannot arise without the benefit of intelligent guidance...If you think you can falsify it, be my guest.

Charlie,

What tests and experiments did you perform in the process of elevating your initial hypothesis to the status of a Law? I'd really be interested in looking at your process - could you post some excerpts from your journals?

Why do you waste your time with Dembski when Nelson's Law remains unchallenged and unfalsified?

— charlie wagner

But seriously, I would agree with Nelson's law, as you state it, with regard to the development of life, if natural selection can be considered as "intelligent guidance".

I hereby offer Wagner's Law, in honor of C.W.

Wagner's Law: Evolution is incapable of producing life because I don't understand how it could and don't believe it.

That Law is irrefutable, and nobody has ever proved to my satisfaction that it is wrong.

Charlie Wagner: As you know, natural selection can only act on what is already present.

Pete, mutations magically happen only in such ways that no benefit can ever come of them, which would contribute to the changing of the genotype and eventually, speciation, etc. They only go forward when it's clear that no substatial change will occur.

It's very mysterious.

;-)

What tests and experiments did you perform in the process of elevating your initial hypothesis to the status of a Law? I'd really be interested in looking at your process - could you post some excerpts from your journals?

My self-taught insights (see Wagner's Law, above) into Statistical Biophysics confound the experts, shaking biology to its core. I bestride the field like a colossus.

What tests and experiments did you perform in the process of elevating your initial hypothesis to the status of a Law? I'd really be interested in looking at your process - could you post some excerpts from your journals?

According to the barely comprehensible definition of "complex machine" CW provided, the Grand Canyon is a complex machine. It is also something that is not the product of ID, but can be explained by random processes or known laws of physics. Hence, it is not true that "all observed complex, highly organized machines whose origins can be determined with certainty are the product of intelligent design."

Rather like hunting deer in a petting zoo, don't you think? Sorry to ruin a lifetime of work, Charlie.

I have examined numerous wildflowers and trees in the woods. They plant themselves and grow spontaneously. Botanists have discovered that they all have genes, and that comparisons of genes among divers plants shows a pattern consistent with descent with modification. Although fish seem to appear out of nowhere in the grocery store, I have observed that they too grow spontaneously in the wild, and they too have genes indicating descent with modification. I have observed stars, planets and galaxies. Although they lack genes, the evidence is consistent with their having formed spontaneously due to gravity and Newton's laws.

Then there are television sets and energizer bunnies. I don't know where they come from. But since the vast majority of complex things in the universe form spontaneously, I conclude that these items must do the same, when no one is looking. Maybe someday when I am walking in the woods I will find a secret underground warren where energizer bunnies make themselves.

Charlie, you are making a known ID argument, a favorite of Behe's. Of course you have observed a large number of TV sets, bicycles and so on. I think your reference to Heath kits is a clue. You have Engineering Syndrome. From time an engineer of perhaps an MD, or that type of person, truly can't imagine that living things work quite differently than manufactured items. And the person is absolutely certain that biology is constrained by his imagination.

Behe, who gained insight (he thought) into living organisms from assembling a tricycle for his daughter, tries to pass this argument off as merely a (bad) analogy. But it is a blatant non sequitur. It amounts to saying that since man made items are man made, things that appear not to be man made must really be made by an invisible man. It is just as good (or bad) to argue that apparently man made items must really be formed naturally because natural things are.

The Siberian Railway

The rails had finally been extended through some very remote villages.
The very first train was soon to arrive among people who knew only
horses and buggies. What was it, really? How could it work? A group
of peasants gathered around the local priest to hear him explain it.
He had been educated in a city, and could read. He explained about
the fire in the boiler, the steam, and the pistons as best he could.
As he finished, there was a silence. Then one of the peasants spoke:
"Yes, we know about that, Padre, but tell us, there is really a giant
horse inside, isn't there?

Acknowledgement: ??

This is not original but I don't know the source.

Hi Charlie,

Man, I've got to tell you, I bow to your rhetorical brilliance! You rock, dude! Reading your response to my sincere request has afforded me the most fun I've experienced in the past month at least. It was an absolute hoot, and I thank you, really I do.

It's gonna take me a while to sort through and digest the plethora of detailed information you've inundated me with - I'm not complaining, mind you, I asked for it - and no reference intended to the Flood, concerning your process. I'm an artist, and I've always been fascinated with process. From my perspective, it's what makes the world go 'round.

I do have a question, though. I may have more after I've assimilated all you've given me, but this one stems from an initial observation.

I couldn't help but notice that the examples you offered as definitely the product of intelligent design were all inanimate appliances and machines manufactured through human agency (and I'd like to thank you again here, for not trotting out Jerry Don Bauer's tired and overused toaster as an example of this category); those clearly not the result of intelligent design are all natural phenonema; and those in the Undecided camp are all animate living organisms. That's a truly elegant sorting. How did you arrive at it? Perhaps it was just a random chance happening?

There seem to me to be some flaws in your stated methodology/process. Since we know a priori that all machines constructed by human agency are ipso facto the product of intelligent design, we would not expect to find any contradiction of that a priori assumption in any appliance or machine known to have been designed and manufactured through human agency.

Leaving aside the area of acknowledged natural phenomena, we next deal with animate living entities. You initially place these in the Undecided camp, but then claim that since they are complex and highly organized they must, obviously, be attributed to intelligent design. This is a premature and unsupported extrapolation which presumes that parameters for the design of an inanimate washing machine have any bearing on the design of an anmimate organism.

Enough for the moment. It's been a long day.I'll pick it up again tomorrow.

I initially posted this on the wrong thread. Don't have a clue why.

Hi Charlie,

Man, I've got to tell you, I bow to your rhetorical brilliance! You rock, dude! Reading your response to my sincere request has afforded me the most fun I've experienced in the past month at least. It was an absolute hoot, and I thank you, really I do.

It's gonna take me a while to sort through and digest the plethora of detailed information you've inundated me with - I'm not complaining, mind you, I asked for it - and no reference intended to the Flood, concerning your process. I'm an artist, and I've always been fascinated with process. From my perspective, it's what makes the world go 'round.

I do have a question, though. I may have more after I've assimilated all you've given me, but this one stems from an initial observation.

I couldn't help but notice that the examples you offered as definitely the product of intelligent design were all inanimate appliances and machines manufactured through human agency (and I'd like to thank you again here, for not trotting out Jerry Don Bauer's tired and overused toaster as an example of this category); those clearly not the result of intelligent design are all natural phenonema; and those in the Undecided camp are all animate living organisms. That's a truly elegant sorting. How did you arrive at it? Perhaps it was just a random chance happening?

There seem to me to be some flaws in your stated methodology/process. Since we know a priori that all machines constructed by human agency are ipso facto the product of intelligent design, we would not expect to find any contradiction of that a priori assumption in any appliance or machine known to have been designed and manufactured through human agency.

Leaving aside the area of acknowledged natural phenomena, we next deal with animate living entities. You initially place these in the Undecided camp, but then claim that since they are complex and highly organized they must, obviously, be attributed to intelligent design. This is a premature and unsupported extrapolation which presumes that parameters for the design of an inanimate washing machine have any bearing on the design of an anmimate organism.

Enough for the moment. It's been a long day.I'll pick it up again tomorrow.

Every "complex machine" (as defined by CW) whose invention we know about was invented by a human. Living things match all the criteria of "complex machines" (as defined by CW). Therefore living things were invented by humans. Humans are living things. Humans were invented by humans. Humans preexisted humans in order to be able to invent humans... POW! Omigod! my brain just exploded!

I don't see that it makes any point that someone in the Swedish Academy decides that this work is noble enough to receive a prize. I've already got the prize. The prize is the pleasure of finding the thing out, the kick in the discovery, the observation that other people use it. Those are the real things.

— Richard Feynman

Hot Damn, Russell! By George - or should that be "By Nelson"? - I believe you've got it! Charlie may rock, but you kick! Sorry about your brain exploding, though - damnably inconvenient, that.

I am, therefore I was, that I might again be. I like it, it has a spiritual sort of a cadence to it.

Say--could we have a link to the Bathroom Wall created on the main page? Clicking through two pages is just too much for my lazy fingers.

Oh, and it's interesting to note that Charlie distinguishes canyons from machines--saying the latter is designed; the former a result of natural processes. I suppose "Nelson's Law" wouldn't be terribly popular among theologians (and Christian IDists), who tend to view natural processes themselves as acts of either initial or ongoing divine creativity. God, supposedly, made canyons, too.

I think we can all agree that living things are unlike any other phenomena. Creationists can identify "unnatural" features of living things to try to prove that life was made by something man-like. I think we can agree that life is very special, and it is amazing that such a special thing came into existance, regardless of how you believe it came into existance.

But having said that, analogies between life and man-made objects don't prove anything about the origin of life. First of all because the natural explaination for life accounts for these analogies, second because the differences between life and man made objects are as pronounced as the similarities, and third because any similarity of man-made objects to life could be a result of man copying life.

After all, man didn't invent anything completely from scratch, we had models in the natural world to inspire us. Isn't a computer the result of a conscious effort to make a machine that does what a brain does? Isn't a car the culmination of centuries of effort to create something that does what a horse does? If the artificial atmosphere on a space station resembles the atmosphere on earth, it isn't because the earth's atmosphere is artificial, it's because man was copying the natural one.

Finding a watch makes us look for a watchmaker because watches are devices that only make sense in relation to some being intelligent enough to want to know what time it is. In this respect, living things are very, very different than watches because they aren't tools. Animals---ask any cat---do not exist for the benefit of anybody but themselves. The traditional version of the argument from design is, like so much of Creationist and ID Ideology, a left-over from the intellectual world of the 18th Century when living bodies, including human bodies, were thought of as machines whose existence, like the watch found on the lawn, implied the existence of spiritual beings---Gods and souls---to create and operate them.

At Monash University in the late 1970s, a toilet door that had been covered in graffiti was repainted. Next day: "This door is now in a second edition"... was written on it.

How often will this door be repatined?

Man, I've got to tell you, I bow to your rhetorical brilliance! You rock, dude! Reading your response to my sincere request has afforded me the most fun I've experienced in the past month at least. It was an absolute hoot, and I thank you, really I do.

I couldn't help but notice that the examples you offered as definitely the product of intelligent design were all inanimate appliances and machines manufactured through human agency

those clearly not the result of intelligent design are all natural phenonema; and those in the Undecided camp are all animate living organisms. That's a truly elegant sorting. How did you arrive at it? Perhaps it was just a random chance happening?

There seem to me to be some flaws in your stated methodology/process. Since we know a priori that all machines constructed by human agency are ipso facto the product of intelligent design, we would not expect to find any contradiction of that a priori assumption in any appliance or machine known to have been designed and manufactured through human agency.

Leaving aside the area of acknowledged natural phenomena, we next deal with animate living entities. You initially place these in the Undecided camp, but then claim that since they are complex and highly organized they must, obviously, be attributed to intelligent design. This is a premature and unsupported extrapolation which presumes that parameters for the design of an inanimate washing machine have any bearing on the design of an anmimate organism.

How often will this door be repatined?

Geezus, Charlie, you must be smoking some nasty nasty bud these days. Please send some my way! How about this take on your experiment:

1. We know that all complex machines which ever existed were intelligently designed by humans.

2. We know that nearly all living organisms weren't created or designed by humans because nearly all species were here before humans were.

3. We know that the types of organisms living on the planet changed over time and at the earliest time points, the only organisms we have evidence of are single-celled organisms.

4. Therefore, life on Earth evolved and humans could not have designed all the life on earth.

Let me know which of these points you disagree with and why, and if you need to invoke aliens, provide us with your proof that aliens exist (you know, kind of like how scientists have proof that organisms and their genomes change over time as they adapt to changes in their environment). Also, let me know if you've ever been contacted by any aliens, even if they were too stupid in your opinion to have designed all of the living organisms on earth.

Oh, and how do you know for certain, Charlie, that the same aliens who designed all of the living creatures on earth didn't also design Stonehenge, the Easter Island Monuments, the Great Pyramids of Egypt, the Grand Canyon and the Shroud of Turin. According to your argument, all of these things are more likely to be designed by aliens than by humans because you can't explain exhaustively every aspect of their creation and operation. Right? Or am I missing something? (this last question is rhetorical, of course -- I know where your comin' from, Chaz)

charlie:

I have noted one interesting difference between type 1 CHOMs (human designed) and type 2 CHOMs (unknown designer): All of the type 1 CHOMs are designed by humans and then built by humans. All of the type 2 CHOMs, however, self-assemble. This self-assembly is done according to a set of included instructions, which were inherited from previously existing CHOMs and in turn will be passed on to successive CHOMs. Furthermore, it is known that said instructions, while typically having a high degree of fidelity, are sometimes subject to random changes.

If it could be shown that these random changes could, even rarely, have a positive effect, however slight, upon a particular CHOM's ability to thrive, then it stands to reason that later CHOMs containing such positive changes would come to dominate the local CHOM population. The accumulation of thousands of such changes over millions of years could, at least in theory, be responsible for much of the variety that exists in CHOMs today. I think I'll call it The Theory of Differential Reproductive Success in Type Two CHOMs.

While this theory does not eliminate the possibility of an intelligent designer, it seems to make it possible that the postulation of such a designer is not strictly necessary.

The accumulation of thousands of such changes over millions of years could, at least in theory, be responsible for much of the variety that exists in CHOMs today.

Hey Charlie, I'm thoroughly enjoying our conversation. I'm not sure you know what you're talking about, and I don't agree with any of your conclusions, but so what, that'as besice the point.

Concerning "animate" and "inanimate" - contrary to your claim, the terms are at the heart of this discussion. Animate means alive, inanimate means not alive. My statement concerning known products of intelligent design stands unrebutted - they are all INANIMATE machines conceived, designed, and manufactured by human beings.

The analogy, or perhaps more to the point, extrapolation from known human manufactured appliances to living organisms is simply not supported by any evidence or data legitimizing such a jump. Our positions are fundamentally different, and it will take something more concrete than Nelson's Law to bridge the gulf.

I to have problems using the word "design" in these discussions. But, no disrespect intended, I cannot accept using CHOMS - it's just too damned close to CHUDs, which was a rather bad SF movie about "Cannibalistic Humanoid Underground Dwellers" that was around somewhere up to 10 or so years ago.

Back to the crux:

You said

"1. all CHOMS, whose origins can be determined, are the product of intelligent input.
2. No entity whose origin could be determined, that was not the product of intelligent input was a CHOM.*
*(It would, of course be possible for a structure or process to be intelligently designed, yet not be a CHOM. I could build an igloo out of ice blocks or create a waterfall in my garden. This is where Dembski goes astray, by not limiting his designed objects to CHOMS)
3. Living organisms are CHOMS
Therefore:
4. Living organisms are the product of intelligent input."

Your #2 is the crux here. The only CHOMS whose origins have been determined happen to be appliances, constructs, and machines of human manufacture. These will be, by your definition, CHOMS. By the way, an igloo, by definition, is both complex and specified, and therefore a CHOM. Or are you suggesting that polar bears or frostheaves are responsible? These are the only CHOMS whose origins CAN be determined. The bottom line - your whole argument is end-loaded bullshit. There is a gaping chasm between #1/2 and #4.

But don't despair, Charlie - I am truly enjoying our exchanges,and am happily prepared to continue.

Let me know which of these points you disagree with and why,

let me know if you've ever been contacted by any aliens, even if they were too stupid in your opinion to have designed all of the living organisms on earth.

Oh, and how do you know for certain, Charlie, that the same aliens who designed all of the living creatures on earth didn't also design Stonehenge, the Easter Island Monuments, the Great Pyramids of Egypt, the Grand Canyon and the Shroud of Turin. According to your argument, all of these things are more likely to be designed by aliens than by humans because you can't explain exhaustively every aspect of their creation and operation. Right?

I know where your comin' from, Chaz

we can't say with certainty that all species were here before humans. Humans or humanoids life forms may have come here many times over the past eons and left few remains.

After all, DNA is immortal, it requires no air, no water and no food to survive.

In sum, I intentionally wrote the article so that any competent physicist or mathematician (or undergraduate physics or math major) would realize that it is a spoof. Evidently the editors of Social Text felt comfortable publishing an article on quantum physics without bothering to consult anyone knowledgeable in the subject.

Why did I do it? While my method was satirical, my motivation is utterly serious. What concerns me is the proliferation, not just of nonsense and sloppy thinking per se, but of a particular kind of nonsense and sloppy thinking: one that denies the existence of objective realities, or (when challenged) admits their existence but downplays their practical relevance.

In the end, I resorted to parody for a simple pragmatic reason. The targets of my critique have by now become a self-perpetuating academic subculture that typically ignores (or disdains) reasoned criticism from the outside. In such a situation, a more direct demonstration of the subculture's intellectual standards was required. But how can one show that the emperor has no clothes? Satire is by far the best weapon; and the blow that can't be brushed off is the one that's self-inflicted. I offered the Social Text editors an opportunity to demonstrate their intellectual rigor. Did they meet the test? I don't think so.

DNA may be immortal---actually it isn't--but DNA by itself is just an inert chemical. DNA only does its stuff in a favorable environment with the right temperature, pH, and enzymes. The aliens from Uranus may have shot the ancient earth full of DNA samples. Absent cells with metabolism or some functional equivalent, it wouldn't have made any difference.

Charlie is like the idiot who used to follow Descartes around Paris saying, "I think...but I don't think I am." He's not a debater. He's a pest.

DNA IS TOO IMMORTAL! You scientists are fools to put it in -30ºC freezers, and concern yourself with nonsense like pH! You clearly were taught by Darwinists, who are such fools, their understanding of biology is dwarfed by the average evangelical HS graduate. You poor, poor dears. Good thing I'm around. Hope the luminosity of my insights haven't driven you mad. It is with a heavy heart that I try to show you the error of your ways. I fear that to you, it is like looking directly at the sun.

Could someone explain to me what Ploink Ploink is again? I forgot.

After over a 100 years of studies, scientists have not presented us with any objective or empirical evidence which shows that a fly can give birth to a whale.

Some evolutionist help me out here--it seems ID has the typical Arg from Design problem of Infinite Regress. Does the mysterious designer, being something complex, have to've been designed, or can it be something complex which wasn't designed, undermining their core axiom?

The Bathroom Wall just exceeded 27,000 words. I hate to ask for things, but can't there be some kind of limit and trashing of the oldest posts? Like 10,000 words or so? It's taxing my machine, and my poor physics-student budget can't go out and buy Quad Xeon machines like you glamorous and wealthy professor types. This request is also on behalf of the local creationists, whose 486's with DOS 5 and the Lynx browser is having an even harder time of it, what with NetZero being so slow and all.

Humbly submitted,
Steve

Steve,

As RBH has mentioned, run the Designer through the Explanitory Filter and He comes up as designed.

I have noted one interesting difference between type 1 CHOMs (human designed) and type 2 CHOMs (unknown designer): All of the type 1 CHOMs are designed by humans and then built by humans. All of the type 2 CHOMs, however, self-assemble. This self-assembly is done according to a set of included instructions, which were inherited from previously existing CHOMs and in turn will be passed on to successive CHOMs.

Furthermore, it is known that said instructions, while typically having a high degree of fidelity, are sometimes subject to random changes.

If it could be shown that these random changes could, even rarely, have a positive effect, however slight, upon a particular CHOM's ability to thrive, then it stands to reason that later CHOMs containing such positive changes would come to dominate the local CHOM population. The accumulation of thousands of such changes over millions of years could, at least in theory, be responsible for much of the variety that exists in CHOMs today. I think I'll call it The Theory of Differential Reproductive Success in Type Two CHOMs.

While this theory does not eliminate the possibility of an intelligent designer, it seems to make it possible that the postulation of such a designer is not strictly necessary.

It's designers all the way down.

All complex machines that we know the origin of were designed by an intelligent designer, therefore it is probable that complex machines that we don't know the origin of (i.e. life) were designed by an intelligent designer.

right:
Every x is y
z is an x
therefore z is y

wrong:
Every x we know the origin of is y
z is an x
therefore z is y

Oh, and one more thing Charlie. DNA repair mechanisms are irrelevant to a discussion of evolution.

What matters is, there is a certain frequency of mutations which escape DNA repair and become "fixed" in the genome. These are the mutations that evolutionists are concerned with. DNA damage which is repaired is not the kind of mutations we are talking about, bringing it up only serves to muddy the discussion.

If I can try to read your mind for a minute, you seem to think ...

wrong: Every x we know the origin of is y z is an x therefore z is y

DNA repair mechanisms are irrelevant to a discussion of evolution.

Some evolutionist help me out here---it seems ID has the typical Arg from Design problem of Infinite Regress. Does the mysterious designer, being something complex, have to've been designed, or can it be something complex which wasn't designed, undermining their core axiom?

CW:
Every x we know the origin of is y
z is an x
therefore it is highly likely that z is y

OK. Let's do the substitutions:
x = "CHOM"
y = man-made
z = a sea slug

CW:This is how science works.

Me: Oh, I hope not!

Good gracious, I think you need to desaturate that blue (actually, a greyed rust tone would look good)! Otherwise, nice new style. And you got rid of those tiny panda heads, yay!

Jack Shea said:

"Until science produces the first living organism from nothing Intelligent Design will continue to be the theory of preference for your average human, though he or she will probably never have heard of ID."

But Science has generated a living organism from scratch. See http://www.nature.com/nsu/031110/031110-17.html

This is getting confusing. Near as I can figure, this is where we're at:

1. All CHOMS whose origins are known are the product of human intelligence.

2. Living organisms are CHOMS.

3. It is therefore highly likely that living organisms are the product of human intelligence.

Is that it?

CW: Every x we know the origin of is y z is an x therefore it is highly likely that z is y OK. Let's do the substitutions: x = "CHOM" y = man-made z = a sea slug CW:This is how science works. Me: Oh, I hope not!

Is that it?

CW (then):
Every x we know the origin of is y
z is an x
therefore it is highly likely that z is y

CW (now):
Every (x we know the origin of) is Y
Z is an (x we know the origin of)
Therefore, it is highly likely that z is y

So which one reflects "Nelson's Law"? If it's the first one, we continue to deduce that sea slugs are man-made. The second one allows us to deduce that something (e.g. a submarine) is highly likely to be man-made - provided we already know that it's man-made. That doesn't seem tremendously useful.

This is how tautology works.

What is complexity? Who decides something is complex enough? Isn't complexity relative? If relative where do we draw the boundaries of unguided (uncreated) complexity and complexity that needs guidance for arising. Why do we get to determine that?

Is a water complex enough? Can I say it is complex because if you see it from the quarks and electrons point of view the complexity is just mind boggling and yet these quarks and electrons are so harmonous to create a stable substance at macroscopic level? So is water creation guided by intelligence?

Hey Russel, dig this creationist syllogism:

All blue things we know the origin of are man-made.
The sky is blue.
Therefore, it is highly likely the sky is man made.

Creationists--fun to ridicule, worthless to debate.

I will risk to try some math here (I am not a mathematician):

Let's assume we call a set (s) of n elements ("the elements") in particular unique order such as e1,e2,e3,...,en, where en is the nth element, a complex order:

s = {e1,e2,...,en} == complex order

We want to test if complex order can occur randomly.

In a purely random set (S) of n(n!) elements made up of e1,e2,...en you will see somewhere the order e1,e2,..,en in that order within this bigger set* (see footnote).

S = {e#,e$,e%,...,e1,e2,e3,...,en,...,e&,e@} = set of n(n!) elements with purely random order of "the elements".

So we have a complex order within a random set disproving the assumption that complex order is not random.

If s is not complex enough then just increase the size n ... or you can also make it into a multidimensional complexity (n x m) -- relatively the size of S will also increase to (nm)(nm)!.

* Set s will be a subset of S because in purely random order there are n! ways to order s. n(n!) will be the total number of elements you will have if you put all these combinations together into a bigger set S.

So which one reflects "Nelson's Law"?

This site provides a valuable service. Smart undecided people who come here will watch the following cycle of events:

1 Creationist says something which sounds complicated.

2 Biology people destroy creationist argument 10 ways to Sunday, with links to scientific papers, historical discussion of the creationist argument, etc.

3 Creationists stammer and make excuses ("Uh...10% vertebral change..uh...isn't really much change..."), in general look embarrassingly bad.

4 repeat

over and over. And it doesn't take long to get to a pretty firm idea about which side knows what they're talking about. So there's a very valuable service here. I think ID would be a much more appealing alternative if people didn't see the arguments fail so utterly.

This site provides a valuable service. Smart undecided people who come here will watch the following cycle of events:

1 Creationist says something which sounds complicated.

2 Biology people destroy creationist argument 10 ways to Sunday, with links to scientific papers, historical discussion of the creationist argument, etc.

3 Creationists stammer and make excuses ("Uh...10% vertebral change..uh...isn't really much change..."), in general look embarrassingly bad.

4 repeat

over and over. And it doesn't take long to get to a pretty firm idea about which side knows what they're talking about. So there's a very valuable service here. I think ID would be a much more appealing alternative if people didn't see the arguments fail so utterly.

This tale is put forth as an analogy for my position. If "A" is ridiculous then "B" must be ridiculous also. Sorry Steve, this is the weakest form of argument. It is no argument at all.

As I explained, it (Nelson's Law) is an argument by analogy, using inductive reasoning.

Yet other creationists think that arguments by analogy can be strong enough to be considered laws:

Charlie,

The truth of the matter is: Every CHOM we know the origins of is the product of human intelligence.
Living oragnisms are CHOMS.
Therefore, it is highly likely that living organisms are also the product of human intelligence.

To the best of my knowledge, you have not offered one Chom that was not the product of human intelligence. Therefore, Nelson's Law is disproved and invalid, because it is intentionally vague and not an accurate reflection of the observed facts.

Correct as always, Mr. Maurus. And as I recall, the last time Charlie was pressed to provide a meaningful (i.e., not circular) definition for his "complex highly organized machine") he vanished in a puff of acrid smoke.

Here's a second chance for you Chuckie baby. As a starting point, perhaps you could give us a five discrete examples of the *simplest* CHOMs of which you are aware. By discrete, I mean that the set of five should not include any CHOMs that are obvious variants of the others. For each, please state your understanding of the CHOM's function.

Bob, you're right. That's exactly the logical structure Nelson's Flaw is based on. Don't set your hopes on them understanding the problem, though. I like my verson:

All blue things we know the origin of are man-made.
The sky is blue.
Therefore, it is highly likely the sky is man made.

but they're equivalent. It demonstrates that the structure is junk. It doesn't work.
Be prepared. Next they're going to stupidly argue that your version is irrelevant because you used man-made instead of intelligent. Anyone who knows enough to teach logic, though, knows that's a meaningless objection. If the structure is identical, it's not the words that matter, it's the truth value of the two premises. If a categorical syllogism has correct structure, and the two premises are correct, the conclusion is correct. If the two premises are correct, and the conclusion is wrong, the structure is wrong.

I think they're as fit to teach you logic as they are to teach me physics.

CW (then): Every x we know the origin of is y z is an x therefore it is highly likely that z is y CW (later): Every (x we know the origin of) is Y Z is an (x we know the origin of) Therefore, it is highly likely that z is y So which one reflects "Nelson's Law"?

Every CHOM we know the origin of is the product of intelligent input. Living organisms are CHOMs. Therefore, it is highly likely that living organisms are also the product of intelligent input.

it is an argument by analogy, using inductive reasoning. It is valid only insofar as it remains unfalsified and it's power lies in its ability to persuade.

You cannot equate intelligent input and man-made. There may be other, unidentified intelligences outside of the human experience.

Nelson's Law stated in simplest terms says that CHOMs do not bootstrap themselves into existence without intelligent guidance.

GWW and Steve,
Thanks - just trying to stay on track here. Strictly and vaguely speaking, the first point of Nelson's Law - and actually, it's not a Law, is it, more a hypothesis? - is correct, but, intentionally it seems to me, in fabricating it Charlie avoids restricting himself to precisely what we absolutely KNOW, and therefore sets up a false basis for any further statement. That's simply bad science at best, or dishonesty at worst, and probably invalidates the whole thing without us.

How about we formalize Horatio's Hypothesis - HH for short - and offer it as a trump, mate, set and match to Nelson's Whatever - NW (no way) for short.

As Charlie observed, "There may be other, unidentified intelligences outside of the human experience", but at the moment there is no credible evidence for their existence, and until and unless that is presented, the only Intelligent Designer we have any proof for is us, and so, by default, we are IT in any scenario for which an Intelligent Designer is required.

Obviously, if and when evidence for other intelligences is provided, Horatio's Hypothesis will be modified to accomodate that evidence, which is consistent with the Scientific Method.

Charlie,

The whole thing with the Scientific Method is, you've got to go where IT takes YOU, not where YOU want to take IT. I know that's an unfortunate hindrance, but that's just the way it is. Let us know when you've modified Nelson's Law.

Bob, I think that's right, the first premise is right. sure. But it doesn't go anywhere. It amounts to, everything we know we designed, was designed with intelligence. Then the second premise is totally wrong: Some stuff we don't know the origin of was designed. That's called sneaking your conclusion in. And the structure is wrong anyway. Nelson's Flaw is worth nothing more than a really bad freshman philosophy thesis. It's good for chat room posts, and popular books aimed at religious people, but Nelson's Flaw is not science, it's philosophy with huge errors.

Charlie avoids restricting himself to precisely what we absolutely KNOW, and therefore sets up a false basis for any further statement

Now, having flogged this dead horse well beyond the point of overkill, it is my fond hope that we will never again see the claim made that "Nelson's Whatever" remains unchallenged.

Here, here - or is it Hear, hear? In either case, I wholeheartedly agree. By the way, what was Nelson's first name? Horatio was a stab in the dark, but it worked alliterativly.

By the way, what was Nelson's first name?

By the way, what was Nelson’s first name?

— Bob Maurus

By the way, what was Nelson’s first name?

— Bob Maurus

Every CHOM we know the origin of is the product of intelligent input. Living organisms are CHOMs. Therefore, it is highly likely that living organisms are also the product of intelligent input. You cannot equate intelligent input and man-made. There may be other, unidentified intelligences outside of the human experience.

— Charlie

In addition to the above logical infirmities, Nelson's Flaw appears to be scientifically worthless. As I understand scientific laws (and I'm quick to admit that I'm no scientist), they are useful because they have predictive capability. Nelson's Flaw is useless in this regard: it only enables us to "predict" that which we already "know." I trust that one of you scientists will correct me if I'm wrong, but a scientific "law" that does nothing more than somehow describe what we already know is not, by definition, a scientific law.

-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Pope [mailto:popeman99@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 1:31 PM
To: Nytraj, Alan
Subject: Republican convention schedule

>DAY ONE: REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE CONVENTION SCHEDULE
>
> 6:00 PM Opening Prayer led by the Reverend Jerry Falwell
>
> 6:30 PM Pledge of Allegiance
>
> 6:35 PM Vote: "What country should we invade next?"
>
> 6:45 PM Blame Clinton
>
> 7:00 PM Seminar #1: "Getting your kid a military deferment"
>
> 7:30 PM Blame Hillary
>
> 7:35 PM Laura serves milk and cookies
>
> 7:40 PM EPA Address #1: "The Myth of Global Warming"
>
> 8:00 PM Round table discussion: SPOTLIGHT SUBJECT: How do we convince
>the United Nations to help us with this expensive abyss we've created in Iraq
>after we pulled that "Naa-nee-naa-nee-boo-boo... you are a bunch of impotent
>commie pussy-boys" stunt last year?" (All ideas welcome with the exception of
>apology!)
>
> 8:10 PM Rush Limbaugh Lecture: "The Druggies are after your children"
>
> 8:15 PM John Ashcroft Lecture: "The Homos are after your children"
>
> 8:30 PM Round table discussion on reproductive rights (MEN only please)
>
> 8:50 PM Seminar #2: "Big Corporations: America's government of the
>future"
>
> 9:00 PM Condi Rice sings: "Can't Help Lovin' that Man"
>
> 9:05 PM Paul Wolfowitz:"The Left Behind Series, Saddam Hussain is the
>Anti-Christ"
>
> 9:10 PM EPA Address #2: "TREES: The real cause of forest fires"
>
> 9:30 PM BREAK for secret meetings at an undisclosed location
>
> 10:00 PM Round table discussion: "The Constitution: Written by
>liberals?"
>
> 10:15 PM Lecture by Carl Rove: "Doublespeak made easy"
>
> 10:45PM Guest Speaker Bill O'Riley: "The United Nations: Created by
>Liberals?"
>
> 10:30 PM Rumsfeld Demonstration: "How to how to squint and talk macho"
>
> 10:35 PM Bush demonstration: "Deer in headlights stare with smirk"
>
> 10:40 PM John Ashcroft: "The promiscuity solution: NEW! Kevlar chastity
>belt
>
> 10:45 PM Richard Pearl: "The dangers of teaching history in our public
>schools"
>
> 10:46 PM Seminar #3: Colin Powell on "Making your voice heard in public
>policy"
>
> 10:50 PM Seminar #4: "Education: a drain on our nation's economy"
>
> 11:10 PM Hilary Clinton Pinata... fun for all!
>

> 11:20 PM Second Lecture by John Ashcroft: "Evolutionists: The dangerous
>new cult"
>
> 11:30 PM Liberal Media Bonfire: (Please contribute: Books Magazines,
>Newspapers)
>
> 11:35 PM Blame Clinton
>
> 11:40 PM Donald Rumsfeld: "The Geneva Convention: Written by liberals?"
>
> 11:50 PM Closing Prayer: Led by Jesus our Savior Himself
>
> 12:00 AM Nomination of George W. Bush as Holy Supreme Planetary Overlord

Jon, Thanks, but I meant Admiral Nelson's first name, not Charlie's first name. Turns out it WAS Horatio.

A:>Clear

damn.

A:>cls

damn.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

damn. can't remember how to make all that text above leave my screen.

I just read on www.washingtonmonthly.com that there was an obnoxious editorial re creationism in the LA Times this morning. Anyone see the editorial?

Not yet, but about to go there. Kevin Drum rocks.

"What is a religion, then? Simply, a system of beliefs based on stories that explain where life comes from, what life means, and what we, as living beings, are supposed to be doing with our few allotted years"

I did a search and went to Charlie's website this afternoon.I only wish I'd met him before PandasThumb. Nice guy, wide ranging and frequently congruent interests. I think I'd probably enjoy kicking back and having a few beers (preferably highly hopped)and some off the cuff conversation with him. Thanks for the dialogue, Charlie.

Bob

As the central mechanism of evolution, mutations have been studied intensively for the past half century. The fruit fly has been the subject of many experiments because its short life span allows scientists to observe many generations. In addition, the flies have been bombarded with radiation to increase the rate of mutations. Scientists now have a pretty clear idea what kind of mutations can occur. There is no evidence mutations create new structures. They merely alter existing ones. Mutations have produced, for example, crumpled, oversized, and undersized wings. They have produced double sets of wings. But they have not created a new kind of wing. Nor have they transformed the fruit fly into a new kind of insect. Experiments have simply produced variations of fruit flies. Pandas, pg 11-12

Breeding Race Cars to Win Jun. 18, 2004 Horse breeders do it, so why can't car designers? A team of British researchers is using genetic algorithms run inside computers to "evolve" better race-car designs to win Formula One races. In simulations the cars kick ass, but what about on real tracks? By Michelle Delio.

There is no evidence genetic algorithms create new auto structures. They merely alter existing ones. Mutations have produced, for example, crumpled, oversized, and undersized spoiler wings. They have produced double sets of spoiler wings. But they have not created a new kind of wing. Nor have they transformed the F-1 car into a new kind of car. Experiments have simply produced variations of F-1 cars.

Sorry Steve, I'm in the dark here. What exacty ia your point?

Steve, As RBH has mentioned, run the Designer through the Explanitory Filter and He comes up as designed.

Hmm...what exactly is my point above...? I don't have a point there. Just operating under a metapoint, which is that creationists are so corrosive and destructive, that it's fun to blow off steam by recasting their claims in ways that make them even more ridiculous. Makes it a little easier to tolerate this horde of people who are wasting everyone's time and their own potential.

s = e^(-g*m) where: s == similarity == fraction of genome shared between a fly and its ancestor g generations ago m == probability of mutation at each base pair per generation

I think you are partly correct on this one, steve. You "don't have a point there".

FL :-)

Russell: It seems to come down to the following gig.

1) What Goldschmidt and Dobzhansky have said, continues to be the experimental reality regarding fruit flies.

2) Given that situation, and no new evidence to offset or alter that situation,
you essentially are left with asking why would we not expect macroevolution to take place ~anyway~ in 5 million years.

3) And as for me, I'm essentially asking why would we expect macroevolution to take place ~anyway~ in 5 million years.

You continue to speculate that the number of fruit flies over 5 million years plus the "selection pressure" over 5 million years would somehow, someway, create some fruit-fly macroevolutionary changes, despite the known results of the speeded-up experimental situation over several decades.

But I have asked for evidence to specifically back up that particular speculation....and have not received it.

Without casting any aspersions on you or your expertise, it just seems to me like your suggestion remains, (sans evidence), essentially no more than speculative. In effect, it comes across as sort of an evolutionary Band-Aid trying to mitigate the hard reality expressed by Dobzhansky and others.

4) Freeman Herron says, "Mutations are the raw material of evolution." Regarding the fruit fly, I agree with that statement--

--As long as it's microevolution we're talking about.

FL :-)

FL: If you won't do the math, there's nothing to discuss.

You've already offered the two "<<<<<<" summary statements previously, Russell, by way of "the math". I think that part has been covered.

Sans the evidence I sincerely requested, however, there is indeed nothing else to discuss for now.

FL

"Like I said, other than possibly insecticide resistance, I'm not yet aware of any particularly beneficial mutation involving fruit flies."

FL -- did you search PubMed for articles containing the terms "Drosophila melanogaster" and "beneficial mutation" and NOT "insecticide resistance"?

Give it a shot.

Oh, and while you're at it, two simple questions for you: if I collect 100,000 wild Drosophila melanogaster flies and sequence their genomes, do you expect they will have 100% identical sequences? What makes you think that Drosophila are any different from humans? Or do you deny that some humans have particular DNA sequences which allow them to smell, taste, hear and see better than other humans?

Also, for the record, I did answer Well's question, point blank. The fact that you won't recognize that fact only proves what we already know: you're an ass.

Sure, GWW, I'll be checking PubMed anyway, off and on. If the overall fruit fly situation ~ever~ changes in terms of macroevolutionary evidence, I'm sure something will pop up there.

I'm sure you sincerely believe you "answered Well's question point blank."

I have to disagree, but I'm willing to leave it at that and continue my own searching regarding that question.

FL

"If the overall fruit fly situation ~ever~ changes in terms of macroevolutionary evidence, I'm sure something will pop up there."

When Drosophila melanogaster is photographed giving birth to a grasshopper, it'll probably be reported on your local TV news channels, FL.

Please note, FL, that I didn't ask you if you'd be "checking PubMed ... off and on." I could care less how often you check PubMed, as long as you don't pop off here about the lack of any evidence supporting the evolution of species.

Did you, in fact, do the search I recommended (or the similar searches which would occur to the average high school student trained in performing PubMed searches)?

And why haven't you bothered to answer the questions I asked you? Are you afraid of where those answers might lead?

Don't worry. You wouldn't be the first charlatan exposed as a bald-faced liar here (and, as I recall, it wouldn't be the first time that you were caught in a sticky trap of your own design).

I understand perfectly if you're reluctant to debate me. I'm not going to coddle you and throw extraneous evidence at you so you can twist it into knots and lob it back at me. If you're patient, I'm sure someone will come along who enjoys playing that sort of game with you. I'll watch you play, until I get bored.

I'll be checking PubMed anyway, off and on.

Argghghgh!!!!

It took 15 minutes for that first post to appear!!! What gives?

Sigh.

In any event, for those interested in such things, here is an opportunity for an extensive analysis of how my brain works when crafting my magnificent and unforgettable posts. ;)

As always, FL, you are free to reply to either of my posts above or, if you are feeling especially confident, you can reply to both!

You've already offered the two "<<<<<<" summary statements previously, Russell, by way of "the math". I think that part has been covered.

— FL

On the Origin of Species is a classic, and old, and goes mostly unread. Several of the detail things Darwin said were later shown to be wrong, and in general it's more efficient to read the newest treatments if you're just learning biology--I was exploring it for broader reasons.

If you read OTOOS, you'll be in awe of how he fought his way through the noisy and confusing data. In spite of so little evidence, and what appeared to be some mild contradictory evidence, around 1850 Darwin figured out how species change because he was both patient and brilliant. AR Wallace also figured it out, because he too was brilliant.

In 1950 there was so much more evidence and understanding both of the fossil record and molecular and cellular biology that if you knew anything about it and didn't accept the theory of evolution you were just a little unusual.

In 2004, with thousands of journal articles supporting it, more evidence than you could read in your lifetime, 154 more years of discovery after discovery after discovery consistent with the theory, the total failure of every known competitor, and the algorithm of evolution being exported to fields like engineering to improve bridges and traffic flow, if you know anything about it and you don't accept the theory you're just delusional.

So Russel, GWW, and others, don't feel too bad when these guys don't get it. They aren't the type to get things, and don't let that get to you. I commend you for sincerely trying.

Some thoughts . . .

DNA is an information system. Large portions of its content are essential to an animal's survival. Hox genes control these systems and any damage done to them, alterations, mutations, whatever, is repaired. It's a neat little survival trick which Nature has up its sleeve. Effectively the genetic system has awareness of itself. I don't mean conscious awareness, I mean that all changes to an animal's genetic system are referenced to a master system. You can find numberous bona fide publications documenting both hox genes and genetic repair systems. An organism's genetic system is crudely divisible into two areas: (a) locked (b) open to experiment. Within locked systems, where interference would be fatal, there can be no "evolution" because evolution could/would spell death. Within open systems nearly anything goes, although even here the genetic code likes to keep certain control measures, sexual reproduction being one of them.

Fruit flies in Shallow Time indicate this principle.

If Deep Time is evolution's essential ingredient why did Gould feel it necessary to propose his "punctuated equilibrium" theory? All major phyla emerged in the Cambrian. How? We're not talking deep time here. We're talking -relative to DT- a sudden explosion in very shallow time.

I'm not disputing evolution. That it exists in many forms is obvious. But random mutation as the cause of the innumerable species populating the earth? No way. There is no evidence for it. The evidence indicates that organisms possess master genetic templates against which all change is referred. Genetic systems which stray, for whatever reason, beyond a certain mean, are corrected, repaired, brought back to type. Genetic repair systems are well documented. As an example, grossly mutated Drosophila always revert, over generations, to the wild type (see Dobzhansky et al). Outside the lab, of course, the mutated flies would not even survive to produce subsequent generations.

Organisms are built to survive. They are coded to survive. The genetic system of every living creature is programmed to limit variation which strays outside certain parameters. The permissible variations are within the area of superficial attributes -size, shape, colour, etc. Impermissible variations are those which would affect any of the systems fundamental to an organism's survival. Because fundamental systems are, for reasons of survival, protected from alteration, it is impossible for one species to evolve into another...unless we propose a suspension of the self-referential master genetic template for reasons of evolution. But we are then suggesting another order of genetic master system, or some kind of clocking mechanism within an animal's genetics, which occasionally opens the door and invites a free-for-all. But of course this doesn't happen because a high level of genetic constancy is essential for survival and the raison d'etre of every animal's genetic system is survival. "Free for all" spells death and genes are designed to prevent death. The first principle of every genetic system is "the organism must live".

Given that (a) the major phyla emerged without any evidence of incremental stages leading up to their emergence, and (b) genetic systems are evidentially not unrestrictedly open to alterations, and (c) evidence indicates that mutated organisms revert over generations to their original "wild" type, it seems clear that random mutation and natural selection over Deep Time is not the answer we are looking for to explain evolution. There is a Genus barrier and it is dictated by the conditions which genetic systems place upon themselves, conditions which are entirely predicated upon a genetic "understanding" of what is required for an organism's survival. The major part of an organism's genetic system is locked. Those areas which are not locked produce immense variety, but it is variety of an essentially superficial sort.

How do different species emerge? I honestly have no idea. Nor does anyone. This is why neodarwinism, like creationism, is a fundamentally religious/philosophical position, not a scientific one.

I'm not disputing evolution. That it exists in many forms is obvious. But random mutation as the cause of the innumerable species populating the earth? No way. There is no evidence for it.

Jack, a few comments.

Given that (a) the major phyla emerged without any evidence of incremental always revert, over generations, to the wild type (senetic , and (generations. I'm not genes ems are well documented. As an example, grossly mutated ee .of survival, genetic system is "the organism must live".Genetic r master genetic templateprotected from alteration, it is the earth?are designed to prevent death. The first principle of every s against which imal's genetic system is survival.

"Free for all" spells c) evidence indicates that mutated organisms revert over generations to impossible for one species to evolve into another . . . unless we propose a suspension of the self-referential master genetic template for reasons of evolution.Organisms are builstages leading up to their emergence, and (b) gDrosuggesting another order of genetic master al). Outside t to survive. They are coded to survive. Impermissibthe lab, of course, the mutated flies would not sophila le variations are those which would for reasons But we are thethe cause of the innumerable species populating their origientirely predicated upon a genetic "understanding" of what is required for an organism's system, or some kind of and the raison d'etre of every anrepaired, brought back to typeDobzhan The eviattributes -size, shape, colourchansuperficial every living creature is programmed to limit variation which strays outside certain parameters.

The ism within an animal's genetics, which level of genetic constancy is essendispusubsequent death and tial for sur. The genetic systover themselves, conditions whichsystDeep em ofdence indicates that organisms possesswhatever reasonsky et survival. The maaffect any of the systems fundamental to an organism's survival. Because fundamental systems are, jor nal "wild" type, it seemssuperficial sort systems ting evolution. That it exists in many forms is evidence for it. , beyond a certainobvious. But random mutation as is referred. Genetic systems which stray, for epair syst No way barrier and it is dictated by the conditions which.

There is no mean, are corrected, all Those chance answer occasionally opens the door and invites a free-for-not unrestrictedly nge n even survive to produce place upon thealterat clear that ranclocall. But of course this doesn't hapopen to geneticety, but it is There is a areas which are not locked produce immense vari. pen because a high we are looking for to explain evolutionems are evidentially king methe area of permissible variations are within , etc vivaldom mvariety of an essentially ions are part of an organism's genetic system is lockedutation and natural selection. Time is not the Genus.

I'm not disputing precipitation. That it exists in many forms is obvious. But random condensation as the cause of the innumerable raindrops falling on the earth? No way. There is no evidence for it.

I'm not disputing currency. That it exists in many forms is obvious. But random coins and bills as the cause of the innumerable economic transactions populating the earth? No way. There is no evidence for it.

I'm not disputing the beach. That it exists in many forms is obvious. But random sand grains as the cause of the innumerable dunes populating the earth? No way. There is no evidence for it.

If Deep Time is evolution's essential ingredient why did Gould feel it necessary to propose his "punctuated equilibrium" theory? All major phyla emerged in the Cambrian. How? We're not talking deep time here. We're talking -relative to DT- a sudden explosion in very shallow time.

Brion,

Could you translate your post? All I'm seeing is
incomprehensible gibberish.

Brion, Could you translate your post? All I'm seeing is incomprehensible gibberish.

Russell,

To quote the apparently departed Navy Davy - thanks, I think.

Time is not the Genus