Behe vs Lampreys: A modest proposal.

Posted 10 May 2008 by Ian Musgrave

Intelligent Design advocates regularly claim that Intelligent Design is science. However, a recent paper on the lamprey genome demonstrates the sharp gulf between science and ID. One of the key icons of ID is Michael Behe's "irreducibly complex" clotting system. In 1996 he claimed that the clotting system was unevolvable, and no simpler clotting system could exist. In contrast, in 1987 evolutionary biologist Russell Doolittle hypothesised that the clotting system had been built up by co-option of duplicated genes. Doolittle specifically predicted that fish would lack key elements of the Mammalian clotting system (elements of the intrinsic or contact clotting system). Let's see how those predictions fared. Since he first made his prediction, Russell Doolittle has been extensively examining the clotting systems of different organisms. By 2003, after over a decade of hard work, it was apparent that bony fish did lack the intrinsic clotting system, ironically the system that Behe describes in some detail in "Darwins Black Box". By 2003 it also seemed that jawless fish also lacked key elements of the intrinsic clotting system, in line with Doolittle's prediction and the opposite of Behe's claim. Now, it would have been easy for Doolittle to rest there, with favourable evidence for his prediction. But no, he and his colleagues put it to a more stringent test, searching for clotting factor genes in the trace archive of the lamprey genome (a representative jawless fish). This is a massive bit of work, the trace archive is all the gene fragments generated before assembly of the genome, so they had to laboriously assemble and test each putative gene. What did they find? That jawless fish lack factors IX and V. Now, this is a pretty important chunk of the clotting system to be without. When it was revealed that whales and bony fish lacked the intrinsic clotting system, Behe effectively replied "So much the worse for them". But in humans, lack of factor IX produces a bleeding disorder called haemophilia B, lack of factor V also produces haemophilia, and lack of both should result in a very severe bleeding disorder. The reducible clotting system: Bony fish and jawless fish have a reduced complement of clotting factors compared to mammals. Jawless fish lack factors IX and V. Tissue factor and factor VII directly activate thrombin, but the explosive coagulation cascade is initiated by factors IX and V acting together. The older name for Factor V was proaccelerin, the activated from of factor V was known as accelerin, indicating its role in the explosive acceleration of clotting. Factors IX and V are not peripheral pieces of the clotting system, but are the key section that produces the massive amount of thrombin needed for clotting in vertebrates. According to Behe, the severe bleeding disorder from loss of factors IX and V shows that the clotting system could not be built up from simpler systems, as the system can only function with all its parts. To put it in Behe's imagery, the clotting system of the Lamprey is a mousetrap without a spring. Yet jawless fish are doing quite well without factor IX and V. The implications of this for "irreducible complexity" are profound. An ID advocate might concede that "yes, the clotting system isn't really irreducibly complex, what about other systems?". But this example not only falsifies the claim that the clotting system is "irreducibly complex", but the logic of entire argument Behe uses. Behe has claimed that it is not possible to directly evolve a system such as the clotting system directly, because a smaller system will not work. Yet the jawless fish system shows just that, a system that lacks key component(s) of the mammalian system is completely viable and functioning. Behe's central argument is broken, knocking out parts of a system and showing that the system breaks does not mean it cannot evolve directly from a simpler system. The work on lampreys provides strong evidence for Doolittle's model of generating complex systems by rounds of duplication and divergence. Note that in all this it has been the evolutionary biologists doing the heavy lifting. Generating predictions and models, testing clotting systems in various animals, cloning clotting factors, searching databases and finally, assembling genes from fragments. What have the ID apologists been doing in the 12 years since "Darwins Black Box" was published? Not a lot. Given the central role of the clotting system to their claims, one would have expected the ID folks would have been hard at work showing that the clotting system was irreducible. Now, to be fair a lot of this is specialized work, that needs a serious biochemistry lab. But when the Fugu genome came out in 2003, nothing was stopping anyone from searching the Fugu genome for clotting factors. The databases were public, and you could do it at home in your spare time. No need to worry about discrimination from co-workers. Did any ID person do that? No, it was the evolutionary biologists who came up with a testable hypothesis, and combed the Fugu database to test it. Now the Amphioxus genome has come out. The Amphioxus is a simple, pre-vertebrate chordate, simpler than the Lamprey. We know that it clots its haemolymph (the Amphioxus equivalent of blood), and that it has a thrombin like molecule in its haemolymph, so we know it has a clotting system. Evolutionary biologists would predict that it has a reduced clotting system (see figure). ID advocates would predict that it would not. So I have a modest proposal. I would like to invite Dr. Behe, or any other ID advocate, to predict which coagulation factors are present in Amphioxus, search the Amphioxus genome database and report on whether the genes found match their predictions. The database is free, you can do it at home, and the only cost is your time. Time for ID advocates to do some science. How about it? http://genome.jgi-psf.org/Brafl1/Brafl1.home.html

Doolittle RF, Jiang Y, Nand J. Genomic evidence for a simpler clotting scheme in jawless vertebrates. J Mol Evol. 2008 Feb;66(2):185-96.

Jiang Y, Doolittle RF. The evolution of vertebrate blood coagulation as viewed from a comparison of puffer fish and sea squirt genomes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003 Jun 24;100(13):7527-32 (full article free access)

Doolittle RF.The evolution of vertebrate blood coagulation: a case of Yin and Yang. Thromb Haemost. 1993 Jul 1;70(1):24-8

Doolittle RF, Feng DF.Reconstructing the evolution of vertebrate blood coagulation from a consideration of the amino acid sequences of clotting proteins.Cold Spring Harb Symp Quant Biol. 1987;52:869-74.

Davidson CJ, Hirt RP, Lal K, Snell P, Elgar G, Tuddenham EG, McVey JH. (2003). Molecular evolution of the vertebrate blood coagulation network. Thromb Haemost. 89(3):420-8.

Davidson CJ, Tuddenham EG, McVey JH. 450 million years of hemostasis. J Thromb Haemost. 2003 Jul;1(7):1487-94.

260 Comments

W. H. Heydt · 9 May 2008

They won't do it, you know....

garth · 9 May 2008

c'mon now. if they did science, that would mean they had no faith. what are you, new? :b

Alex, FCD · 9 May 2008

Now, to be fair a lot of this is specialized work, that needs a serious biochemistry lab.

Like the one that noted University of Lehigh biochemist Michael Behe presumably has access to?

wright · 9 May 2008

Probably they'll simply move the goalposts; as long as they lack evidence, that's the easiest way out for them. So we should not expect IDists with great emotional investment in their worldview to be convinced by this.

On the other hand, it is definitely useful for the genuinely curious. That is, laymen and scientists who actually compare the claims of ID and the evidence of modern evolutionary theory.

Finally, it's useful for those like me, who occasionally have to educate friends about creationist claims and how those claims can be refuted. Kudos to Mr. Doolittle for his hard work and Mr. Musgrave for posting it here.

shonny · 9 May 2008

Why are proper scientists so polite, forthcoming, and lenient towards the religious Bovine Scatologists?

Isn't it about time that the whole proper scientific community stood shoulder to shoulder and excluded the IDiots and the rest of the kooks from anything to do with science, - simply froze them out, loudly ridiculed them, and made the general public aware of their backward thinking?

Tare and feather Behe would be a good start, but that is of course more in line with the IDiots approach.

Stanton · 9 May 2008

shonny said: Why are proper scientists so polite, forthcoming, and lenient towards the religious Bovine Scatologists? Isn't it about time that the whole proper scientific community stood shoulder to shoulder and excluded the IDiots and the rest of the kooks from anything to do with science, - simply froze them out, loudly ridiculed them, and made the general public aware of their backward thinking? Tare and feather Behe would be a good start, but that is of course more in line with the IDiots approach.

Actual scientists do one of two things to the Intelligent Design poseurs: 1) Treat Intelligent Design proponents as persona non grata until they bother to do science, or stop bothering scientists altogether, or 2) Examine, then destroy the fallacious claims made by Intelligent Design proponents with logic and science.

raven · 9 May 2008

Isn’t it about time that the whole proper scientific community stood shoulder to shoulder and excluded the IDiots and the rest of the kooks from anything to do with science,

Naw. Just answer lies with the truth. Answer ignorance with knowledge. We've been at this for centuries. Apollo Helios no longer drags the sun across the sky in a chariot every day. No one sacrifices humans on flat topped pyramids to keep the rain and sun gods happy. The earth is no longer flat, it orbits the sun, and it is 4.5 billion years old rather than 6,000. Demons don't cause illnesses unless you are a fundie with mental problems It is slow but it works in the end.

Ian Musgrave · 10 May 2008

Just a reminder folks, that inappropriate material will be moved to the Bathroom Wall. Play nice, thanks!

PvM · 10 May 2008

Seems like a fair challenge, especially since Behe and other ID proponents have done so poorly in addressing Doolittle's claims.

Henry J · 10 May 2008

When it was revealed that whales and bony fish lacked the intrinsic clotting system,

Whales?

[...] as the system can only function with all its parts.

I suppose if one thinks only of already warm blooded creatures, that might not be too far off. But if their ancestors weren't warm blooded, that just might be a different kettle of fish. Henry

Ian Musgrave · 10 May 2008

Whales?

Whales, Dolphins and Porpoises have secondarily lost the intrinsic clotting system present in terrestrial vertebrates (they have a broken gene in the system), bony fish never had the system in the first place.

Philip Bruce Heywood · 10 May 2008

SCIENCEDAILY, top article, thirty minutes ago, not lampreys, something for more basic - photosynthesis. Had me on the edge of the seat, some of the time. The researchers are chasing solar energy, not origins theories.

It's quantum physical chemistry. They have identified the safety mechanism whereby the photosnythesizing receptor system channels away excess heat, through quantum physics processes. Remarkable.

I suggest a compromise be brokered with ID. Seriously. This pre-dates lampreys by all but 4 thou. mill. yrs. There's no time - even if time helped, which it doesn't, there's no time, unless the earth is older than previously estimated. All there is is the likelihood of some non-photosynthesizing plant life living on geothermal heat or whatever, then deciding it needed photosynthesis.

Take that SCIENCEDAILY article into a classroom, then start saying this way-out-there quantum physics happened as a result of geothermal bacteria wishing to get out in the sun.

But there is an alternative. Take the article into a classroom and say that we suspect the non-photosynthesizing life-forms had inbuilt computer-type programming that interacted with information feeding back from the environmental surrounds (not excluding the possibility of readable information signals coming from the sun, earth, and perhaps other celestial objects), and the inbuilt information technology capability triggered and/or built - perhaps not instantaneously, the photosynthesizing equipment. Extend this concept to the (far more sophisticated) lamprey.

Ian Musgrave · 10 May 2008

SCIENCEDAILY, top article, thirty minutes ago, not lampreys, something for more basic - photosynthesis. Had me on the edge of the seat, some of the time. The researchers are chasing solar energy, not origins theories.
— Philip Heywood

The article is this one http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080508144332.htm It's quite interesting, but I don't know what it is about quantum mechanics that makes peoples brains turn to mush. Yes, photosynthesis uses quantum mechanics, so does all the chemistry in your body. The bulk properties of water are due to quantum mechanics, so the fact that some aspect of photosynthesis uses quantum mechanics doesn't imply a designer.

Stuart Weinstein · 10 May 2008

So? Its still a clotting system.

Peter · 10 May 2008

Great post. You'd think that after the mountains of evidence stacked against them, they'd abandon shoddy notions. Sigh.

Science Nut · 10 May 2008

Caution: Holding ones breath may result in hypoxia and death.

Steverino · 10 May 2008

PBH,

" suggest a compromise be brokered with ID."...SO, you are looking for Science to throw ID a bone in hopes that it will derail (throw them off the trail) real science from actually learning and explaining the cause and effect. Trying to squeeze every little bit of life (and gullible faithfull dollars) out of the mythical ID???

You really are funny.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 10 May 2008

Ian Musgrave said: Evolutionary biologists would predict that it has a reduced clotting system (see figure).

Unfortunately for the layman the article isn't quite clear on the premises for thinking this, unless I'm mistaken. It is obvious from the figure that more ancestral forms (as I understand the terminology) has a reduced system. OTOH the Amphioxus has had as much time to evolve as vertebrates, so it could presumably have elaborated on such a simpler system too. Now the link to the Introduction to the Cephalochordata mentions that similar cephalochordates are known from the Early Cambrian. So I wonder if it is the observed preservation of most traits in this branch that is the basis for the prediction? Or is it something entirely else?

Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 10 May 2008

The bulk properties of water are due to quantum mechanics, so the fact that some aspect of photosynthesis uses quantum mechanics doesn't imply a designer.

Nor does quantum mechanics imply "information feedback" or "programming".

bobby · 10 May 2008

So posters here feel that this article shows an observation that would not happen if ID theory was correct?

Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 10 May 2008

Now I see that the article mentions that Amphioxus is simpler, which is the clearly stated premise I missed.

And scratch "ancestral forms", ancestral and derived forms pertain to the fossil record, don't they? "Simpler" it is.

Mr Darkman · 10 May 2008

bobby said: So posters here feel that this article shows an observation that would not happen if ID theory was correct?

No, god (I can call the design mechanism god, can I?) could have designed it that way. The article is there to show that an early claim of "this proves ID is correct", was utterly wrong. So once again a proof of ID turns out to be flawed. In other words ID still has not demonstrated any scientific credibility,

SWT · 10 May 2008

Philip Bruce Heywood said: I suggest a compromise be brokered with ID.

This in an interesting statement. First, it presupposes that there's some official scientific establishment that's empowered with the authority to broker a compromise. I know that some people seem to think there's some sort of a "Darwinian Machine" that will -- dare I say it? -- "EXpel" people who dissent from MET, but as far as I know, that machine only exists in the minds of cdesign proponentists (and a really amusing video). So, I'm not sure who can serve as a "broker" from the side of mainstream science. Second, it presupposes that scientific issues can be resolved in a negotiation. It seems to me that from the standpoint of mainstream science, the concept of a brokered deal with ID means some combination of accepting as true assertions known to be false and working with hypotheses that cannot, even in principle, be falsified. I'll be interested in seeing if Behe, or any ID activist, takes up Ian's challenge. No need to worry about funding, no need to do any of that pesky lab work, just apply those fancy math tools Dembski talks about. Someone should be able to get a peer-reviewed paper out of the deal -- very handy for the ID researcher who is not yet tenured!

SWT · 10 May 2008

bobby said: So posters here feel that this article shows an observation that would not happen if ID theory was correct?

What observation could possibly be made that is incompatible with ID?

Richard Simons · 10 May 2008

bobby said: So posters here feel that this article shows an observation that would not happen if ID theory was correct?

No. Until IDers come up with a theory there is nothing that could possibly show ID to be incorrect. That is why it is not science. Have you learned nothing since you've been coming here? What it does show is that what Behe said is impossible does actually occur. The big question now is, how long will it take for the information to percolate through to the rank and file of IDers and creationists? Based on the time for other information (e.g. a pathway for eye evolution, the SLOT) I would guess at least 100 years.

slang · 10 May 2008

No, bobby. Anything can happen if ID is correct. There's no way to disprove ID, because even if there is FULL, COMPLETE convincing evidence, from every individual animal from the first cell to a current human being to have evolved, ID can still claim that god(s) designed it that way.

What happened here is that a leading ID proponent, one of the very few actual biologists they have, made a scientific claim that evolution must be false, because what was described here could not happen. He was devastatingly wrong. Par for the course. How he can still say such things with a straight face after the Mullerian Two-Step article is beyond my understanding.

Evolution is so overwhelmingly supported by evidence from every angle of science that it may as well be considered proven. Whether a god had something to do with it behind the scenes, we cannot tell. Maybe there is one, maybe not. To evolution it does not matter.

bobby · 10 May 2008

"" In 1996 he claimed that the clotting system was unevolvable, and no simpler clotting system could exist. ""

Is this not a prediction of ID theory? And was not the point of the article that this is not the case??

It seems to me Behe made a prediction based on his theory and then according to this article the prediction was not true.

Seems his theory was seeming falsified.

"" But this example not only falsifies the claim that the clotting system is ”irreducibly complex”, ""

So the posters are saying that a hypothesis that can be falsified is not scientific???

Philip Bruce Heywood · 10 May 2008

I.M.: Quantum Physics turns my brain to mush because it tells us what really happens when chemicals react, and it is a potential "microscope" through which to see what actually happens at speciation. It's at the root of a suite of new advances in medicine and communications. I'm not telling you anything you don't know. Some queer people get excited over that sort of thing.

What IS I.D. Theory, incidentally? The idea that God is involved? Or the idea that information technology is involved? The former is religion; the latter is right throughout the scientific literature. I am having trouble defining the argument.

I'm not having any trouble defining science and logic. Neither are the students in that classroom. I recently visited "Wheat-Dogg's" Site, linked to in the head of another thread - he features an article on Yoko Ono and "Expelled". He goes to some pains to explain that design does not necessitate a designer. At the end of this long-winded thesis, which he rounds off with the assertion that design does not imply a designer, he invites comments. I couldn't resist the line: ERGO, Wheat-Dogg's Site need not have a designer. I doubt the censor will allow it. But it's always good for a laugh. Let's not set up a scenario whereby students are laughing at science, shall we? It's up to them to decide which designer(none, if they wish): the existence of design is not in question. They'll just think you're walking about on the ceiling, if you try to tell them that photosynthesis isn't designed. I mean, they're only talking about using it as a 90%+ efficient solar power conversion machine.

Richard Simons · 10 May 2008

PBH said: I suggest a compromise be brokered with ID. Seriously.

This shows a complete unawareness of how science operates that I would, before I came across IDers/creationists, have found amazing in a person who claims to have some background in the area. Science and scientists are only interested in what is correct, not in woo. As SWT mentioned, there is no central body with any kind of authority to impose their will on science or scientists as a whole. Moreover, I cannot imagine scientists would be willing to trust IDers/creationists as it has been well-established that they are all either poorly informed or liars or both.

bobby · 10 May 2008

""" There’s no way to disprove ID, because even if there is FULL, COMPLETE convincing evidence, from every individual animal from the first cell to a current human being to have evolved, ID can still claim that god(s) designed it that way. """

No sorry that would be unfalsifiable. But to say that there was an intelligent intervention somewhere along the way WOULD be falsifiable. And again as Dawkins stated aliens could have seeded that planet at one time.

There is a difference between evolving with help from an outside intelligence and without.

Just as poodles have evolved with the help of intelligent intervention.

SWT · 10 May 2008

bobby said: But to say that there was an intelligent intervention somewhere along the way WOULD be falsifiable.

How?

Stanton · 10 May 2008

bobby said: "" In 1996 he claimed that the clotting system was unevolvable, and no simpler clotting system could exist. "" Is this not a prediction of ID theory? And was not the point of the article that this is not the case?? It seems to me Behe made a prediction based on his theory and then according to this article the prediction was not true. Seems his theory was seeming falsified.

The problem is that, unlike scientists, Intelligent Design proponents will never admit when Intelligent Design "theory" has been falsified. This is one of the reasons why Intelligent Design "theory" is not a science.

"" But this example not only falsifies the claim that the clotting system is ”irreducibly complex”, "" So the posters are saying that a hypothesis that can be falsified is not scientific???

No, if you actually read the article and the comments, you would realize that the posters are actually talking about how Intelligent Design "theory" can not describe biological phenomena in an accurate manner, if at all, and how Intelligent Design proponents have no drive to attempt to correct their pet hypothesis.

Philip Bruce Heywood said: I.M.: Quantum Physics turns my brain to mush

Quantum Physics never did that to your brain because you turned your brain to mush long long ago, especially since your arguments revolve around either creating stupid-sound pseudoscientific terms that you have absolutely no intention of defining, or attacking people after you've crafted very crude and clumsy strawmen from the words you've put into other people's mouths.

Richard Simons · 10 May 2008

Bobby said: ““ In 1996 he claimed that the clotting system was unevolvable, and no simpler clotting system could exist. ”” Is this not a prediction of ID theory?

No. It is a claim made by an individual person involved in ID. There is no ID theory.

But to say that there was an intelligent intervention somewhere along the way WOULD be falsifiable.

Only if details of the intervention were specified in sufficient detail that it were possible to distinguish it from no intervention. IDers are very careful to make sure they never do this as they learnt that when Creationists made such claims they were quickly routed. Why do you think Behe is falling from favour amongst IDers? It is almost certainly because he is in the habit of making falsifiable claims that are then falsified.

SWT · 10 May 2008

bobby said: "" In 1996 he claimed that the clotting system was unevolvable, and no simpler clotting system could exist. "" Is this not a prediction of ID theory? And was not the point of the article that this is not the case?? It seems to me Behe made a prediction based on his theory and then according to this article the prediction was not true. Seems his theory was seeming falsified. "" But this example not only falsifies the claim that the clotting system is ”irreducibly complex”, "" So the posters are saying that a hypothesis that can be falsified is not scientific???

Wow ... you're even distorting Behe's argument. Behe argues that structures exist that are too complex to have evolved and therefore must have been designed. In particular, he asserts that the clotting system is IC and therefore cannot have been formed by an evolutionary process. He uses these assertions to make a "design inference." His assertions about the clotting system, while incorrect, are not predictions based on any design theory. Rather, he has based his argument for design on these factually incorrect premises.

slang · 10 May 2008

bobby said: Is this not a prediction of ID theory? And was not the point of the article that this is not the case??

You are so close to understanding.. Behe supports ID by trying to find fault in evolution. Because, if evolution were to be false, something else must have happened.. and ID would be there to fill the gap, vacuous as it is. But it was not a prediction of or from ID. You cannot prove something by proving something else is false, except if you can prove that those were the only two possibilities to begin with. There is no scientific theory of ID. None. Because they cannot describe it, and certainly not make it falsifiable, even though it may seem so to someone that does not know much about the scientific method.

Philip Bruce Heywood said: Quantum Physics turns my brain to mush

Well, at least we now know how that happened :)

rog · 10 May 2008

Philip Bruce Heywood said: They'll just think you're walking about on the ceiling, if you try to tell them that photosynthesis isn't designed. I mean, they're only talking about using it as a 90%+ efficient solar power conversion machine.

Photosynthesis is less than 1% efficient. Designed silicon solar cell approach 20%.

slang · 10 May 2008

Reed, did someone already let you know that if you reply to two persons in one post, the replied-to header shows the wrong information?

Dan · 10 May 2008

Philip Bruce Heywood said: Quantum Physics turns my brain to mush

... whereas it should do the complete opposite. Quantum mechanics is counterintuitive, unfamiliar, strange to our classical eyes, and contrary to the "common sense" that we humans have developed through observing the classical world, but it is completely rational and logical. Indeed, it is only through the use of reason and logic that we have ever made progress in understanding the quantum domain. Our day-to-day tools like intuition and familiarity (which work well if imperfectly in the day-to-day world of short times, low speeds, and large objects) break down in the atomic world, so it is only reason and logic that saves us. If contemplating the atomic word turns your brain to mush, then you have no hope whatsoever of making progress.

PvM · 10 May 2008

I’m not having any trouble defining science and logic.

It's applying science and logic that seems to be causing you some trouble.

PvM · 10 May 2008

I’m not having any trouble defining science and logic.

It's applying science and logic that seems to be causing you some trouble.

Rob · 10 May 2008

bobby said: """ There’s no way to disprove ID, because even if there is FULL, COMPLETE convincing evidence, from every individual animal from the first cell to a current human being to have evolved, ID can still claim that god(s) designed it that way. """ No sorry that would be unfalsifiable. But to say that there was an intelligent intervention somewhere along the way WOULD be falsifiable. And again as Dawkins stated aliens could have seeded that planet at one time. There is a difference between evolving with help from an outside intelligence and without. Just as poodles have evolved with the help of intelligent intervention.

But this is what we're waiting for - the ID camp to tell us what we should be expecting to discover/not discover if some intelligent non-human agency designed some or all aspects of life. They offered up 'IC' systems, all of which have been shown to be not IC (both in principle as well as with actual scientific investigation, as this article and others explain) - so this is a dead end for them (as has been known for a long time). Lets hear their next idea, and maybe this time they could be the ones to do the work to test it.

bobby · 10 May 2008

”” But this example not only falsifies the claim that the clotting system is ”irreducibly complex”, ””

So the above is an incorrect statement? I am just quoting from the article.

John Kwok · 10 May 2008

Hi all,

I e-mailed Mike Behe yesterday in reply to his latest absurd post at his Amazon.com blog on the lamprey genome paper (see below). Not surprisingly, he didn't write back.

John

Dear Mike:

You still don't get it. The data you present in 'The Edge of Evolution' with regards to Plasmodium can be explained best as a pharmaceutical co-evolutionary arms race between Plasmodium and humanity. In other words, this is the Red Queen at work. But then again, you still contend that everything can be reduced to irreducible complexity at the molecular level, ignoring such inconvenient 'facts' as biogeography, fossils (especially transitional fossils) and 'evo-devo'.

You're wasting your time clinging to your steadfast devotion to the mendacious intellectual pornography known as Intelligent Design. Instead, both Ken Miller and I concur that you would be much better off writing a textbook on Klingon biochemistry. I am certain that your publisher might consider giving you a decent advance and I would be willing to act as a consultant. Moreover, it would be a more reasonable use of your time than promoting the mendacious intellectual pornography known as Intelligent Design.

Regards,

John Kwok

P. S. If the 'Intelligent Designer' was so wise and wonderful, then why did he goof up quite a few times during Earth's biological history, seemingly powerless to halt the mass extinctions of trilobites, ammonites and non-avian dinosaurs, among others?

SWT · 10 May 2008

bobby said: ”” But this example not only falsifies the claim that the clotting system is ”irreducibly complex”, ”” So the above is an incorrect statement? I am just quoting from the article.

For those who missed it, the complete statement is (emphasis added)

But this example not only falsifies the claim that the clotting system is ”irreducibly complex”, but the logic of entire argument Behe uses.

Do you agree with the complete statement?

stevaroni · 10 May 2008

Bobby notes... ““ In 1996 he claimed that the clotting system was unevolvable, and no simpler clotting system could exist. ”” It seems to me Behe made a prediction based on his theory and then according to this article the prediction was not true. Seems his theory was seeming falsified. ”” But this example not only falsifies the claim that the clotting system is ”irreducibly complex”, ”” So the posters are saying that a hypothesis that can be falsified is not scientific???

ID doublethink at its finest. Scientific theories are falsifiable ergo Intelligent Design is scientific because any hypothesis it's been forced to offer has been quickly falsified. The logical conclusion is that we therefore must teach ID because it's consistently been proven wrong.

PvM · 10 May 2008

So let's explain why ID 'hypotheses' can be falsified and why ID remain scientifically vacuous.

ID's argument is one of ignorance, based on a negative argument against one of the mechanisms of evolution; Darwinism. While science can show that ID's claims are wrong, such filling of gaps has historically been quite effective in disproving creationist claims. However, it is also self evident that ID does NOTHING to further its case other than equivocating on terminology like 'design' and 'complexity'

Hope this clarifies, and if not, this should do it

bobby · 10 May 2008

Science does not 'prove' anything.

Gary Hurd · 10 May 2008

Thanks, I enjoyed reading this excellent contribution.

bobby · 10 May 2008

SWT said:
bobby said: ”” But this example not only falsifies the claim that the clotting system is ”irreducibly complex”, ”” So the above is an incorrect statement? I am just quoting from the article.
For those who missed it, the complete statement is (emphasis added)
But this example not only falsifies the claim that the clotting system is ”irreducibly complex”, but the logic of entire argument Behe uses.
Do you agree with the complete statement?

Well he quite obviously said that this exmample falsifies the claim. There is no doubt about that. You do know the meaning of the phrase 'not only' dont you?

slang · 10 May 2008

bobby, you can quite your posturing to get an "yes, it falsifies id" answer just so you can claim id is science. Try real science, not "dickshunari siunce".

slang · 10 May 2008

Apologies stevaroni, missed your post.

Al · 10 May 2008

Philip Bruce Heywood said: All there is is the likelihood of some non-photosynthesizing plant life living on geothermal heat or whatever, then deciding it needed photosynthesis.

Sorry if I'm derailing, things that are blatantly bug the hell out of me. So I suppose I should preface my correction to PBH with the fact that I am an undergraduate who has predominantly studied pathogenic bacteriology and so my knowledge of environmental bacteriology is not as complete as I would like; see, this is what real scientists do, they admit where they may be on infirm ground.

Anyway, to continue plants were not the first to develop photosynthesis, nor did they do it independently of the first organisms to do so. Purple bacteria are still seen today to perform cyclic photosynthesis and green sulfur bacteria can perform both cyclic and non-cyclic (purple bacteria have the photosystem II scheme, green sulfur bacteria have the photosystem I scheme) and wonderful cyanobacteria have the complete "Z-scheme" seen in plants. Endosymbiotic theory, a theory with mountains of information, predicts that chloroplasts were produced from an endosymbiotic event with a free-living photosynthetic bacterium. Now this puts two rather big boots through your argument, ignoring your fallacy that plants developed photosynthesis. First, bacteria evolve much more rapidly than eukaryotic organisms owing to their short generation time, and secondly membrane-bound organelles that came about through endosymbiosis (mitochondria and chloroplasts) have DNA and are actually under their own selective pressures in an unlinked manner with the rest of the eukaryotic genome (although admittedly the eukaryotic genome has coopted many of the proteins needed in mitochondria, alas my knowledge of chloroplast function leaves me at a loss for how much of the function is plant-genome dependent).

Also (and this is awesome) at least one other less efficient light-harvesting system exists. Look up bacteriorhodopsin, instead of an electron transport chain efficiently pumping elections the protein directly absorbs a photon and uses this energy to pump protons. I think that's enough for now, sorry, ignorance just bothers the piss out of me.

bobby · 10 May 2008

slang said: bobby, you can quite your posturing to get an "yes, it falsifies id" answer just so you can claim id is science. Try real science, not "dickshunari siunce".

The article stated that ID was falsified. Do you think the author was in error?

stevaroni · 10 May 2008

Bobby complains... Science does not ’prove’ anything.

Absolutely, positively true, Bobby. But science is really damned good at disproving stuff. For example, the way science disproves the specific claims of ID as soon as they're codified enough to examine, which, I daresay, is why ID proponents have been very reticent to actually define their terms. Meanwhile, despite innuendo, misrepresentation, and perpetual bitching about misunderstood details from the early years, ID has never put a serious dent in evolution. Gee, I wonder why that is, Bobby?

Al · 10 May 2008

Al said:
Sorry if I'm derailing, things that are blatantly bug the hell out of me.

blatantly wrong , gosh darnit I've bothered myself now

Science Avenger · 10 May 2008

Bobby, falsifying the claim that the clotting system is ”irreducibly complex" does not falsify ID, in the same way that falsifying the Shroud of Turin does not falsify Christianity. Disproving a theory and disproving a piece of evidence proporting to support said theory are not the same thing.

KRB · 10 May 2008

Hey Bobby-
Fish swim in the ocean.
Penguins swim in the ocean.
Therefore, penguins are fish.
And, this controversial truth must be taught in schools, right?

SWT · 10 May 2008

bobby said:
SWT said:
bobby said: ”” But this example not only falsifies the claim that the clotting system is ”irreducibly complex”, ”” So the above is an incorrect statement? I am just quoting from the article.
For those who missed it, the complete statement is (emphasis added)
But this example not only falsifies the claim that the clotting system is ”irreducibly complex”, but the logic of entire argument Behe uses.
Do you agree with the complete statement?
Well he quite obviously said that this exmample falsifies the claim. There is no doubt about that. You do know the meaning of the phrase 'not only' dont you?

Do try to keep up. I am quite clear on what Ian meant -- I asked if you agreed with him that the cited example disproves both Behe's claim and Behe's entire argument. Do you agree with Ian or not?

Seve · 10 May 2008

I think you don't understand the problem. Two different organism could have different clotting systems. The problem is referred to man. The first human or hominid evolved from a species without clotting system as we have now.... and randomly without any rational explanation certain genes mutated to develop Factors IX and V, needed for clotting in vertebrates. I can't see how a vertebrate could survive until that mutation ocurred. The only rational explanation is that the whole system was at work. Without certain factors it would be useless. That's irreducible complexity.

stevaroni · 10 May 2008

Disproving a theory and disproving a piece of evidence proporting to support said theory are not the same thing.

True enough, Avenger, but Bobby shouldn't forget that science has disproven every piece of evidence ID has ever articulated, which is apparently why ID has stopped the practice of actually trying to put stuff on the table, and, I daresay, raises the concept of "It's falsifiable" to a whole new level.

stevaroni · 10 May 2008

Fish swim in the ocean. Penguins swim in the ocean. Therefore, penguins are fish.

Hey - I once swam in the ocean! Does that make me a penguin or a fish? Damn. Science is hard, no wonder people don't like it.

slang · 10 May 2008

Seve said: I can't see how a vertebrate could survive until that mutation ocurred. The only rational explanation is that the whole system was at work. Without certain factors it would be useless. That's irreducible complexity.

I don't think you read this article. Ian linked to it for a reason.

bobby · 10 May 2008

""True enough, Avenger, but Bobby shouldn’t forget that science has disproven every piece of evidence ID has ever articulated, ""

Give me an example of what has been disproven.

marv funder · 10 May 2008

if only IDers had a theory as scientific as panspermia!!

bobby · 10 May 2008

stevaroni said:
Fish swim in the ocean. Penguins swim in the ocean. Therefore, penguins are fish.
Hey - I once swam in the ocean! Does that make me a penguin or a fish? Damn. Science is hard, no wonder people don't like it.

What in the world are you talking about? Are you OK??

Stanton · 10 May 2008

bobby said: ""True enough, Avenger, but Bobby shouldn’t forget that science has disproven every piece of evidence ID has ever articulated, "" Give me an example of what has been disproven.

If you actually took the time to read this particular posting, rather than waste everyone's time with your worthless and aggravating trolling, you would have realized that Behe's claim of the vertebrate blood-clotting cascade system has been disproven, in that lampreys have been shown to have their own, less efficient, but similar blood-clotting cascade system, and that the Amphioxus also has a less efficient blood-clotting cascade system similar to both lampreys and vertebrates.

Science Avenger · 10 May 2008

Of course, but I don't think its possible to address every one of Bobby's misperceptions in one post, though Nigel does keep trying.

Science Avenger · 10 May 2008

marv funder said: if only IDers had a theory as scientific as panspermia!!

Yes, if only. That shows just how pathetic ID is - it is outscienced by completely speculative sci-fi.

?Bobby asked: Give me an example of what has been disproven.

The irreducible complexity of the flagellum, the mousetrap, and the eye for starters. Do you do any of your own reading, or do you just expect all of us to do it for you?

Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 10 May 2008

bobby said: "" In 1996 he claimed that the clotting system was unevolvable, and no simpler clotting system could exist. "" Is this not a prediction of ID theory? And was not the point of the article that this is not the case??

There is no design theory, as it is unfalsifiable. There is an unsubstantiated claim of design however. "Irreducible complexity" isn't a hypothesis derivable from an idea of design. In fact, evolution of interlocking complexity is derivable from evolution. (Another passed test, btw.) Just an example of the unfalsifiability of design, and how science avoids this, in fact cannot work with unfalsifiability. What is pertinent is that a main IDist made an assertion in the name of ID that turned out to be false.

bobby said: The article stated that ID was falsified.

Wrong. It stated that IC and Behe's reasoning behind it was falsified. Different proposal. Se Science Avenger's comment on purported evidence contra real predictions.

turkeyfish · 10 May 2008

Please note that there "the Amphioxus" is a misnomer.

First Branchiostoma Costa predates Amphioxus Yarrell and the former rather than the latter should be used to refer to these organisms.

Second there are actually quite a few species in the genus Branchiostoma and not just one. Thus, in actuality there is no "the Amphioxus".

Please correct the mistakes in the above post.

stevaroni · 10 May 2008

What is pertinent is that a main IDist made an assertion in the name of ID that turned out to be false.

Don't sell it short there, Torb. What you should have said to Bobby is that once they've become sufficiently detailed to actually investigate, all assertions made in the name of ID have turned out to be false." * "Irreducible Complexity is de-facto evidence of Design". Wrong. Irreducible structures are an end product, and their sheer existence is not an issue as long as there is a plausible path. * "There is no path to the blood clotting system". Wrong. Actually read the post at the top of this blog Bobby. * "There is no path to the flagellum". Wrong. 80% of the great Shibboleth of ID,the Flagellum of Dover fame, is derived from ancestral structures that did something totally different. (on the plus side, Dover did motivate some serious flagellum research). * "Natural Selection does not confer enough advantage over random mutation to drive evolution". Wrong. "Dawkins Weasel" generators deliver stunning demonstrations of the orders of magnitude improvement NS has over random walk searches. * "The sheer statistical odds disprove it". Wrong. Serious mathematicians demolished this pablum years ago and demonstrated how the "big numbers" argument is just lazy math. * "The Specified Complexity of the Genome disproves it". Wrong. There is only one proponent of this idiocy in professional mathematics, Bill Dembski, and he has failed over and over and over again to cogently demonstrate some mathematical basis for his work. People who actually understand some information theory (and that includes me) easily take his arguments apart and find the simple flaws in his math. * "The 2nd law of thermodynamics will be shown to prevent DNA complexity". Wrong. So thoroughly wrong even creationist websites caution their adherents to stop using the argument. * And my personal favorite "ID is right by default, because no other possible pathways have been demonstrated for abiogenisis". Wrong, Wrong, a thousand times wrong. Though abiogenisis proper is not actually a factor in evolution, it's still a related field so it's at leastpertinent. And admittedly, there is little consensus in the field. However, the problem or ID is that their argument only works if there are no possible paths for natural abiogenesis, an argument that is patently not the case as many possible paths have been demonstrated. No Bobby, the track record of ID argument is zero. Am I wrong? If so, please just put up your evidence already. Give me the next irrefutable ID argument.

David Stanton · 10 May 2008

So Bobby,

What coagulation factors do you think are present in Amphioxus? What theory of ID did you use to get your answer? If you make up an answer and it turns out to be wrong, will you contend that that makes ID science?

Jon Fleming · 10 May 2008

bobby said: The article stated that ID was falsified. ,/blockquote> The article did not say that ID was falsified. The article said that a particular claim about evolution (which happens to have been made gby an ID proponent) was falsified. Go back and read for comprehension. ,quote.Do you think the author was in error?

No. Your failure to understand what was clearly written is the error.

Philip Bruce Heywood · 10 May 2008

One should quote GULLIVER'S TRAVELS, where they have wars over which end of the egg to open.
I'm only interested in this talkfest because, if totally confused science practitioners are turned out onto the paths of real life, we get totally confused science policy.

No design in Nature? An irrational universe? Think of the implications. Tax everyone and regulate everyone in a frenzy of fear over what this crazy world may do next - such as overheat through CO2 production.

I see no-one is explaining how Wheat-Dogg's Site got on the 'Net without a designer.

Someone said that photosynthesis works at only 2% efficiency or thereabouts. I'm no expert - a figure of 97% for something is in the SCIENCEDAILY paper. Not that that means anything. Stephenson's ROCKET was no less designed than a modern, efficient loco..

I suspect deep-rooted confusion here somewhere. I would recommend, defining terms.

slang · 10 May 2008

More 'dikshunury siunce'. Keep it up!

PvM · 10 May 2008

I suspect deep-rooted confusion here somewhere. I would recommend, defining terms.

In a non equivocating manner. We do not want to use the worn out tricks of the trade used by ID now do we?

Dan · 10 May 2008

Philip Bruce Heywood said: An irrational universe?

Pray tell, who claims the universe is irrational?

Richard Simons · 10 May 2008

bobby said: The article stated that ID was falsified. Do you think the author was in error?

I cannot find this in the article. Let's have a cite from it.

shonny · 10 May 2008

Stanton said:
shonny said: Why are proper scientists so polite, forthcoming, and lenient towards the religious Bovine Scatologists? Isn't it about time that the whole proper scientific community stood shoulder to shoulder and excluded the IDiots and the rest of the kooks from anything to do with science, - simply froze them out, loudly ridiculed them, and made the general public aware of their backward thinking? Tare and feather Behe would be a good start, but that is of course more in line with the IDiots approach.
Actual scientists do one of two things to the Intelligent Design poseurs: 1) Treat Intelligent Design proponents as persona non grata until they bother to do science, or stop bothering scientists altogether, or 2) Examine, then destroy the fallacious claims made by Intelligent Design proponents with logic and science.

What maybe didn't really come through is that in an interesting article like this, why give Behe the undeserved dignity of trying to refute his religious dogma? To use PZ's term, Behe is a man-whore. To try and convince him of anything without also including a handsome remuneration would, it seems, be a waste of time and effort. Within science, kill him and his fellow IDiots with silence, never rising to the bait, never recognizing they exist. I think that may produce better results than trying logic and science, neither of which they seem to respond to. BTW, the article is very fascinating, even for a non-biologist like I.

Richard Simons · 10 May 2008

Regarding photosynthetic efficiency: it depends on what is considered to be the output. If you are just talking about electron transfer, it is close to 100%. If by 'output' you mean the energy value of the increased plant mass, it is normally no more than 2% and frequently under 1%. Sugar cane is one of the best, reaching around 8%.

PBH: I hope you are trying to remain honest these days!

shonny · 10 May 2008

Stanton said:
shonny said: Why are proper scientists so polite, forthcoming, and lenient towards the religious Bovine Scatologists? Isn't it about time that the whole proper scientific community stood shoulder to shoulder and excluded the IDiots and the rest of the kooks from anything to do with science, - simply froze them out, loudly ridiculed them, and made the general public aware of their backward thinking? Tare and feather Behe would be a good start, but that is of course more in line with the IDiots approach.
Actual scientists do one of two things to the Intelligent Design poseurs: 1) Treat Intelligent Design proponents as persona non grata until they bother to do science, or stop bothering scientists altogether, or 2) Examine, then destroy the fallacious claims made by Intelligent Design proponents with logic and science.

Maybe I didn't really show what I meant to express: Why engage, like in the case of this article, non-entities like Behe, thereby giving him the dignity of perceived importance? After seeing a fair amount of the IDiots responses, the only way to show them the contempt they deserve is by total, icy silence. Don't acknowledge they exist, never rise to the bait. There are people who cannot be made to see reason, and some like Behe, I think, is more because they are, to use PZ's phrase, man-whores. They sell out to the highest bidder, and adjust their expressed views accordingly. At the same time I think marginalizing the kooks by public ridicule will eventually have some positive results, at least among the ones that are reasonably bright. As to the IDiots - they are still in intellectual free-fall.

Ian Musgrave · 10 May 2008

Quick note br HTML tags don't work in Quick XML (there is an appropriate. tag but I can't remember it). Remember, preview is your friend.

Being on the other side of teh world has dissadvantages, everyone decied to comment while I was sleeping, and now it is Mothers Day, so I don't have time. I'll catch up later.

Reed A. Cartwright · 10 May 2008

XHTML tags are supported.

Who uses HTML anymore? It was replaced by XHTML over seven years ago.

Reed A. Cartwright · 10 May 2008

slang said: Reed, did someone already let you know that if you reply to two persons in one post, the replied-to header shows the wrong information?

The Reply command is an MTOS 4.15 feature. I just appended my comment quoting technique to it. It is only intended to recognize a single comment that is being replied to.

Stanton · 10 May 2008

shonny said: Maybe I didn't really show what I meant to express: Why engage, like in the case of this article, non-entities like Behe, thereby giving him the dignity of perceived importance?

Ignoring the figureheads of Intelligent Design is a bad thing, as, if people do not bother to shine a harsh, unforgiving light on the malevolent stupidity they give birth to, their bullshit will metastasize and spread. If we ignore people like Behe or Cordova, we do not have opportunities to demonstrate how idiotic they really are. As the old saying goes, "Evil (and malevolent stupidity) prospers when good men do nothing."

After seeing a fair amount of the IDiots responses, the only way to show them the contempt they deserve is by total, icy silence. Don't acknowledge they exist, never rise to the bait.

Deep down, I agree with you, at least in that we should refuse to acknowledge the presence of the various Intelligent Design flunkeys/trolls who infest here. Though, I certainly don't regret pointing out some of the bullshit they spew. At the very least, we should not bother to respond to the hyper-religious morons.

There are people who cannot be made to see reason, and some like Behe, I think, is more because they are, to use PZ's phrase, man-whores. They sell out to the highest bidder, and adjust their expressed views accordingly.

As far as I can tell, both Behe and Stein, along with all of the leading Intelligent Design proponents, have immunized themselves to reason because of the fact that they are pandering "man-whores" who rent what little dignity they have to the highest bidder.

At the same time I think marginalizing the kooks by public ridicule will eventually have some positive results, at least among the ones that are reasonably bright. As to the IDiots - they are still in intellectual free-fall.

In my opinion, marginalizing the kooks through justly deserved public ridicule will eventually yield the positive result of limiting their influence. Because the average Intelligent Design proponent has immunized himself to reason, I seriously doubt that they can be convinced to give up nonsense through things as mundane as ridicule or conversation. Also, it's my opinion that the IDiots are not in "intellectual free-fall," they went "splat" a long, long time ago, but they are still waiting for their intellectual parachute to open.

Ian Musgrave · 11 May 2008

Reed A. Cartwright said: XHTML tags are supported. Who uses HTML anymore? It was replaced by XHTML over seven years ago.

Almost everybody who doesn't use a hard wired web editor. Really, HTML is simple, easy to use and EVERYONE knows it. All the browsers recognize it. And when the header says(You may use HTML tags for style) you should be able to use HTML tags. It doesn't say use XHTML tags.

deadman_932 · 11 May 2008

Bobby Babbled: "to say that there was an intelligent intervention somewhere along the way WOULD be falsifiable. And again as Dawkins stated aliens could have seeded that planet at one time."

To "falsify" means essentially to demonstrate how your hypothesis could be shown incontrovertibly wrong -- so show me how to falsify *all* claims that "aliens could have seeded the Earth." Here's a possible scenario: aliens seeded the planet to kick-start life, then returned to their world which was then destroyed in a nova. No evidence of their existence now remains, and no hint of their former existence is found in DNA, RNA, or enzymes.

Falsify that, please. Oh, and remember that Dembski is on the record as saying he believes his "Intelligent Designer" is the Christian God.

Don't fail to falsify this scenario -- you said it could be done. Twit.

Jay Ballou · 11 May 2008

I don’t know what it is about quantum mechanics that makes peoples brains turn to mush.

Heywood's brain was already mush.

Is this not a prediction of ID theory?

No, there is no ID theory, and this is not a prediction of any theory, it's an impossibility claim by a human being, Michael Behe. The facts show that the human being was wrong. Showing that some claim of a human being is wrong does not falsify any theory (other than, I suppose, the theory that person is never wrong). A theory is only falsified if some statement is shown false that is necessarily true if the theory is valid.

Jay Ballou · 11 May 2008

But to say that there was an intelligent intervention somewhere along the way WOULD be falsifiable.

Uh, no, obviously not, any more than we can falsify the claim that you have had an intelligent thought somewhere along the way. Even if we had the capability of examining all of your thoughts, we could never guarantee that we hadn't missed that lone intelligent one.

Jay Ballou · 11 May 2008

Who uses HTML anymore? It was replaced by XHTML over seven years ago.

Cars replaced horses, but that doesn't mean no one uses horses.

Jay Ballou · 11 May 2008

bobby said:
stevaroni said:
Fish swim in the ocean. Penguins swim in the ocean. Therefore, penguins are fish.
Hey - I once swam in the ocean! Does that make me a penguin or a fish? Damn. Science is hard, no wonder people don't like it.
What in the world are you talking about? Are you OK??

Since what he's talking about is clear to any halfway intelligent person, it seems that it's you who is not ok.

Jay Ballou · 11 May 2008

Seve said: I think you don't understand the problem. Two different organism could have different clotting systems. The problem is referred to man. The first human or hominid evolved from a species without clotting system as we have now.... and randomly without any rational explanation certain genes mutated to develop Factors IX and V, needed for clotting in vertebrates. I can't see how a vertebrate could survive until that mutation ocurred. The only rational explanation is that the whole system was at work. Without certain factors it would be useless. That's irreducible complexity.

It's funny when people who are nowhere near the realm of rationality talk about what is "the only rational explanation".

Jay Ballou · 11 May 2008

Science Avenger said: Bobby, falsifying the claim that the clotting system is ”irreducibly complex" does not falsify ID, in the same way that falsifying the Shroud of Turin does not falsify Christianity. Disproving a theory and disproving a piece of evidence proporting to support said theory are not the same thing.

Clearly. So Bobby must be stupid or dishonest or both. I'd vote for the latter.

Jay Ballou · 11 May 2008

bobby said: "" In 1996 he claimed that the clotting system was unevolvable, and no simpler clotting system could exist. "" Is this not a prediction of ID theory? And was not the point of the article that this is not the case?? It seems to me Behe made a prediction based on his theory and then according to this article the prediction was not true.

So, because there's talk of theories, predictions, and falsification, you take this to be an instance of the falsification of a prediction from a theory, despite the fact that it obviously isn't an instance of same -- obvious if one actually engages their brain rather than jumping into what ever box is handy. Behe made a claim from which he argues ID follows, not the other way around. By falsifying his premise, one shows that his conclusion (ID) has not been demonstrated ... not that it's false. It's logic 101 -- I suggest taking the course.

Jay Ballou · 11 May 2008

At the end of this long-winded thesis, which he rounds off with the assertion that design does not imply a designer, he invites comments. I couldn’t resist the line: ERGO, Wheat-Dogg’s Site need not have a designer.

And this is logic 1 ... or maybe 0. Just because being an ellipse doesn't imply being a circle doesn't mean that no ellipse is in fact a circle. Duh. Ironically, the more inept someone is at reasoning, the harder it is to convince them that they've reasoned incorrectly. But one could hope that people like Bobby and Heywood might infer something from always being wrong.

Jay Ballou · 11 May 2008

Behe made a claim from which he argues ID follows, not the other way around. By falsifying his premise, one shows that his conclusion (ID) has not been demonstrated … not that it’s false. It’s logic 101 – I suggest taking the course.

To formalize this a little, Behe's argument is

IC systems can't evolve.
A system that can't evolve must have been intelligently designed (and thus ID must be correct and the ToE incorrect).
The blood clotting system is IC.
Therefore the blood clotting system must have been intelligently designed, ID is correct, and the ToE is incorrect.

What has been shown is that IC systems can evolve, therefore the above argument is unsound, thus its conclusion does not follow. It has not been shown that the conclusion is false.

rossum · 11 May 2008

Ian Musgrave said:
Behe vs Lampreys: A modest proposal.

I am most disappointed. On seeing the title I thought that Ian was proposing a radical new and innovative solution to the question of Intelligent Design. Something along the lines of Swift's original A Modest Proposal. :) rossum

Philip Bruce Heywood · 11 May 2008

I' m on the other side of the world, myself. Plus, someone hogs the computer to play games.

Dan. asked, "Who is saying the universe is irrational?"

I shan't bother with addressing other questions, such as the question of whether having a less complex clotting technique in some organisms and a more complex clotting technique in others, proves that neither of these complex 'machines' imply intelligent design. They certainly require information technology, because they function through information technology. They are 50 million times more complex than this internet page, but it is irrational, yea, even unscientific, to imply that they are designed.

By that standard, science is saying the universe is irrational. That same 'science' is now tending to turn on human beings, because it can have no trust in a purpose or design for Man on this planet. Anything we do, no matter how lawful, could destroy us. Exit human rights.

You know, clear thinking itself is a gift of God?

bobby · 11 May 2008

Jay Ballou said:
Science Avenger said: Bobby, falsifying the claim that the clotting system is ”irreducibly complex" does not falsify ID, in the same way that falsifying the Shroud of Turin does not falsify Christianity. Disproving a theory and disproving a piece of evidence proporting to support said theory are not the same thing.
Clearly. So Bobby must be stupid or dishonest or both. I'd vote for the latter.

Now come the insults because you have failed logically.

bobby · 11 May 2008

Jay Ballou said:
bobby said:
stevaroni said:
Fish swim in the ocean. Penguins swim in the ocean. Therefore, penguins are fish.
Hey - I once swam in the ocean! Does that make me a penguin or a fish? Damn. Science is hard, no wonder people don't like it.
What in the world are you talking about? Are you OK??
Since what he's talking about is clear to any halfway intelligent person, it seems that it's you who is not ok.

It is completely off topic and just trollish. Any intelligent person could see that.

bobby · 11 May 2008

Jay Ballou said:
But to say that there was an intelligent intervention somewhere along the way WOULD be falsifiable.
Uh, no, obviously not, any more than we can falsify the claim that you have had an intelligent thought somewhere along the way. Even if we had the capability of examining all of your thoughts, we could never guarantee that we hadn't missed that lone intelligent one.

Here we go: logically failing so resorting to junior high insults.

bobby · 11 May 2008

Jay Ballou said:
bobby said: "" In 1996 he claimed that the clotting system was unevolvable, and no simpler clotting system could exist. "" Is this not a prediction of ID theory? And was not the point of the article that this is not the case?? It seems to me Behe made a prediction based on his theory and then according to this article the prediction was not true.
So, because there's talk of theories, predictions, and falsification, you take this to be an instance of the falsification of a prediction from a theory, despite the fact that it obviously isn't an instance of same -- obvious if one actually engages their brain rather than jumping into what ever box is handy. Behe made a claim from which he argues ID follows, not the other way around. By falsifying his premise, one shows that his conclusion (ID) has not been demonstrated ... not that it's false. It's logic 101 -- I suggest taking the course.

Again your logic fails so you resort to insults. Obviously I hit pay dirt as far as your unsupportable claims.

bobby · 11 May 2008

OK I will try once more and see if any posters really want to discuss and not resort to junior high insults:

Would you consider astrology having scientific predictions? is it falsifiable? is it a theory??

Artfulskeptic · 11 May 2008

Philip Bruce Heywood said: I' m on the other side of the world, myself. Plus, someone hogs the computer to play games. Dan. asked, "Who is saying the universe is irrational?" I shan't bother with addressing other questions, such as the question of whether having a less complex clotting technique in some organisms and a more complex clotting technique in others, proves that neither of these complex 'machines' imply intelligent design. They certainly require information technology, because they function through information technology. They are 50 million times more complex than this internet page, but it is irrational, yea, even unscientific, to imply that they are designed.

It is irrational to imply anything must be "intelligently" designed when perfectly good non-"intelligently" designed explanations are available.

By that standard, science is saying the universe is irrational. That same 'science' is now tending to turn on human beings, because it can have no trust in a purpose or design for Man on this planet. Anything we do, no matter how lawful, could destroy us. Exit human rights.

Exactly backwards. Science works on the assumption that the processes of the universe are consistent and that the patterns of those processes can be discovered and quantified by rational experimentation. In a consistent (i.e. rational universe) I can be confident that my computer will work, that the sun will continue to shine (at least for a few billion years) gravity will continue to to work, planes will fly, buildings will stay up and so on because the same rules that applied yesterday apply today. Creationists, IDiots, and assorted crack-pots like yourself, instead work on the assumption than the universe is inconsistent and irrational. In crack-pot-topia, the processes of the universe are occasionally suspended by some supernatural force that can never be quantified or understood. In such a universe there is no guarantee that the sun will continue to shine, gravity will continue to work, water will remain liquid or that anything we take for granted will continue to behave in a consistent manner because the supernatural forces might just change the rules. In short, your world, Crack-pot-topia, is insane.

You know, clear thinking itself is a gift of God?

If that is true, God must really hate you.

Stanton · 11 May 2008

Philip Bruce Heywood said: You know, clear thinking itself is a gift of God?

Given your irresistible habit of producing an unending stream of mental vomit, it appears God gave you an IOU in place of the ability to think clearly. Feel free to contradict me by explaining what an "entropy barrier" is, and why it prevents speciation from occurring even though speciation has been observed and documented numerous times.

bobby said: OK I will try once more and see if any posters really want to discuss and not resort to junior high insults: Would you consider astrology having scientific predictions? is it falsifiable? is it a theory??

Your alleged concerns about the falsification of Intelligent Design have already been addressed several times by several posters, including me. You have either ignored them or disqualified them specifically so you can go on trolling in this thread. Astrology is not a science, it has been debunked numerous times, the results of which are easily found in Google. If you have nothing to contribute beside your constant stream of questions, the answers of which you always ignore and disregard, then please go away.

Stanton · 11 May 2008

Mr Ballou's excellent post bears repeating for bobby's sake. It's obvious that bobby never read it.

Jay Ballou said:
Behe made a claim from which he argues ID follows, not the other way around. By falsifying his premise, one shows that his conclusion (ID) has not been demonstrated … not that it’s false. It’s logic 101 – I suggest taking the course.
To formalize this a little, Behe's argument is
IC systems can't evolve.
A system that can't evolve must have been intelligently designed (and thus ID must be correct and the ToE incorrect).
The blood clotting system is IC.
Therefore the blood clotting system must have been intelligently designed, ID is correct, and the ToE is incorrect.

What has been shown is that IC systems can evolve, therefore the above argument is unsound, thus its conclusion does not follow. It has not been shown that the conclusion is false.

stevaroni · 11 May 2008

Bobby sez (about me) It is completely off topic and just trollish.

No Bobby, I'm not a troll, I'm just a smartass sometimes. It's called levity, AKA the ability to chuckle at yourself. I find it goes a long way toward preserving my sanity after a long day of banging my head off the wall brought on by having to argue yet again that yes, yes, yes, the world really is round.

stevaroni · 11 May 2008

Bobby asks... Would you consider astrology having scientific predictions? is it falsifiable? is it a theory?

Actually astrology does make predictions, IE the arrangement of the stars at the moment of your birth affects your persona, instilling strengths and weakness and causing events that are predictable. Not only can this assertion be falsified, it already has, I'd have to dig a little to find it, but I recall seeing a list a few years back that enumerated quite a few studies over the years that tried to find astrological correlations and failed. It could perhaps be called a "theory" in the "speculative hypothesis" sense of the word, but it's a hypothesis that's resoundingly failed objective tests. It certainly doesn't make it as a "theory" in the "collated explanation" sense of the word, since it explains nothing and doesn't seem to actually work. It's a pity that the founders in the field picked "Theory of Evolution" instead of "Laws of Common Descent" or something like that, and we wouldn't have to play these semantic word games with the IDiots.

David Stanton · 11 May 2008

Bobby,

From your horror scope:

Gemini: You should be careful of strangers today. Trust your instincts.

Now Bobby, do you think that you could answer your own question? Did this appear in a table in a scientific journal? Is there a mechanism by which your birth date could possibly affect your behavior today or how others treat you? Where is the formula that allowed this "prediction" to be made? How could a statement of this type be tested? Could it be falsified? Is there statistical evidence that such predictions have any value whatsoever? Does such nonsense give any explanation at all about how the universe works? Could some underpaid high school drop-out making stuff up churn out this stuff at a rate of pages per hour? Do you really want this taught to your kids in science class?

rog · 11 May 2008

Philip Bruce Heywood said: Someone said that photosynthesis works at only 2% efficiency or thereabouts. I'm no expert - a figure of 97% for something is in the SCIENCEDAILY paper.

PBH, Send me the exact reference and we will clear up your misunderstanding. To begin with chlorophyll absorbs only a small fraction of the solar spectrum. Silicon solar cells absorb a much larger range. rog

Philip Bruce Heywood · 11 May 2008

The Artful Dodger just classified at least 90% of respected scientists, from Galileo through to Einstein, as imbeciles. They all stood on the concept of purpose/rationality in Nature, and most of them avowed some form of creationism.

Belief that CO2 production will inevitably destroy our climate - and I don't savour smoke and fumes any more than anyone else - is one example of a failure of rationality on the part of some scientists. Given a purpose for mankind by Something beyond him, it doesn't make sense to assume that the said Purpose put fossil fuels here, to ruin the world thereby. (The 'science' involved is based on insufficient knowledge, anyway.)

Mr. Stanton has had entropy and it's barrier potential explained at least twice, and like Arty, doesn't see eye to eye with imbeciles such as Maxwell, Joule, and Kelvin. He also regularly donates brand new species to zoos, for the public's entertainment. If you wish to get something more on speciation, Stanto., duck on over to PZ's PARYNGULA, well down the page. Cheers.

Philip Bruce Heywood · 11 May 2008

Rog: Thanks for the offer. It was addressed earlier on. I am confident you would be correct.

David Stanton · 11 May 2008

PBH wrote:

"Given a purpose for mankind by Something beyond him, it doesn’t make sense to assume that the said Purpose put fossil fuels here, to ruin the world thereby."

So, anything that man can do is OK because God wouldn't let us do anything that would be bad for us? Well, God made it possible to make atomic bombs too, apparently. So, using this logic, it is just fine to develop and use nuclear weapons because nothing bad could possibly happen. Just great! Sounds to me like the perfect reason to do all of the science we can.

Now PBH what if you are wrong? What if fossil fuels are simply the accumulated dead remains of billions of organisms and God has nothing to do with it? Could there be dangerous consequences to indiscrimate use of such a resource? Or what if fossil fuels are like that apple in the tree? What if God gets really pissed again?

Dan · 11 May 2008

Richard Simons said: Regarding photosynthetic efficiency: it depends on what is considered to be the output. If you are just talking about electron transfer, it is close to 100%. If by 'output' you mean the energy value of the increased plant mass, it is normally no more than 2% and frequently under 1%. Sugar cane is one of the best, reaching around 8%.

As a thermodynamicist, I have to chime in here. Most engines work through a temperature difference (these are called "heat engines"). Some work through a concentration difference ("diffusion engines"). The second law of thermodynamics shows that the maximum efficiency of any heat engine is the temperature difference divided by the (absolute) temperature of the higher temperature. (The "Carnot efficiency".) I once tried to work out the corresponding maximum efficiency for a diffusion engine, and was not able to find it, but it must involve something like the differences in concentration. Coal-fired and nuclear power plants are heat engines (the temperature difference is between the burning coal or nuclear reactor, and the environment), and they typically work at about 30% of the Carnot ceiling: see "AIP Conference Proceeding No. 25 - Technical Aspects of the More Efficient Utilization of Energy". Automobile engines work at about 10% of the Carnot ceiling. Coming to photosynthesis: I don't know enough about photosynthesis to say whether it's a heat engine or a diffusion engine or both, but certainly it's working through very small temperature differences or very small concentration differences. Hence the second law puts a very low ceiling on its possible efficiency. The 2% quoted here might be very close to the Carnot ceiling.

Dan · 11 May 2008

Philip Bruce Heywood said: Dan asked, "Who is saying the universe is irrational?" [snip] science is saying the universe is irrational.

First of all "science" doesn't say anything, just as "business" doesn't say anything, "politics" doesn't say anything, and "nature" doesn't say anything. You must be thinking of what "scientists" say. (Just as "businessmen" do say things, "politicians" do say things, and "naturalists" do say things.) Now, can you name any scientist who says "the universe is irrational"? Can you name any scientific society who has issued such a statement? I doubt you can, because scientists have only three tools with which to probe the universe: observation, experiment, and reason. If the universe were irrational, there would be no sense in doing science because it wouldn't help us understand the universe.

Frank J · 11 May 2008

this it has been the evolutionary biologists doing the heavy lifting. Generating predictions and models, testing clotting systems in various animals, cloning clotting factors, searching databases and finally, assembling genes from fragments. What have the ID apologists been doing in the 12 years since “Darwins Black Box” was published? Not a lot.
— Ian Musgrave

Apologies if someone in those 114 comments beat me to it, but if so, it's worth repeating: How can they publish anything when we keep "expelling" them? I'm kidding of course - they have had ample opportunity to propose testable alternatives - but since we have been calling their bluff so much all these years it should be no surprise that they are steadily retreating from clever incredulity arguments to just whining about being "expelled." They remind me of the bad guys who throw the gun at Superman after running out of bullets. But don't laugh yet, they still have ~70% of the public fooled that the "gun" is made of "kryptonite."

Science Avenger · 11 May 2008

bobby said: OK I will try once more and see if any posters really want to discuss and not resort to junior high insults:

Sorry Bobby, several us answered your questions the first time. I'll do so again, but from a different angle. ID theory does not imply there would be IC items. It says there COULD be IC items. This wiggle room on every topic is what makes ID not science, and why refuting Behe's comments about it do not refute ID. I for one see no reason to entertain your other questions until you are willing to deal honestly with the answers you've gotten to this one.

Dan · 11 May 2008

Philip Bruce Heywood said: Dan asked, "Who is saying the universe is irrational?" [snip] science is saying the universe is irrational.

Let's see what scientists think, rather than what Mr. Heywood thinks scientists think: "The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible." -- Albert Einstein "This uncanny usefulness of mathematical concepts [in the natural sciences] ... is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve." -- Eugene Wigner, in "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences" http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html

Artfulskeptic · 11 May 2008

Philip Bruce Heywood said: The Artful Dodger just classified at least 90% of respected scientists, from Galileo through to Einstein, as imbeciles. They all stood on the concept of purpose/rationality in Nature, and most of them avowed some form of creationism.

PBH, your assertion is almost incomprehensibly asinine. Either the universe is consistent, or it isn't. If it's consistent, science can work to describe its patterns. If it is inconsistent, science can achieve nothing. The luminaries you refer to, Galileo and Einstein, could not have made the discoveries they did if the laws of physics were susceptible to supernatural hiccoughs. Galileo's observation was, "The planets orbit the sun." It was not, "The planets orbit the sun... except when God diddles with them." Likewise, Einstein's famous equation was "E=mc^2" not, "E=mc^2... except when God doesn't feel like it." And if Einstein believed God created the universe, so what? God never shows up in Einstein's equations, or Galileo's, or Newton's, or Kepler's, or Kelvin's. What they believed about God was irrelevant to their science. E=mc^2 works just as well for Hindus as it does for Christians.

bobby · 11 May 2008

David Stanton said: Bobby, From your horror scope: Gemini: You should be careful of strangers today. Trust your instincts. Now Bobby, do you think that you could answer your own question? Did this appear in a table in a scientific journal? Is there a mechanism by which your birth date could possibly affect your behavior today or how others treat you? Where is the formula that allowed this "prediction" to be made? How could a statement of this type be tested? Could it be falsified? Is there statistical evidence that such predictions have any value whatsoever? Does such nonsense give any explanation at all about how the universe works? Could some underpaid high school drop-out making stuff up churn out this stuff at a rate of pages per hour? Do you really want this taught to your kids in science class?

That is pop astrology very different that professional astrology. There are many studies on astrology. You should read them and I think they should be shown to students.

bobby · 11 May 2008

Science Avenger said:
bobby said: OK I will try once more and see if any posters really want to discuss and not resort to junior high insults:
Sorry Bobby, several us answered your questions the first time. I'll do so again, but from a different angle. ID theory does not imply there would be IC items. It says there COULD be IC items. This wiggle room on every topic is what makes ID not science, and why refuting Behe's comments about it do not refute ID. I for one see no reason to entertain your other questions until you are willing to deal honestly with the answers you've gotten to this one.

"" ID theory does not imply there would be IC items. It says there COULD be IC items. "" I believe this is a false statement. And I think you should to a little research before you spout off.

bobby · 11 May 2008

Stanton said:
Philip Bruce Heywood said: You know, clear thinking itself is a gift of God?
Given your irresistible habit of producing an unending stream of mental vomit, it appears God gave you an IOU in place of the ability to think clearly. Feel free to contradict me by explaining what an "entropy barrier" is, and why it prevents speciation from occurring even though speciation has been observed and documented numerous times.
bobby said: OK I will try once more and see if any posters really want to discuss and not resort to junior high insults: Would you consider astrology having scientific predictions? is it falsifiable? is it a theory??
Your alleged concerns about the falsification of Intelligent Design have already been addressed several times by several posters, including me. You have either ignored them or disqualified them specifically so you can go on trolling in this thread. Astrology is not a science, it has been debunked numerous times, the results of which are easily found in Google. If you have nothing to contribute beside your constant stream of questions, the answers of which you always ignore and disregard, then please go away.

"" Astrology is not a science "" I never said it was. Seems like you have trouble reading or are just trolling.

stevaroni · 11 May 2008

@ 2:06 PM Bobby complains... ““ Astrology is not a science ““ I never said it was. Seems like you have trouble reading or are just trolling.

Uh huh. A quick glance at the record shows that at 8:08 AM Bobby replied to comment from Jay Ballou

OK I will try once more and see if any posters really want to discuss and not resort to junior high insults: Would you consider astrology having scientific predictions? is it falsifiable? is it a theory??

1) Bobby asks a direct question. 2) It was promptly answered from several perspectives, by people who took time from weekend activities that were almost certainly more important than responding to him. 3) Bobby then complains that the act of promptly and directly answering the question he raised is somehow trolling. Typical IDiot. Throw crap at the wall to see what sticks, then when nothing does, complain about the mess on the floor.

bobby · 11 May 2008

stevaroni said:
@ 2:06 PM Bobby complains... ““ Astrology is not a science ““ I never said it was. Seems like you have trouble reading or are just trolling.
Uh huh. A quick glance at the record shows that at 8:08 AM Bobby replied to comment from Jay Ballou
OK I will try once more and see if any posters really want to discuss and not resort to junior high insults: Would you consider astrology having scientific predictions? is it falsifiable? is it a theory??
1) Bobby asks a direct question. 2) It was promptly answered from several perspectives, by people who took time from weekend activities that were almost certainly more important than responding to him. 3) Bobby then complains that the act of promptly and directly answering the question he raised is somehow trolling. Typical IDiot. Throw crap at the wall to see what sticks, then when nothing does, complain about the mess on the floor.

You are an idiot. You did not read the question correctly. Quit trolling.

bobby · 11 May 2008

It seems this is just a gathering place for trolls. Is there anyone of any intelligence out there who would really like discuss these issues?

(Trolls please do not respond. Thank You. )

Stanton · 11 May 2008

bobby said: It seems this is just a gathering place for trolls. Is there anyone of any intelligence out there who would really like discuss these issues? (Trolls please do not respond. Thank You. )

Calling us trolls simply because we are tired and frustrated by your inane refusal to accept anything we've said does not make you right.

Science Avenger · 11 May 2008

bobby said: "" ID theory does not imply there would be IC items. It says there COULD be IC items. "" I believe this is a false statement. And I think you should to a little research before you spout off.

No one here cares what you believe you pathetic troll. We care what you can demonstrate with evidence. So, where is your evidence that ID Theory implies there would be IC items? For that matter, what exactly is scientific ID theory anyway? See, we've been begging the IDers to give us one for years, and they never do. What they give us is always impervious to falsifiable testing. Spouting off that others should do research when you clearly have no idea what you are talking about doesn't impress anyone.

Science Avenger · 11 May 2008

bobby said: It seems this is just a gathering place for trolls. Is there anyone of any intelligence out there who would really like discuss these issues? (Trolls please do not respond. Thank You. )

OK, my vote is to give this random word generator the boot.

bobby · 11 May 2008

Stanton said:
bobby said: It seems this is just a gathering place for trolls. Is there anyone of any intelligence out there who would really like discuss these issues? (Trolls please do not respond. Thank You. )
Calling us trolls simply because we are tired and frustrated by your inane refusal to accept anything we've said does not make you right.

I asked politely for trolls not to respond.

bobby · 11 May 2008

Science Avenger said:
bobby said: "" ID theory does not imply there would be IC items. It says there COULD be IC items. "" I believe this is a false statement. And I think you should to a little research before you spout off.
No one here cares what you believe you pathetic troll. We care what you can demonstrate with evidence. So, where is your evidence that ID Theory implies there would be IC items? For that matter, what exactly is scientific ID theory anyway? See, we've been begging the IDers to give us one for years, and they never do. What they give us is always impervious to falsifiable testing. Spouting off that others should do research when you clearly have no idea what you are talking about doesn't impress anyone.

I asked politely for trolls not to respond. Why did you??

bobby · 11 May 2008

bobby said:
Science Avenger said:
bobby said: "" ID theory does not imply there would be IC items. It says there COULD be IC items. "" I believe this is a false statement. And I think you should to a little research before you spout off.
No one here cares what you believe you pathetic troll. We care what you can demonstrate with evidence. So, where is your evidence that ID Theory implies there would be IC items? For that matter, what exactly is scientific ID theory anyway? See, we've been begging the IDers to give us one for years, and they never do. What they give us is always impervious to falsifiable testing. Spouting off that others should do research when you clearly have no idea what you are talking about doesn't impress anyone.
I asked politely for trolls not to respond. Why did you??

OK I will dumb down a bit: Is astrology falsifiable? (And please trolls go do something else for a while and let some good converation get thru here. )

Stanton · 11 May 2008

bobby said: I asked politely for trolls not to respond.

Because you have no power over me, ~~bobby~~Troll. Furthermore, you refuse to acknowledge any of the responses ever given to you.

bobby said: OK I will dumb down a bit: Is astrology falsifiable? (And please trolls go do something else for a while and let some good converation get thru here. )

Astrology is not a science, it is a form of fortune-telling. The fortunes given by astrologists are ambiguously worded to allow for lots of interpretation, and to appear as being prevent obvious falsification. Even so, the predictions they make are rarely accurate to begin with. So, please acknowledge that we have actually given you answers, or go away.

Stanton · 11 May 2008

Science Avenger said:
bobby said: It seems this is just a gathering place for trolls. Is there anyone of any intelligence out there who would really like discuss these issues? (Trolls please do not respond. Thank You. )
OK, my vote is to give this random word generator the boot.

Is it too much to ask the Administrators to send bobby to the Bathroom Wall for good, or at least whenever he starts up with his moronic, inane accusations of trolling?

slang · 11 May 2008

bobby trolled: Would you consider astrology having scientific predictions? is it falsifiable? is it a theory??

*DOVER FLASHBACK* OMFSM! Tis BEHE himself redefining science again!

bobby · 11 May 2008

slang said:
bobby trolled: Would you consider astrology having scientific predictions? is it falsifiable? is it a theory??
*DOVER FLASHBACK* OMFSM! Tis BEHE himself redefining science again!

then how do YOU define a scientific prediction?

bobby · 11 May 2008

Stanton said:
Science Avenger said:
bobby said: It seems this is just a gathering place for trolls. Is there anyone of any intelligence out there who would really like discuss these issues? (Trolls please do not respond. Thank You. )
OK, my vote is to give this random word generator the boot.
Is it too much to ask the Administrators to send bobby to the Bathroom Wall for good, or at least whenever he starts up with his moronic, inane accusations of trolling?

I see now: YOU are the resident troll. Please do not respond to me thank you.

Science Avenger · 11 May 2008

bobby said: I asked politely for trolls not to respond. Why did you??

1) Because I'm not a troll. Trolls ask questions and ignore the answers, like you. You don't get to play Humpty Dumpty here and make up definitions as you go. 2) Because this is a public discussion board and you don't get to control who responds to you (unless you are an administrator), and most importantly 3) To show that you are indeed a troll, as you continue to ignore my answer to your question, which is: There is no ID Theory, certainly not one that implies there would be IC items, thus refuting Behe's claims about IC does not refute ID. You said I was wrong, so put up or be dismissed as a troll: Where is your evidence that ID Theory implies there would be IC items?

Stanton · 11 May 2008

bobby said: I see now: YOU are the resident troll. Please do not respond to me thank you.

~~bobby/Troll~~Moron, I'm not the one demanding evidence, then ignoring it, then demanding that the falsibility of astrology be demonstrated, even though astrology has nothing to do with lampreys on this thread.

slang · 11 May 2008

bobby said:
slang said:
bobby trolled: [...]astrology[...]
OMFSM! Tis BEHE himself redefining science again!
then how do YOU define a scientific prediction?

Ah.. not even denying it. How I would define it matters not. What matters is how the scientific community defines it, and surely, Dr. Behe, you remember that from the Dover trial. If not I refer you to the trial transcripts as available on talkorigin.org.

SWT · 11 May 2008

bobby said: It seems this is just a gathering place for trolls. Is there anyone of any intelligence out there who would really like discuss these issues? (Trolls please do not respond. Thank You. )

bobby -- you seem to have forgotten to answer a couple of questions I had:

SWT said:
bobby said: So posters here feel that this article shows an observation that would not happen if ID theory was correct?
What observation could possibly be made that is incompatible with ID?

SWT said:
bobby said: But to say that there was an intelligent intervention somewhere along the way WOULD be falsifiable.
How?

SWT said:
bobby said:
SWT said:
bobby said: ”” But this example not only falsifies the claim that the clotting system is ”irreducibly complex”, ”” So the above is an incorrect statement? I am just quoting from the article.
For those who missed it, the complete statement is (emphasis added)
But this example not only falsifies the claim that the clotting system is ”irreducibly complex”, but the logic of entire argument Behe uses.
Do you agree with the complete statement?
Well he quite obviously said that this exmample falsifies the claim. There is no doubt about that. You do know the meaning of the phrase 'not only' dont you?
Do try to keep up. I am quite clear on what Ian meant -- I asked if you agreed with him that the cited example disproves both Behe's claim and Behe's entire argument. Do you agree with Ian or not?

Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 11 May 2008

stevaroni said: Don't sell it short there, Torb. What you should have said to Bobby is that once they've become sufficiently detailed to actually investigate, all assertions made in the name of ID have turned out to be false."

That works too. Actually, that likely behavior is a predictive (social) "theory of ID" that I could support. :-P

Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 11 May 2008

Philip Bruce Heywood said: No design in Nature? An irrational universe? Think of the implications.

You are confused. (What a revelation.) There is no design precisely because there is regularity in the observable universe, specifically evolution. Similarly there is no implication from lack of natural design, as we simply observe what exists.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 11 May 2008

bobby said: Would you consider astrology having scientific predictions? is it falsifiable? is it a theory??

See Jay Ballou's explanation between the difference of an unsound argument following from false assumptions or other problems, and a falsified theory following from a false prediction. The former is debunking which is what happened with astrology's claim of astronomical signs affecting events and/or personality. The later is rejection which happens with sound theories being empirically wrong.

stevaroni · 11 May 2008

Bobby whines... You are (the) idiot. You did not read the question correctly.

IDiot, Bobby I-D-iot. Get it? It is tiresome dealing with trolls sometimes. No sense of humor at all after growing up under bridges, I suppose.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 11 May 2008

Actually, reading stevaroni's comment I realize that astrology could be considered a theory as we can "observe" signs by their definition.

Thinking further, it is arguable that today such knowledge as interaction strengths and speeds makes the assumptions unsound. So it seems to me the status of theory/falsification and unsound idea/debunking will depend on current knowledge.

In any case, either way will lead to non-acceptance.

Henry J · 11 May 2008

Frank J,

But don’t laugh yet, they still have ~70% of the public fooled that the “gun” is made of “kryptonite.”

Well, that would explain why Superman just stands there for the bullets, but ducks when they guy throws the gun at him. ;) Henry

Henry J · 11 May 2008

Actually, reading stevaroni’s comment I realize that astrology could be considered a theory as we can “observe” signs by their definition.

I'd think that the first criteria for a statement to qualify as a hypothesis would be that there is a pattern of evidence that the proposed hypothesis would explain* if it's correct. Afaik, astrology doesn't qualify. *(i.e., the pattern would be a necessary (or at least very likely) logical consequence of the hypothesis, and at least some part of that pattern would be unexpected if the hypothesis is wrong.) Henry

W. H. Heydt · 11 May 2008

bobby said:
David Stanton said: Bobby, From your horror scope: Gemini: You should be careful of strangers today. Trust your instincts. Now Bobby, do you think that you could answer your own question? Did this appear in a table in a scientific journal? Is there a mechanism by which your birth date could possibly affect your behavior today or how others treat you? Where is the formula that allowed this "prediction" to be made? How could a statement of this type be tested? Could it be falsified? Is there statistical evidence that such predictions have any value whatsoever? Does such nonsense give any explanation at all about how the universe works? Could some underpaid high school drop-out making stuff up churn out this stuff at a rate of pages per hour? Do you really want this taught to your kids in science class?
That is pop astrology very different that professional astrology. There are many studies on astrology. You should read them and I think they should be shown to students.

Students of *what*? Fallacies?

David Stanton · 11 May 2008

And there you have it folks, Bobby thinks that "professionsl astrology" is science and should be taught in science class. He has no mechanism, no explanatory power and no predictive power. Does all of this sound familiar?

Astrology got us exactly nowhere. ID got us exactly nowhere. Why do these guys not get the clue?

By the way Bobby, I don't think that even "pop" astrology uses a "horror scope".

Mike Elzinga · 11 May 2008

And there you have it folks, Bobby thinks that “professional astrology” is science and should be taught in science class.

It wouldn’t be surprising if he also believes visitors in UFOs abduct people and mess with their genitalia. This bobby character looks like someone who would buy into all kinds of far-out pseudo-scienific crap. He can’t seem to sort out who says what, and he projects his own delusions onto everyone else. And then there is his constant repetition. That in itself (perseveration) is a pretty good sign of mental problems.

Mike M · 12 May 2008

Having followed this since the original article was posted, I'm just really confused now after reading bobby's posts. I'm not actually a scientist so please be kind and excuse any ignorance.

I thought that some time ago a man championing the cause of "intelligent design" known as "Dr Behe" said, wrote, then said again that we could see that certain things were "irreducibly complex" - they would not function without all of their individual components.

I thought that he used this a principle argument as to why we could infer that certain things must be "intelligently designed".

I thought one of these things was the blood clotting system (as well as a bunch of other stuff).

By my reading of the above article, it appears to have been both predicted, and now shown, that the clotting system is not in fact "irreducibly complex". There are living creatures which do lack one or more of its components (as applied to humans, etc) and who apparently don't haemorrhage to death.

I keep reading about astrology, theories, falsifiability, blah blah blah. But none of that seems to change what I have noted above which I'd think was pretty significant in respect of Dr Behe's various assertions. Am I missing something?

Dan · 12 May 2008

Mike M said: By my reading of the above article, it appears to have been both predicted, and now shown, that the clotting system is not in fact "irreducibly complex". [snip] I keep reading [in the comments] about astrology, theories, falsifiability, blah blah blah. But none of that seems to change what I have noted above which I'd think was pretty significant in respect of Dr Behe's various assertions. Am I missing something?

You're missing nothing. When the arguments of ID proponents are shown to be wrong, they quickly change the topic and raise irrelevant questions of falsifiability, theory, astrology, etc. In any other context this would be called "raising a red herring" but perhaps here we should call it "raising a red lamprey".

bobby · 12 May 2008

Again the insults...

Yes the scientific studies of astrology should be studied in high school. Astrology makes scientific predictions and the vast majority of those predictions fail. This would be an excellent way for students to see what is evidence based and what is not. Many people believe in astrology and I think this is very harmful but since it is not discussed and the evidence against it is not demonstrated this damaging pseudo-science lives on generation after generation.

And the evidence against Darwinism should be taught and not hidden also. This would allow students to make up their own minds rather than be indoctrinated.

bobby · 12 May 2008

And the point is that ID does make scientific predictions just as much as Darwinism does. To say this is not so is just propaganda.

The evidence for Darwinism is based almost completely on doubtful extrapolation: 'since we see that animals can change slightly we can infer that very large changes can occur.' This is interpretation and has never been proven (or disproven)

SWT · 12 May 2008

bobby, You seem to have missed my questions again. They are not rhetorical questions.

bobby said: So posters here feel that this article shows an observation that would not happen if ID theory was correct?

What observation could possibly be made that is incompatible with ID?

bobby said: But to say that there was an intelligent intervention somewhere along the way WOULD be falsifiable.

How?

bobby said:
SWT said:
bobby said: ”” But this example not only falsifies the claim that the clotting system is ”irreducibly complex”, ”” So the above is an incorrect statement? I am just quoting from the article.
For those who missed it, the complete statement is (emphasis added)
But this example not only falsifies the claim that the clotting system is ”irreducibly complex”, but the logic of entire argument Behe uses.
Do you agree with the complete statement?
Well he quite obviously said that this exmample falsifies the claim. There is no doubt about that. You do know the meaning of the phrase 'not only' dont you?

Do you or do you not agree with Ian that the cited example disproves both Behe's claim and Behe's entire argument?

Richard Simons · 12 May 2008

bobby said: And the point is that ID does make scientific predictions just as much as Darwinism does. To say this is not so is just propaganda.

If there are any predictions, why are they so carefully hidden away? Please give an example of a prediction made on the basis of ID theory, one that is testable and which differs from the predictions of evolutionary theory. Remember, irreducible complexity was not claimed to be a prediction of ID, rather it has been touted as evidence for ID, even though it has long been predicted as a consequence of evolution.

The evidence for Darwinism is based almost completely on doubtful extrapolation:

Why do you and other IDers/Creationists keep spouting such rubbish here when you must be well aware that we know it is not true? Are you just keeping in practice for when you argue with people who do not know much about the subject?

Philip Bruce Heywood · 12 May 2008

Mike M., I dunno. Check to see if the dog or something ran off with something while you were looking at the computer. Maybe you're missing a laugh.

Good technical stuff at the top, thanks. Emphasis on the technical. I still haven't fathomed what this is about.

Eh, Bobby. You are correct. There's a vacuum out there, and Darwinism filled it. If you wish to pursue this, you could look up Signalled Evolution at www.creationtheory.com , get familiar with it, and place something in front of the peoples other than the Darwin-sucking vacuum. Many of these page hosts are sympathetic to anything like that, that comes along in terms of hard facts. Get it straight, though, and present it straight. As soon as something straight comes along, the crooked becomes obvious. How's that for carp.

Stanton · 12 May 2008

bobby said: And the point is that ID does make scientific predictions just as much as Darwinism does. To say this is not so is just propaganda.

The very very few predictions made by Intelligent Design "theory," such as "(insert biological structure here) is irreducibly complex, and could never have evolved with supernatural assistance from an Intelligent Designer" or "Evidence of an Intelligent Designer can be detected" or "Junk DNA has a function" have either been repeatedly proven false, never ever been demonstrated even when demanded, or are worded so vaguely so as to be unhelpful. This isn't propaganda, ~~bobby~~Troll, this is the truth.

The evidence for Darwinism is based almost completely on doubtful extrapolation: 'since we see that animals can change slightly we can infer that very large changes can occur.' This is interpretation and has never been proven (or disproven)

You are either hypocritically repeating Creationist propaganda, or you are painfully unaware of what humans have done with plants and animals for the last fifteen thousand+ years.

Mike M · 12 May 2008

What scientific predictions does ID make?

I'm not trying to be smart. I just want to know some simple examples as I've never heard of anything you could seriously call a "prediction" of ID.

I've heard heaps of "assertions" from ID, mainly along the lines that ID will one day show that God must have created life on Earth (even though you're not supposed to say "God" because the intelligent designer could also be a giant three-headed pink python from the planet Zorba) but no predictions. That obviously includes explanation of how those predictions arise. ID seems to revolve around "God did this, then he did that, and he did that too, and we're not sure how that happened but suffice to say he must've done it" while being a little sparse on details.

stevaroni · 12 May 2008

Bobby sez... Astrology makes scientific predictions and the vast majority of those predictions fail. This would be an excellent way for students to see what is evidence based and what is not. And the evidence against Darwinism should be taught and not hidden also.

Finally! An admission that there is such a thing as objective evidence, and it matters! Hallelujah! Now... I'll type slowly, Bobby. One more time, what is this magical "evidence against Darwinism"? Do you actually have some, (because frankly, you might win a Nobel Prize for it) or is it just the same tired argument that science hasn't discovered the answer to every last question so therefore everything known about biology must be wrong? Conversely, the IDiots have proven again and again that when they say "teach the flaws of Darwin" they actually actually mean "teach ID", so what is the evidence for ID? (you could win a Nobel for that too)

Dan · 12 May 2008

bobby said: The evidence for Darwinism is based almost completely on doubtful extrapolation: 'since we see that animals can change slightly we can infer that very large changes can occur.' This is interpretation and has never been proven (or disproven)

(1) There is no such thing as Darwinism. Consider a case like Calvinism: people read the works of Calvin and take them literally. Very few people read the works of Darwin, and no one thinks that they represent the literal truth. For example, Darwin's theory of pangenesis is universally rejected. I assume that bobby knows this and uses incorrect terminology only to needle us. (2) Here is another case of dubious extrapolation that has never been proven or disproven: The claim that I have a liver. No one has ever seen my liver. The doubtful extrapolation is that "everyone who's ever undergone liver surgery, or been autopsied, has a liver, thus Dan must have a liver". But of course, most people have not undergone liver surgery or been autopsied! It is a very bold extrapolation to say that I have a liver. Even bobby can see that, by his standards, the existence of my liver is mere interpretation. We needn't stop there. I admit that some samples of matter have undergone extensive testing and it's been shown beyond reasonable doubt that they consist of atoms. But the chair I'm sitting in has not been subject to such tests. In fact, only a tiny fraction of the objects on Earth have undergone such tests, and none of the objects on Jupiter have. This is extrapolation on a grand scale. By bobby's standards, atomic theory is mere interpretation. The thing I find confusing about people like bobby is that they rail against evolution, while ignoring the much weaker evidence for atomic theory and for the existence of my liver. Bobby, can you help us out by saying why you aim your admirable skepticism at evolution only, and not at any other piece of science?

Jim Wynne · 12 May 2008

bobby said: The evidence for Darwinism is based almost completely on doubtful extrapolation: 'since we see that animals can change slightly we can infer that very large changes can occur.'

Jesus and Mo agree with you, Booby.

shonny · 12 May 2008

Just out of curiosity:

Is the 'bobby' critter a POE, an IDiot, or a creotard?

I won't even pretend I can make the distinction in this case, but lean toward the two latter because I haven't seen any little give-aways.

Should he be a Poe, then he is very good.
But regardless, he most certainly has got a lot more attention than he deserves.

Just think about it, - if he had been ignored from his first posting, would he still be at it?

David Stanton · 12 May 2008

Bobby, Bobby, Bobby. Again with the pathetic double standard. You demand evidence, yet you provide none. Your ignorance of the evidence is not evidence of anything but your ignorance. As has been pointed out to you many times before, there is a great deal of evidence that demonstrates conclusively that all organisms shared a common ancestor. Why else would anyone believe it if there were no evidence?

Now Bobby, you can go to the Talk Origins archive and read the article titled: "29 Evidences for Macroevolution". My favorite is the one about plagarized genetic errors in the molecular genetics section, but I'm sure you can find something there to grab your attention. Then you can come back here and tell us all about the fact that there is no evidence. I'm sure we'll all fall for that. Then you can present your alternative and your evidence.

stevaroni · 12 May 2008

bobby said: The evidence for Darwinism is based almost completely on doubtful extrapolation: ‘since we see that animals can change slightly we can infer that very large changes can occur.’

Um, you have heard of this thing we call "the fossil record"? It, um tends to show "very large changes" frozen in stone, like the path from dinosaurs to birds though Archaeopteryx, or the path from fish to amphibians through Tiktallik. I assume nobody has told you that the big, scary dinosaurs from 65 million years ago get all the press, but there is an excellent series of fossils from more "modern" times (the last 10-20 million years) which readily demonstrate the "very large changes" associated with the evolution of the horse, whale, and especially, man. You should look into it. The part about the evolution of man can even be extrapolated to ID trolls.

Turkeyfish · 12 May 2008

"It is obvious from the figure that more ancestral forms (as I understand the terminology) has a reduced system. OTOH the Amphioxus has had as much time to evolve as vertebrates, so it could presumably have elaborated on such a simpler system too. "

Please note that "the Amphioxus" does not exist. It is simply inappropriate and incorrect to speak of "the Amphioxus". Amphioxus is an older, invalid name for the genus Branchiostoma Costa and should not be used to refer to any Cephalochordate. Note also that there are actually quite a few valid species of Branchiostoma, not to mention quite a few more nominal species. It would be interesting to learn exactly how similar B. lanceolatus is to B. floridae in this regard. One might also expect, there to be some differences between species of Branchiostoma, which are more coastal/continental in distribution and species of Epigonichthys Peters that are often more pelagic in character and significantly different in bauplan from species of Branchiostoma.

The original post should be corrected. Nonetheless, the character of the haemolymph proteins in cephalochordates makes it clear that "simpler" clotting systems exist in these relatively more primitive chordates. It would be most interesting to see greater elaboration on the nature of cloting systems in hagfishes of the genus Myxini.

Stanton · 12 May 2008

Turkeyfish said: Please note that "the Amphioxus" does not exist.

In this case, they're using "Amphioxus" as a common name for Branchiostoma and close relatives that's more formal than either "lancet fish" or "sand fish"

Josh · 12 May 2008

bobby said: And the evidence against Darwinism should be taught and not hidden also. This would allow students to make up their own minds rather than be indoctrinated.

You're really missing the boat here. Students of primary and secondary levels should never be left to "make up their own minds" about science (or the arts, or history, or anything). They should be taught the current way of how things are, and right now, MET gives the best of biology and life on Earth. It's that simple. I'm not saying students shouldn't have their own "beliefs", but when it comes to science, they should be taught what is, not believe what might be.

Science Avenger · 12 May 2008

bobby said: This would allow students to make up their own minds rather than be indoctrinated.

School is about giving students the best knowledge we have and teaching it to them, not confusing them with a bunch of BS and hoping they figure it out.

Philip Bruce Heywood · 12 May 2008

Yes, Mike M., I think you've got it. I think what the anti-I.D. people - those of them that have got some grip, that is - are saying, is, We wish to pursue our study of Nature without having to consciously enter a supernatural Being into our equations all the time.

I think what the Behes and so on are saying, is, We wish to pursue our study of Nature without having to consciously delete the concept of a supernatural Being from our equations, all the time.

Now I suspect they are arguing over the supernatural Being, whereas it would clear away the difficulty if they addressed the equations, which, if they were properly framed, would not be demanding a religious lock-in position up front. F=MA doesn't. Is that carp, or credible?

Artfulskeptic · 12 May 2008

Philip Bruce Heywood said: Yes, Mike M., I think you've got it. I think what the anti-I.D. people - those of them that have got some grip, that is - are saying, is, We wish to pursue our study of Nature without having to consciously enter a supernatural Being into our equations all the time. I think what the Behes and so on are saying, is, We wish to pursue our study of Nature without having to consciously delete the concept of a supernatural Being from our equations, all the time.

Just how does one enter a supernatural being into an equation? I mean a literal mathematical equation. Is God the fudge factor, that number you multiply by the answer you got to get the number you want?

Philip Bruce Heywood · 12 May 2008

Stevaroni, Josh, Dan, & co. Get hold of the facts of the palaeontologic record. Quickest way might be to duck over to PZ's PHARYNGULA, his recent one on the Platypus. Study my three entries. Or just go and find out about fossil species, somewhere. You are under a misapprehension. Geology is impartial; it's no slave to ideaology.

And Josh, Scienceavenger, & co.; read a history of the Inquisition, Galileo, and such like episodes. Or just find out about the history of technical progress on this earth. Do you need someone to relate to you the facts of how universally opposed or ignored, many advances were, and of the bitter, "crowd controlled" opposition to many such advances? Ever heard of Democracy?

Richard Simons · 12 May 2008

Philip Bruce Heywood said: And Josh, Scienceavenger, & co.; read a history of the Inquisition, Galileo, and such like episodes. Or just find out about the history of technical progress on this earth. Do you need someone to relate to you the facts of how universally opposed or ignored, many advances were, and of the bitter, "crowd controlled" opposition to many such advances? Ever heard of Democracy?

Ah, the old 'we are persecuted' line. Galileo had evidence. You do not.

Josh · 12 May 2008

Philip Bruce Heywood said: Stevaroni, Josh, Dan, & co. Get hold of the facts of the palaeontologic record. Quickest way might be to duck over to PZ's PHARYNGULA, his recent one on the Platypus. Study my three entries. Or just go and find out about fossil species, somewhere. You are under a misapprehension. Geology is impartial; it's no slave to ideaology. And Josh, Scienceavenger, & co.; read a history of the Inquisition, Galileo, and such like episodes. Or just find out about the history of technical progress on this earth. Do you need someone to relate to you the facts of how universally opposed or ignored, many advances were, and of the bitter, "crowd controlled" opposition to many such advances? Ever heard of Democracy?

A couple of things. First, if by democracy, you mean "consensus" or "majority vote", then ID/Creationism is definitely not going anywhere. The vast, vast majority of biologists accept evolution and without reservation. Second, how can you call ID a "persecuted" theory when proponents like Dembski and Behe keep putting out badly defined/refuted/flawed theories that are easily put down? It's not persecution if you're given a fair chance along with everyone else to state your case. I'm sure plenty of people would be quite interested in ID if it did have some sound, scientific, correct results. But since it doesn't, most people don't (and shouldn't) give it the time of day.

Philip Bruce Heywood · 12 May 2008

Richard, mainstream scientists don't tend to persecute people. Go over to PHARYNGULA, like I suggest, and find out, not only about the implications of the fossil record, but also that people such as PZ, or Ian M., allow free speech, and don't persecute people. Mendel was overlooked for 25yrs; he was merely ignored by science. The chap who got smallpox vaccine going was persecuted - I think he almost had his house burned down, and such like. The attacks weren't from what we would regard as mainstream science, but the attackers presumably regarded themselves as upholders of the public safety. We could fill half of cyberspace with such histories. Persecution as evidence of truth or error leans both ways. Personally, what I have done is collate facts courtesy of science, and publish the obvious conclusions. Science speaks for itself.

Artful, you are artful. I posted something about chops, on that PHARYNGULA Platypus page. We could pursue topics such as chops. God is mathematical, but he isn't mathematical, if you know what I mean. He's personal.

Science Avenger · 12 May 2008

Philip Bruce Heywood said: And Josh, Scienceavenger, & co.; read a history of the Inquisition, Galileo, and such like episodes. Or just find out about the history of technical progress on this earth. Do you need someone to relate to you the facts of how universally opposed or ignored, many advances were, and of the bitter, "crowd controlled" opposition to many such advances? Ever heard of Democracy?

I happen to know a great deal about that history, than you. I also know the comparison is idiotic, because of how long ago all that was, how different the society was, how different the nature of the opposition was, and most importantly, how different the evidence favoring the rejected theory was. There is simply no comparison to be made between the modern scientific establishment, and the Catholic Church of the 17th century. There is no comparison between what happened to Galileo and what happened to the most mistreated of ID advocates. You might with equal justification argue against the death penalty based on the execution rites of the ancient zulus. And then there is that little stickler of a fact that 99.9% of universally opposed or ignored ideas remain that way, and for very good reason: they aren't worth a shit. Like the list of dissenting scientists, it is proportions, not raw numbers, that matter.

Science Avenger · 12 May 2008

Philip Bruce Heywood said: Persecution as evidence of truth or error leans both ways.

Nonsense. All persecution tells you is that someone doesn't like what you are saying. To know whether it is evidence of truth or error requires one to look at the reasons the opposition is doing the persecuting, which exposes the weaknesses of your analogies. Lumping all persecution into the same category, regardless of severity and reasons, is self-serving intellectual laziness of the highest order.

Stanton · 12 May 2008

Of course, you all must realize that in order to compare yourself to Galileo Galilei, it is of far, far, far, far greater importance that YOUR STATEMENTS MUST BE TRUE

than it is to be persecuted. If your statements are wrong when you claim persecution, as is ALWAYS the case with Intelligent Design proponents, and their Creationist predecessors, then you're just a whiny nut that should be (metaphorically) roasting in a well-deserved bonfire. Science Avenger said:
Philip Bruce Heywood said: And Josh, Scienceavenger, & co.; read a history of the Inquisition, Galileo, and such like episodes. Or just find out about the history of technical progress on this earth. Do you need someone to relate to you the facts of how universally opposed or ignored, many advances were, and of the bitter, "crowd controlled" opposition to many such advances? Ever heard of Democracy?
I happen to know a great deal about that history, than you. I also know the comparison is idiotic, because of how long ago all that was, how different the society was, how different the nature of the opposition was, and most importantly, how different the evidence favoring the rejected theory was. There is simply no comparison to be made between the modern scientific establishment, and the Catholic Church of the 17th century. There is no comparison between what happened to Galileo and what happened to the most mistreated of ID advocates. You might with equal justification argue against the death penalty based on the execution rites of the ancient zulus. And then there is that little stickler of a fact that 99.9% of universally opposed or ignored ideas remain that way, and for very good reason: they aren't worth a shit. Like the list of dissenting scientists, it is proportions, not raw numbers, that matter.

Stanton · 12 May 2008

Stanton said: Of course, you all must realize that in order to compare yourself to Galileo Galilei, it is of far, far, far, far greater importance that YOUR STATEMENTS MUST BE TRUE than it is to be persecuted. If your statements are wrong when you claim persecution, as is ALWAYS the case with Intelligent Design proponents, and their Creationist predecessors, then you're just a whiny nut that should be (metaphorically) roasting in a well-deserved bonfire.

I screwed up the html without letting the programming notice... Blech.

Shebardigan · 12 May 2008

shonny said: Just out of curiosity: Is the 'bobby' critter a POE, an IDiot, or a creotard?

"bobby" is a professional disruptor who was earlier (as "jacob" and other monikers that I can't immediately recall) banned under the rules that forbid sock-puppetry. For some reason, the proprietors are no longer enforcing that rule.

Richard Simons · 12 May 2008

PBH said Richard, mainstream scientists don’t tend to persecute people.

I fully realise this. Why did you imply that they are persecuting people who want to promulgate anti-evolution views if you believe that in fact they are not?

Philip Bruce Heywood · 13 May 2008

For the record, Richard, since you have a record that is on the record as showing that you attribute to people things they didn't write or even imply, I made no claims that there was persecution going on: I was pulling people up over the dogmatic verbiage that was a whiff from certain predicaments that people got science into, in the past. An open mind is essential for progress in areas such as Origins. An open mind is paramount: I tell myself this, first up.

W. Thompson (Lord Kelvin) was made a peer of the realm for his services to technology, yet even he made brain dead pronouncements. Whether it was old age, or Irish irascibility, who knows? Scientists can be the the most lemmingesque, intellectually inbred, burrow-burrowing bunnies, on this planet. Kelvin wasn't that. But look at the "peer review" process. It can be like General A reviewing General B on conducting unintentional manslaughter, Western Front, WW1. Scientists can be seemingly terrified of change.

Philip Bruce Heywood · 13 May 2008

Now, that's overly dogmatic verbiage, I'm employing, myself.

bobby · 13 May 2008

Jim Wynne said:
bobby said: The evidence for Darwinism is based almost completely on doubtful extrapolation: 'since we see that animals can change slightly we can infer that very large changes can occur.'
Jesus and Mo agree with you, Booby.

Dan said:
bobby said: The evidence for Darwinism is based almost completely on doubtful extrapolation: 'since we see that animals can change slightly we can infer that very large changes can occur.' This is interpretation and has never been proven (or disproven)
(1) There is no such thing as Darwinism. Consider a case like Calvinism: people read the works of Calvin and take them literally. Very few people read the works of Darwin, and no one thinks that they represent the literal truth. For example, Darwin's theory of pangenesis is universally rejected. I assume that bobby knows this and uses incorrect terminology only to needle us. (2) Here is another case of dubious extrapolation that has never been proven or disproven: The claim that I have a liver. No one has ever seen my liver. The doubtful extrapolation is that "everyone who's ever undergone liver surgery, or been autopsied, has a liver, thus Dan must have a liver". But of course, most people have not undergone liver surgery or been autopsied! It is a very bold extrapolation to say that I have a liver. Even bobby can see that, by his standards, the existence of my liver is mere interpretation. We needn't stop there. I admit that some samples of matter have undergone extensive testing and it's been shown beyond reasonable doubt that they consist of atoms. But the chair I'm sitting in has not been subject to such tests. In fact, only a tiny fraction of the objects on Earth have undergone such tests, and none of the objects on Jupiter have. This is extrapolation on a grand scale. By bobby's standards, atomic theory is mere interpretation. The thing I find confusing about people like bobby is that they rail against evolution, while ignoring the much weaker evidence for atomic theory and for the existence of my liver. Bobby, can you help us out by saying why you aim your admirable skepticism at evolution only, and not at any other piece of science?

Your liver discussion is not an example of extrapolation. And Dawkins and many other atheist scientists use the term 'Darwinism'

bobby · 13 May 2008

shonny said: Just out of curiosity: Is the 'bobby' critter a POE, an IDiot, or a creotard? I won't even pretend I can make the distinction in this case, but lean toward the two latter because I haven't seen any little give-aways. Should he be a Poe, then he is very good. But regardless, he most certainly has got a lot more attention than he deserves. Just think about it, - if he had been ignored from his first posting, would he still be at it?

Hungry?? No food from me for you. Go back under the bridge, Troll.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 13 May 2008

Henry J said: I'd think that the first criteria for a statement to qualify as a hypothesis would be that there is a pattern of evidence that the proposed hypothesis would explain* if it's correct. Afaik, astrology doesn't qualify. *(i.e., the pattern would be a necessary (or at least very likely) logical consequence of the hypothesis, and at least some part of that pattern would be unexpected if the hypothesis is wrong.)

I agree with the first parts, which is why I mentioned events and/or personality. I don't agree with the very last part of "unexpected", as this would be dependent on comparison with other theories IMO, i.e. such things as parsimony. If astrology was the only theory out there... but it isn't, and our current knowledge of interactions makes its predictions illogical.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 13 May 2008

Philip Bruce Heywood said: hard facts. Get it straight, though, and present it straight. As soon as something straight comes along, the crooked becomes obvious.

That said from someone who can't tell straight if his life depended on it. (See his comments here, or his loony website representations of 'science'.)

Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 13 May 2008

Turkeyfish said: Please note that "the Amphioxus" does not exist.

Thanks, noted.

stevaroni · 13 May 2008

PBH sez... Lord Kelvin was made a peer of the realm for his services to technology, yet even he made brain dead pronouncements.

Yes. And we know those pronouncements were wrong because science caught them and corrected them. That's what happens in an environment where you have to put your evidence on the table for everyone to see. Piltdown Man, Cold Fusion, the South Korean stem cell scandal. All evidence that the scientific method works. Peer review quickly catches mistakes and lies. Which is, of course, why ID avoids it like the plague.

Richard Simons · 13 May 2008

For the record, Richard, since you have a record that is on the record as showing that you attribute to people things they didn’t write or even imply, I made no claims that there was persecution going on:

If you check back, you will see I was not the only person who got that impression from your comment. Howeveer, if indeed you did not intend what I attributed to you, I will apologise for my error.

Dan · 13 May 2008

bobby said:
Dan said:
bobby said: The evidence for Darwinism is based almost completely on doubtful extrapolation: 'since we see that animals can change slightly we can infer that very large changes can occur.' This is interpretation and has never been proven (or disproven)
(1) There is no such thing as Darwinism. Consider a case like Calvinism: people read the works of Calvin and take them literally. Very few people read the works of Darwin, and no one thinks that they represent the literal truth. For example, Darwin's theory of pangenesis is universally rejected. I assume that bobby knows this and uses incorrect terminology only to needle us. (2) Here is another case of dubious extrapolation that has never been proven or disproven: The claim that I have a liver. No one has ever seen my liver. The doubtful extrapolation is that "everyone who's ever undergone liver surgery, or been autopsied, has a liver, thus Dan must have a liver". But of course, most people have not undergone liver surgery or been autopsied! It is a very bold extrapolation to say that I have a liver. Even bobby can see that, by his standards, the existence of my liver is mere interpretation. We needn't stop there. I admit that some samples of matter have undergone extensive testing and it's been shown beyond reasonable doubt that they consist of atoms. But the chair I'm sitting in has not been subject to such tests. In fact, only a tiny fraction of the objects on Earth have undergone such tests, and none of the objects on Jupiter have. This is extrapolation on a grand scale. By bobby's standards, atomic theory is mere interpretation. The thing I find confusing about people like bobby is that they rail against evolution, while ignoring the much weaker evidence for atomic theory and for the existence of my liver. Bobby, can you help us out by saying why you aim your admirable skepticism at evolution only, and not at any other piece of science?
Your liver discussion is not an example of extrapolation. And Dawkins and many other atheist scientists use the term 'Darwinism'

(1) Bobby claims, without any supporting argumentation or evidence, that my liver discussion "is not an example of extrapolation". Of course it is ... observations made on cadavers and surgery patients are extrapolated to me. I am neither a cadaver nor a surgery patient. This is trivially an example of extrapolation. (2) Bobby does not find any fault with my example of atomic theory, so I assume he agrees that atomic theory is an extrapolation. (3) Bobby claims, without quoting anyone, that "Dawkins and many other atheist scientists use the term 'Darwinism'." I'm not sure that's correct -- Dawkins uses the unobjectionable term 'Darwinian explanation' but I don't recall him using 'Darwinism' -- but if he does it raises the question: Does bobby hold that whatever Dawkins says must be correct? (4) So, can bobby answer my question: "why do you aim your admirable skepticism at evolution only, and not at any other piece of science?"

Dan · 13 May 2008

Philip Bruce Heywood said: God is mathematical, but he isn't mathematical, if you know what I mean.

No, I don't know what you mean. I don't think this statement has meaning.

bobby · 13 May 2008

.... it is not extrapolation. if you really think it is you need to take a math or stats course. lets see if anyone else here will defend your misunderstanding

(2) Bobby does not find any fault with my example of atomic theory, so I assume he agrees that atomic theory is an extrapolation.

... didnt bother reading it. the first example was bad enough

(3) Bobby claims, without quoting anyone, that "Dawkins and many other atheist scientists use the term 'Darwinism'." I'm not sure that's correct -- Dawkins uses the unobjectionable term 'Darwinian explanation' but I don't recall him using 'Darwinism' -- but if he does it raises the question: Does bobby hold that whatever Dawkins says must be correct?

.... please, you have not read Dawkins or Gould if you can claim they do not use the term 'Darwinism' '

(4) So, can bobby answer my question: "why do you aim your admirable skepticism at evolution only, and not at any other piece of science?"

... I am skeptical of many mainstream theories. esp economic and psychological theories. Darwinism of course has a lot of good points but much, much is missing. mathematically it does not work. math it out sometime

stevaroni · 13 May 2008

bobby sez... … didnt bother reading it.

Um, yeah. I assumed that happens a lot.

Jim Wynne · 13 May 2008

bobby said: Darwinism of course has a lot of good points but much, much is missing. mathematically it does not work. math it out sometime.

I guess we should fold up our tents and move on, as Bobby has proven "Darwinism" wrong mathematically. As soon as soon as you show your work, Bobby, get ready for Stockholm!

Bobby · 13 May 2008

Jim Wynne said:
bobby said: Darwinism of course has a lot of good points but much, much is missing. mathematically it does not work. math it out sometime.
I guess we should fold up our tents and move on, as Bobby has proven "Darwinism" wrong mathematically. As soon as soon as you show your work, Bobby, get ready for Stockholm!

Just give it a try. OK YOU show me YOUR math that it can work. I am waiting.

Dan · 13 May 2008

Dan: (1) Bobby claims, without any supporting argumentation or evidence, that my liver discussion "is not an example of extrapolation". Of course it is ... observations made on cadavers and surgery patients are extrapolated to me. I am neither a cadaver nor a surgery patient. This is trivially an example of extrapolation.

bobby said: .... it is not extrapolation.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, extrapolation is

the drawing of a conclusion about some future or hypothetical situation based on observed tendencies; the inference resulting from such a process.

In the liver case, the extrapolation is from "observed tendencies" of cadavers and surgery patients to the "future situation" of myself becoming a cadaver or surgery patient.

Dan · 13 May 2008

Bobby said: OK YOU show me YOUR math that it [evolution] can work. I am waiting.

Galileo addressed this question beautifully in "Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems" (1632):

Galileo said: Geometrical exactitude should not be sought in physical proofs.

Galileo realized that we'll never be able to prove, in the mathematical sense, evolution, or atomic theory, or even the existence of my liver. There are two possible reactions to this: (1) we could crawl into our beds, curl up into a ball, and simply "wait", as bobby advocates, or (2) we could explore the universe around us with the imperfect tools available to us. Since 1632, scientists have been taking the second route. If bobby wants to take the first, he should first look here.

SWT · 13 May 2008

Hey bobby,

I can't help but notice that you haven't answered a couple of questions that are relevant to Ian's article:

1) What observation could possibly be made that is incompatible with ID?

2) How can the claim that "there was an intelligent intervention somewhere along the way" possibly be falsified?

3) Do you or do you not agree that Ian has provided an example that not only disproved Behe's claim but also his entire argument?

Inquiring minds want to know ...

blue · 13 May 2008

"Just give it a try. OK YOU show me YOUR math that it can work.

I am waiting."

Okay.

R = h2 x S

R is the response to selection or... evolution. h2 is the heritability of the trait. S is selection.

If h2 and S are not zero, then evolution happens.

Your turn.

phantomreader42 · 13 May 2008

Bobby said:
Jim Wynne said:
bobby said: Darwinism of course has a lot of good points but much, much is missing. mathematically it does not work. math it out sometime.
I guess we should fold up our tents and move on, as Bobby has proven "Darwinism" wrong mathematically. As soon as soon as you show your work, Bobby, get ready for Stockholm!
Just give it a try. OK YOU show me YOUR math that it can work. I am waiting.

So, Bobby, you don't feel the least bit obligated to show your work? You think it's fine to just throw around whatever absurd claims you want, and you never have to offer the slightest shred of evidence? Okay, everyone, I hate to have to tell you this, but Bobby's selling military secrets to the Chinese in exchange for underage girls. He's a traitor and a pedophile, possibly a cannibal. No, I don't have to show any evidence for this claim. :P Or are you just applying the classic creationist double standard, bobby? Just making up rules for other people that you never have to follow yourself? Jokes aside, either you've discovered some amazing mathematical disproof of evolution that no one has found in over a century, or you've made some error in your calculations that make you think you have when you actually didn't, or you're talking out your ass. In the first case, you'd be happy to show your evidence to others, and in the second case you wouldn't know it was a pile of shit so you'd treat it as if you actually had some useful evidence. So the only reason you could have for not showing your work is that you're being knowingly and deliberately dishonest. Isn't your imaginary god supposed to have some sort of problem with bearing false witness?

neo-anti-luddite · 13 May 2008

phantomreader42 said: Isn't your imaginary god supposed to have some sort of problem with bearing false witness?

Nah. The only thing bobby's imaginary god commanded him to do was sell military secrets to the Chinese in exchange for underage girls....

phantomreader42 · 13 May 2008

neo-anti-luddite said:
phantomreader42 said: Isn't your imaginary god supposed to have some sort of problem with bearing false witness?
Nah. The only thing bobby's imaginary god commanded him to do was sell military secrets to the Chinese in exchange for underage girls....

Then who gave him the idea to eat the evidence?

neo-anti-luddite · 13 May 2008

phantomreader42 said:
neo-anti-luddite said:
phantomreader42 said: Isn't your imaginary god supposed to have some sort of problem with bearing false witness?
Nah. The only thing bobby's imaginary god commanded him to do was sell military secrets to the Chinese in exchange for underage girls....
Then who gave him the idea to eat the evidence?

[Church Lady mode] Could it be...SATAN!?! [/Church Lady mode]

Science Avenger · 13 May 2008

bobby said: Darwinism of course has a lot of good points but much, much is missing. mathematically it does not work. math it out sometime

Enough is enough. Either bobby backs this claim, or let him go find some junior high discussion board where his comments will be more in line with the norm. There is no reason a board for scientists and the scientifically literate should tolerate this crap, any more than a chess club should tolerate someone who mocks other players, claims he can wipe the floor with everyone using King's gambit, but refuses to ever sit down and play. With all due respect to the administrators of this board, your policies seem to imply that to prove we are better than the UD crowd, who bans people for intellectually dishonest reasons, we must not ban anyone for any reason except sock puppetry. This is nonsense. Ban trolls, and for good reasons. If anyone attempts to equivocate the two, fuck em. End of rant.

phantomreader42 · 13 May 2008

Science Avenger said:
bobby said: Darwinism of course has a lot of good points but much, much is missing. mathematically it does not work. math it out sometime
Enough is enough. Either bobby backs this claim, or let him go find some junior high discussion board where his comments will be more in line with the norm. There is no reason a board for scientists and the scientifically literate should tolerate this crap, any more than a chess club should tolerate someone who mocks other players, claims he can wipe the floor with everyone using King's gambit, but refuses to ever sit down and play.

And what do you think are the chances of bobby ever even attempting to back up anything he's claimed? What are the chances he even understands what it means to back up a claim? It's been obvious since bobby got here that he's got a defective brain, and it's packed chock-full of lies. There was never any chance of reaching him with facts, or even shame. No matter how many times these frauds are exposed, it will never change their minds. Because they don't really have minds anymore. They've turned them off, scooped them out, intentionally crippled their own thought processes in order to avoid inconvenient facts. Nothing left but delusion and projection and regurgitated prefab lies. Sickening that something formerly human can be reduced to this, can CHOOSE to be reduced to this. Are there any creationists left that still feel a twinge of shame when they're caught in a lie? Any that even recognize their own double standards? Any that might be capable of listening to reality, ever? Or have they all lobotomized themselves?

Flint · 13 May 2008

In the creationist's world, how true things are is entirely a function of how urgently and sincerely you WANT them to be true. Evidence is not involved. You "back up" a claim by insisting on its truth with urgent sincerity.

And when you think about it, using evidence has at least two fatal drawbacks: it requires knowledge and that takes work; and it might fail to support your desires, requiring you to deny the evidence anyway. So why bother with it at all?

Science Avenger · 13 May 2008

phantomreader42 said: And what do you think are the chances of bobby ever even attempting to back up anything he's claimed?

I think it approaches zero, but I admit I'd get some morbid enjoyment out of watching him flail and whine about it before getting the boot.

Are there any creationists left that still feel a twinge of shame when they're caught in a lie? Any that even recognize their own double standards? Any that might be capable of listening to reality, ever? Or have they all lobotomized themselves?

Yes, but they are pretty young. The Keiths and bobbys and Garys of the world are beyond hope. I suppose we might allow one at a time here to kick around and let people see the difference between the way scientists and cranks think. Ban the rest and let's get back to talking science.

bobby · 13 May 2008

phantomreader42 said:
Science Avenger said:
bobby said: Darwinism of course has a lot of good points but much, much is missing. mathematically it does not work. math it out sometime
Enough is enough. Either bobby backs this claim, or let him go find some junior high discussion board where his comments will be more in line with the norm. There is no reason a board for scientists and the scientifically literate should tolerate this crap, any more than a chess club should tolerate someone who mocks other players, claims he can wipe the floor with everyone using King's gambit, but refuses to ever sit down and play.
And what do you think are the chances of bobby ever even attempting to back up anything he's claimed? What are the chances he even understands what it means to back up a claim? It's been obvious since bobby got here that he's got a defective brain, and it's packed chock-full of lies. There was never any chance of reaching him with facts, or even shame. No matter how many times these frauds are exposed, it will never change their minds. Because they don't really have minds anymore. They've turned them off, scooped them out, intentionally crippled their own thought processes in order to avoid inconvenient facts. Nothing left but delusion and projection and regurgitated prefab lies. Sickening that something formerly human can be reduced to this, can CHOOSE to be reduced to this. Are there any creationists left that still feel a twinge of shame when they're caught in a lie? Any that even recognize their own double standards? Any that might be capable of listening to reality, ever? Or have they all lobotomized themselves?

No professional scientist or professional anything would talk like the above. This happens everytime they cannot respond logcially to a post. I think anyone with any sense of decorum can see that.

bobby · 13 May 2008

"" Darwinism of course has a lot of good points but much, much is missing. mathematically it does not work. math it out sometime. ""

I said the above and here is the response:

"" It’s been obvious since bobby got here that he’s got a defective brain, ""

anyone can see clearly here that just doubting ANYTHING about Darwinism is met with uncontrollable aggression. Why is that? And where is the math behind Darwinisn. Science needs quantification. Where is it??

Just Bob · 13 May 2008

Show---your---math!

Why haven't you?

Why won't you?

You're making people named "Bobby" look foolish. We resent that. It could become the new "Bubba."

bobby · 13 May 2008

"" Okay, everyone, I hate to have to tell you this, but Bobby’s selling military secrets to the Chinese in exchange for underage girls. He’s a traitor and a pedophile, possibly a cannibal. No, I don’t have to show any evidence for this claim. :P ""

How ignorant you are: believe me if you said that and published it you would be in court forced to prove your point.

However we do still have the freedom in the US to doubt Darwinism. Well barely.

Mike Elzinga · 13 May 2008

And where is the math behind Darwinisn. Science needs quantification. Where is it??

Where did you come up with that notion; and why?

Just Bob · 13 May 2008

bobby said: ... if you said that and published it you would be in court forced to prove your point.

Uh... he (or she) did. Right here. Good luck finding a lawyer who won't laugh in your face.

stevaroni · 13 May 2008

Phantom sez... Bobby’s ... a cannibal.

Do trolls taste like chicken?

Dan · 13 May 2008

bobby said:
““ Okay, everyone, I hate to have to tell you this, but Bobby’s selling military secrets to the Chinese in exchange for underage girls. He’s a traitor and a pedophile, possibly a cannibal. No, I don’t have to show any evidence for this claim. :P ““
How ignorant you are: believe me if you said that and published it you would be in court forced to prove your point.

Well, bobby, since you insist on quantification, you need to quantify. When you say "How ignorant you are" do you mean that the writer has an ignorance of 27? Or maybe 52? I'm not sure what units you want ignorance to be measured in: perhaps the henry, which is a tesla meter squared per ampere. Perhaps the writer has an ignorance of 53.4 henry. Or is ignorance a vector quantity? Say 34 henry \hat{i} + 3 \pi henry \hat{j} + e^{-3.5} henry \hat{k} Now when you go to court, you'll have to prove that the ignorance of the writer is greater than some threshold ignorance. What metric will you use? Since vectors don't constitute a lattice (in the mathematical sense) how will you prove that the writer's vector ignorance is greater than the threshold for legal liability? This is the sort of problem you get into, bobby, when you insist on quantification. Please solve it for us.

bobby · 13 May 2008

Just Bob said:
bobby said: ... if you said that and published it you would be in court forced to prove your point.
Uh... he (or she) did. Right here. Good luck finding a lawyer who won't laugh in your face.

duh if they published it using real names. really do you have time for this childishness? this seems so junior high. no real scientists would make these adolescent comments

Josh · 13 May 2008

All banter aside, if there is mathematical evidence against evolution, I'd really like to see it, as I've seen a fair bit that backs up some evolutionary claims. It'd probably be groundbreaking stuff.

bobby · 13 May 2008

Mike Elzinga said:
And where is the math behind Darwinisn. Science needs quantification. Where is it??
Where did you come up with that notion; and why?

Are you serious?? Science needs quantification. Are you just a bunch of junior high kids? Ever do an experiment? Everything has to be quantitized somehow.

Stanton · 13 May 2008

bobby said: However we do still have the freedom in the US to doubt Darwinism. Well barely.

~~bobbyTroll~~Moron, legally speaking a person is free to believe whatever they want in the United States, provided they do not attempt to coerce other people into sharing those beliefs. Having said this, there are limits to freedom of belief, several of which are academic in nature. You can not teach alternatives to Evolutionary Theory in a science classroom because NO OTHER SCIENTIFIC ALTERNATIVES TO EVOLUTIONARY THEORY EXIST. Creationism and Intelligent Design have been demonstrated to be politically and religiously motivated pseudoscientific garbage. Furthermore, all of the people in recent history who have tried to debunk the Theory of Evolution for the sake of debunking it, rather than attempting to replace it with a superior theory, have all demonstrated that they do not have even an elementary level of comprehension, not you, not Salvador Cordova, not Michael Behe, not even Sir Fred Hoyle who tried to claim that Archaeopteryx was a fraud so he could peddle his own pet hypothesis that mammals and birds evolved because they were mutated by a space virus that rode in on the meteorite that killed the dinosaurs. Lastly, bobbyTrollMoron, you can not claim that you have disproved a science on the grounds that you do not understand it. Unless you can actually demonstrate how evolution can not "mathematically occur," despite the fact that living organisms evolve, and have been observed evolving, we will all regard you as being nothing more than an annoying windbag. You have no intention of learning, given as how you have refused to acknowledge the fact that we have answered all of your pompous questions, and have accused us of being trolls because we express righteous annoyance, frustration and anger because you refuse to acknowledge the fact that we have answered all of your pompous questions. So, unless you like being exposed as a pathetic windbag, demonstrate to us how you can mathematically disprove evolution already.

Stanton · 13 May 2008

bobby said: However we do still have the freedom in the US to doubt Darwinism. Well barely.
~~bobbyTroll~~Moron, legally speaking a person is free to believe whatever they want in the United States, provided they do not attempt to coerce other people into sharing those beliefs. Having said this, there are limits to freedom of belief, several of which are academic in nature. You can not teach alternatives to Evolutionary Theory in a science classroom because NO OTHER SCIENTIFIC ALTERNATIVES TO EVOLUTIONARY THEORY EXIST. Creationism and Intelligent Design have been demonstrated to be politically and religiously motivated pseudoscientific garbage. Furthermore, all of the people in recent history who have tried to debunk the Theory of Evolution for the sake of debunking it, rather than attempting to replace it with a superior theory, have all demonstrated that they do not have even an elementary level of comprehension, not you, not Salvador Cordova, not Michael Behe, not even Sir Fred Hoyle who tried to claim that Archaeopteryx was a fraud so he could peddle his own pet hypothesis that mammals and birds evolved because they were mutated by a space virus that rode in on the meteorite that killed the dinosaurs. Lastly, ~~bobbyTroll~~Moron, you can not claim that you have disproved a science on the grounds that you do not understand it. Unless you can actually demonstrate how evolution can not "mathematically occur," despite the fact that living organisms evolve, and have been observed evolving, we will all regard you as being nothing more than an annoying windbag. You have no intention of learning, given as how you have refused to acknowledge the fact that we have answered all of your pompous questions, and have accused us of being trolls because we express righteous annoyance, frustration and anger because you refuse to acknowledge the fact that we have answered all of your pompous questions. So, unless you like being exposed as a pathetic windbag, demonstrate to us how you can mathematically disprove evolution already.

Stanton · 13 May 2008
bobby said:
Mike Elzinga said:
And where is the math behind Darwinisn. Science needs quantification. Where is it??
Where did you come up with that notion; and why?
Are you serious?? Science needs quantification. Are you just a bunch of junior high kids? Ever do an experiment? Everything has to be quantitized somehow.
So then, ~~bobby~~Windbag, demonstrate how you have been able to mathematically disprove Evolution. And yes, we have done experiments, unlike you.

bobby · 13 May 2008
Stanton said:
bobby said:
Mike Elzinga said:
And where is the math behind Darwinisn. Science needs quantification. Where is it??
Where did you come up with that notion; and why?
Are you serious?? Science needs quantification. Are you just a bunch of junior high kids? Ever do an experiment? Everything has to be quantitized somehow.
So then, ~~bobby~~Windbag, demonstrate how you have been able to mathematically disprove Evolution. And yes, we have done experiments, unlike you.
And you did not quantitize?? Whoah you claim there are mountains of evidence for Darwinism. Show me! Show me the math!

bobby · 13 May 2008
I can walk you thru the math. But I doubt that you could understand it.
OK I will walk you thru mine and you will walk me thru yours step by step.
But I am not going to expose my whole concept without anything in return, sorry. But I will inch along with you.
BUT YOU HAVE NOTHING!
go ahead show me

Stanton · 13 May 2008
bobby said: And you did not quantitize?? Whoah you claim there are mountains of evidence for Darwinism. Show me! Show me the math!
The onus is on you to show us how you have allegedly been able to mathematically disprove the Theory of Evolution. Demanding that we supply you with evidence that can be freely obtained through www.google.com , scholar.google.com or even a local bookstore suggests that you have no interest in learning anything at all, especially since experience has shown us that you refuse to look at any evidence we already provided you.

Stanton · 13 May 2008
Is it too much to ask for for the Administration to send this moronic troll to the Bathroom Wall forever? Even if he isn't actually that moronic jacob, he is equally annoying and equally disruptive, and equally stupid as the original jacob.
bobby said: I can walk you thru the math. But I doubt that you could understand it. OK I will walk you thru mine and you will walk me thru yours step by step. But I am not going to expose my whole concept without anything in return, sorry. But I will inch along with you. BUT YOU HAVE NOTHING! go ahead show me

prof weird · 13 May 2008
bobby goes for the bluff and vaingloriously postures like he 'knows' something with : I can walk you thru the math. But I doubt that you could understand it.
RiiIIiiIIiiIGHT ! Won't know UNTIL YOU PRESENT IT, twit !
OK I will walk you thru mine and you will walk me thru yours step by step. But I am not going to expose my whole concept without anything in return, sorry. But I will inch along with you. BUT YOU HAVE NOTHING! go ahead show me
The math has been available to anyone willing to look for it for OVER EIGHTY YEARS ! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_evolutionary_synthesis Your turn, twit : 'walk' us through your 'math' that 'disproves' evolution ... !

Science Avenger · 13 May 2008
B-A-N H-I-M.
7 posts of nothing more than "nyah nyah nyah I have the proof but won't show you, I know you are but what am I" gar-bage.
We've seen this shit before from Jacobobby. Anyone with half a brain can see he doesn't have half of one, and he sure as shit doesn't have any mathematical proof against evolution. He is just intellectually masterbating, why are you letting him? The value of any future posts from him are ZERO.
What exactly is the pro-side of allowing this to continue? Are you guys TRYING to run off your audience?

Mike Elzinga · 13 May 2008
Is it too much to ask for the Administration to send this moronic troll to the Bathroom Wall forever? Even if he isn’t actually that moronic jacob, he is equally annoying and equally disruptive, and equally stupid as the original jacob.
There is no question that this bobby character is a malicious troll determined to disrupt threads and annoy people. Normal people don’t waste their time doing such things. And it is also clear that he has some serious mental illness issues. His obsessive compulsive repetitions of the same games, and his early adolescent behaviors are pretty good signs that his mental problems started at least in early adolescence. Whatever his physical age, his mental age is stuck in early adolescence, a common symptom of several types of mental disorders. If he has also been bombarded with hate messages about evolution in his church (if he has a church), that simply has exacerbated his mental problems, as is so often the case with these fundamentalists. Many fundamentalist sects do not acknowledge the existence of mental illness. No doubt his is just such a sect. I agree that he needs to be banned to the Bathroom Wall permanently.

Philip Bruce Heywood · 13 May 2008
There is no maths that supports Common Descent Evolution, as Sir Fred. Hoyle and F. Crick(Nobel Winner) knew. They claimed to be atheist, but managed to disentangle their minds, somewhere along the line.
The proposed mechanism of change under Common Descent is mutation, which at its present rate in this modern and environmentally exceptional world, will reduce mankind to inoperability within a finite time span. Medical fact. The mutations we keep hearing about must have been in a previous world where the environment was different.
The concept of gradual change from one species to another opposes the geologic record and everyday observation.
As for the question of design - the motivation for this Page - We are walking down a road, and come upon scattered bricks, presumably fallen from someone's trailer. Farther on, we see bricks, stacked off the road. We then proceed to argue whether this stacking was the product of design, or the product of intentional design. Or perhaps, we just argue.
Apart from his habit of making outrageous pronouncements which he can't have really meant, Lord Kelvin's main difficulty was with foreseeing the implications of advances in atomic theory. He was never really unsystematic, but, like so many before him, he was overtaken by the technology. He was an old man by then, and failed to accommodate the new developments.
This happens all the time.
The convinced Common Descent Evolutionist would do well to accommodate the new developments, instead of doing a Kelvin.

Dan · 13 May 2008
bobby said: Whoah you claim there are mountains of evidence for Darwinism. Show me!
First of all, I didn't claim there are mountains of evidence for Darwinism because, as I've already explained, there is no such thing as Darwinism. We don't call atomic theory "Lavoisierism". We don't call the theory of the round Earth "Eratosthenesism". We don't call astrophysics "Keplerism". We don't call airplane pilots "Wrightists". We don't call classical mechanics "Newtonism". We don't call evolution "Darwinism." If you want an introduction to the mountains of evidence behind evolution, I invite you to start with "Chromosomes, Giant Molecules, and Evolution" by Bruce Wallace. It's old (1966) but very clearly and delightfully written. You can buy a used hardcover copy for $2.99: http://experiencedbooks.com/web/abk/bBB-007812

Henry J · 13 May 2008
Henry J said: I’d think that the first criteria for a statement to qualify as a hypothesis would be that there is a pattern of evidence that the proposed hypothesis would explain* if it’s correct. Afaik, astrology doesn’t qualify. *(i.e., the pattern would be a necessary (or at least very likely) logical consequence of the hypothesis, and at least some part of that pattern would be unexpected if the hypothesis is wrong.)

Torbjörn Larsson said: I agree with the first parts, which is why I mentioned events and/or personality. I don’t agree with the very last part of “unexpected”, as this would be dependent on comparison with other theories IMO, i.e. such things as parsimony. If astrology was the only theory out there… but it isn’t, and our current knowledge of interactions makes its predictions illogical.
I'd think a prediction has to be something that's not expected if the hypothesis is wrong, since otherwise the prediction isn't useful. Henry

Science Avenger · 13 May 2008
Philip Bruce Heywood said: There is no maths that supports Common Descent Evolution, as Sir Fred. Hoyle and F. Crick(Nobel Winner) knew. They claimed to be atheist, but managed to disentangle their minds, somewhere along the line. The proposed mechanism of change under Common Descent is mutation, which at its present rate in this modern and environmentally exceptional world, will reduce mankind to inoperability within a finite time span. Medical fact.
And send this MSU lunatic there too. A random word generator would be just as informative, and more entertaining.

phantomreader42 · 13 May 2008
bobby said: "" Okay, everyone, I hate to have to tell you this, but Bobby’s selling military secrets to the Chinese in exchange for underage girls. He’s a traitor and a pedophile, possibly a cannibal. No, I don’t have to show any evidence for this claim. :P "" How ignorant you are: believe me if you said that and published it you would be in court forced to prove your point. However we do still have the freedom in the US to doubt Darwinism. Well barely.
So, Bobby, are you really so stupid* that you missed the sentence immediately before that, where I pointed out YOUR insistence that you never have to show any evidence for anything you say? What, NOW you object to people making shit up? Here, I'll repost it, not that you're capable of understanding:
So, Bobby, you don’t feel the least bit obligated to show your work? You think it’s fine to just throw around whatever absurd claims you want, and you never have to offer the slightest shred of evidence?
Then, I made up an absurd, over-the-top attack on you, and declared I didn't need to show any evidence either. Exactly the same principle YOU live by, you worthless, brain-dead troll. What's the matter, f****wit, can't stand a taste of your own medicine? *A rhetorical question, everyone who has read any of his posts knows bobby really IS that stupid.

phantomreader42 · 13 May 2008
bobby said: "" Okay, everyone, I hate to have to tell you this, but Bobby’s selling military secrets to the Chinese in exchange for underage girls. He’s a traitor and a pedophile, possibly a cannibal. No, I don’t have to show any evidence for this claim. :P "" How ignorant you are: believe me if you said that and published it you would be in court forced to prove your point. However we do still have the freedom in the US to doubt Darwinism. Well barely.
So, Bobby, are you really so stupid* that you missed the sentence immediately before that, where I pointed out YOUR insistence that you never have to show any evidence for anything you say? What, NOW you object to people making shit up? Here, I'll repost it, not that you're capable of understanding:
So, Bobby, you don’t feel the least bit obligated to show your work? You think it’s fine to just throw around whatever absurd claims you want, and you never have to offer the slightest shred of evidence?
Then, I made up an absurd, over-the-top attack on you, and declared I didn't need to show any evidence either. Exactly the same principle YOU live by, you worthless, brain-dead troll. What's the matter, fuckwit, can't stand a taste of your own medicine? *A rhetorical question, everyone who has read any of his posts knows bobby really IS that stupid.

phantomreader42 · 13 May 2008
bobby said: I can walk you thru the math. But I doubt that you could understand it. OK I will walk you thru mine and you will walk me thru yours step by step. But I am not going to expose my whole concept without anything in return, sorry. But I will inch along with you. BUT YOU HAVE NOTHING! go ahead show me
Thanks, bobby, for this admission that you haven't got the slightest shred of evidence. If you were capable of supporting your claims, you would have done so. You didn't. If you were honestly mistaken about the total lack of support for your idiocy, you would have at least tried. You didn't. You frantically dodged every opportunity to provide evidence. Which just proves you have none, and you know it. You're just another despicable Liar For Jesus™. Once again, isn't your imaginary god supposed to have some sort of problem with bearing false witness?

noncarborundum · 13 May 2008
See, this is what you get when you ignore the "Do Not Feed the Troll" signs.

Kenneth Oberlander · 14 May 2008
The proposed mechanism of change under Common Descent is mutation, which at its present rate in this modern and environmentally exceptional world, will reduce mankind to inoperability within a finite time span. Medical fact. The mutations we keep hearing about must have been in a previous world where the environment was different.
You presume that all mutations are bad. This is erroneous. I suspect you know this. Moreover, you have an expected value somewhere in excess of 100 new mutations in your own DNA: neither of your parents had them. By your own logic, you are on the steady slope down already...

Jud · 14 May 2008
Stanton said:
bobby said: And you did not quantitize?? Whoah you claim there are mountains of evidence for Darwinism. Show me! Show me the math!
The onus is on you to show us how you have allegedly been able to mathematically disprove the Theory of Evolution. Demanding that we supply you with evidence that can be freely obtained through www.google.com , scholar.google.com or even a local bookstore suggests that you have no interest in learning anything at all, especially since experience has shown us that you refuse to look at any evidence we already provided you.
I think I can do this in a conveniently short form by paraphrasing Sean B. Carroll. OK, Bobby, here it is, quick and easy. The math that supports evolution is the same math that is used in lotteries, probability theory. And here's a concept you should keep in mind about both lotteries and evolution: Although the odds against winning a lottery like the Powerball exceed a billion to one, hardly a week goes by without a winner. Mind-boggling, eh? (Unless you understand the math.) Carroll's books contain the actual equations if you're interested.

bobby · 14 May 2008
Dan said:
bobby said: Whoah you claim there are mountains of evidence for Darwinism. Show me!
First of all, I didn't claim there are mountains of evidence for Darwinism because, as I've already explained, there is no such thing as Darwinism. We don't call atomic theory "Lavoisierism". We don't call the theory of the round Earth "Eratosthenesism". We don't call astrophysics "Keplerism". We don't call airplane pilots "Wrightists". We don't call classical mechanics "Newtonism". We don't call evolution "Darwinism." If you want an introduction to the mountains of evidence behind evolution, I invite you to start with "Chromosomes, Giant Molecules, and Evolution" by Bruce Wallace. It's old (1966) but very clearly and delightfully written. You can buy a used hardcover copy for $2.99: http://experiencedbooks.com/web/abk/bBB-007812
Please ask Gould and Dawkins to quit using the term 'Darwinism' then. Of course evolution happens. Again it is Darwinism that has extremely little evidence supporting it.

bobby · 14 May 2008
bobby said:
Dan said:
bobby said: Whoah you claim there are mountains of evidence for Darwinism. Show me!
First of all, I didn't claim there are mountains of evidence for Darwinism because, as I've already explained, there is no such thing as Darwinism. We don't call atomic theory "Lavoisierism". We don't call the theory of the round Earth "Eratosthenesism". We don't call astrophysics "Keplerism". We don't call airplane pilots "Wrightists". We don't call classical mechanics "Newtonism". We don't call evolution "Darwinism." If you want an introduction to the mountains of evidence behind evolution, I invite you to start with "Chromosomes, Giant Molecules, and Evolution" by Bruce Wallace. It's old (1966) but very clearly and delightfully written. You can buy a used hardcover copy for $2.99: http://experiencedbooks.com/web/abk/bBB-007812
Please ask Gould and Dawkins to quit using the term 'Darwinism' then. Of course evolution happens. Again it is Darwinism that has extremely little evidence supporting it.
However we do use the terms Marxism, Lysenkoism, and Impressionism, and cubism. Certain words simply gain usage and roll off the tongue well. For instance Einsteinism simply is hard to say. OK if you do not like the term Darwinism I will use a term that you will not get upset about. Give an alternate term for Darwinism and I will use it.

fnxtr · 14 May 2008
How about "reality"? Ever heard of that?

David Stanton · 14 May 2008
Hey Bobby,
Read the 29 Evidences for Macroevolution yet? If you had, you would have learned terms such as the modern theory of evolution and macroevolution. All of this is explained in the Talk Origins archive. We are all waiting for you to educate yourself. After that maybe we can have a scientific discussion. Until then, listening to you ignore away 150 years of evidence isn't really interesting to anyone.

Henry J · 14 May 2008
"Darwinism" = "those parts of science that a given anti-evolutionist doesn't accept".
How's that?

Rolf · 14 May 2008
Please ask Gould and Dawkins to quit using the term ‘Darwinism’ then. Of course evolution happens. Again it is Darwinism that has extremely little evidence supporting it.
I am afraid Gould is somewhat handicapped WRT honouring your request. WRT Dawkins, you might want to consider the obvious fact that while he may use the word "Darwinism", it is more accurate when we want to refer to the current status of evolutionary research to simply say 'evolutionary theory', ToE, or MET (Modern Evolutionary Theory. You should know that the reason for the various terms are the simple fact of life that the theory has been evolving over a period of 150 years, and have been associated with such terms as Punctuated Equilibrium, Modern Synthesis, and maybe others that I haven't even heard of. Simply because research has shown that there is so much more than just "gradual descent with modification caused by random mutations and natural selection." WRT Punctuated Equilibrium, to forestall ironic triumphant claims, it might be worth noting that Darwin in all editions of The Origin of Species after the third, wrote:
the periods during which species have been undergoing modification, though very long as measured by years, have probably been short in comparison with the periods during which these same species remained without undergoing any change.
I agree with you, evolution happens, regardless of what name we use. That is what the evidence says. So what's your problem?

stevaroni · 14 May 2008
Dan asks... When you say “How ignorant you are” do you mean that the writer has an ignorance of 27? Or maybe 52? I’m not sure what units you want ignorance to be measured in?
IDies.

Stanton · 14 May 2008
bobby said: OK if you do not like the term Darwinism I will use a term that you will not get upset about. Give an alternate term for Darwinism and I will use it.
Try "Evolutionary Biology"

stevaroni · 14 May 2008
The number of people who are estimated to work directly with evolutionary issues or products every day: 700,000
The number of people who feel that evolution has some mysterious mathematical flaw and therefore doesn't work: Two.
Dembski and Bobby.
The number of people who have actually been able to demonstrate said flaw: Zero.
The reason Dembski fails: His published math demonstrably doesn't add up.
The reason Bobby fails: "I am not going to expose my whole concept without anything in return, sorry".
In other words. It's a secret.
Why is it that the IDiots who shout loudest about overthrowing "Darwinism" always decide that it's better go mum once they finally find the proof.
Especially since overturning a widely established theory is the best way to make their name truly immortal, which, you'd figure, would be somewhat attractive to them. Galileo, Einstein, even - dare I say it - Darwin. All these men are famous because they torpedoed a previous flawed theory.
I think you're making a mistake here, Bobby. If you can figure out the math, surely someone else can, and they they're going to the Nobel that's rightfully yours, bro.
I say strike now while the iron is hot, and boldly display the brilliance of your shining intellect to the world. But, safety first, give me a second to get my shades.
Um and um, maybe hide my irony meter.

slang · 14 May 2008
mr. blobby said: I can walk you thru the math. But I doubt that you could understand it.
I'm telling you guys, it's BEHE! First he redefined science, and now he will redefine math! Ok.. maybe it's Dembski. Maybe they're teaming up!

bobby · 14 May 2008
"" Why is it that the IDiots who shout loudest about. ""
That was a childish statement.
Anyhow I did say I would go over the math in a step by step manner as long as get equivalent input from the other side.
But I have dealt with Darwinists before They have trouble envsioning a math concept in toto so I think I would need to do this in simple steps.

bobby · 14 May 2008
"" The number of people who are estimated to work directly with evolutionary issues or products every day: 700,000 ""
The number of people who are estimated to work directly with Darwinian issues or products every day: zero.
Why is it so hard for some posters to realize Darwinism != evolution.

phantomreader42 · 14 May 2008
bobby said: "" Why is it that the IDiots who shout loudest about. "" That was a childish statement. Anyhow I did say I would go over the math in a step by step manner as long as get equivalent input from the other side. But I have dealt with Darwinists before They have trouble envsioning a math concept in toto so I think I would need to do this in simple steps.
Cut the crap, you little fraud. You're the one claiming you have this amazing mathematical proof that contradicts over a century of biology. But apparently no one but you is allowed to see it. what's the difference between evidence no one is ever allowed to see, and no evidence at all? Just a bunch of meaningless blather from bullshitting bobby. Put up or shut up. If you have the evidence, present it. But you won't. Everyone knows you have nothing.

phantomreader42 · 14 May 2008
bobby said: "" The number of people who are estimated to work directly with evolutionary issues or products every day: 700,000 "" The number of people who are estimated to work directly with Darwinian issues or products every day: zero. Why is it so hard for some posters to realize Darwinism != evolution.
Then what, if anything, does it mean? YOU'RE the one using the term. You're the one who's spent so much time screeching about the evils of "Darwinism". So what the hell do you mean when you say that? When creationists use the word "Darwinism" they're just referencing a pile of strawmen that exist only in their own hollow heads. It's just a buzzword to signify their rejection of all reality.

fnxtr · 14 May 2008
This rings familiar. Who was the other twit who insisted he walk everyone through his pretzel logic step by step like he'd read too much Plato? That twit never got to the point, either. Probably didn't have one. Like our little pal bobble-head here.

stevaroni · 14 May 2008
Bobby whines... Why is it so hard for some posters to realize Darwinism != evolution.
Um, because there is no such thing as "Darwinism". Just what do you think the difference is?

R Ward · 14 May 2008
"Try 'Evolutionary Biology'"
Stanton, I have a bit of problem with this. To me, all biology is evolutionary biology. Your phrase suggests there are areas of biology that do not deal with evolution.
By the way,I have no problem with being called a 'Darwinist'. It reflects the historical roots of my field. I'm proud of that history.
If creationists use the term as a perjorative, it just demonstrates their ignorance.

Stanton · 14 May 2008
R Ward said: "Try 'Evolutionary Biology'" Stanton, I have a bit of problem with this. To me, all biology is evolutionary biology. Your phrase suggests there are areas of biology that do not deal with evolution.
English, King's English, Queen's English. Yes, it's true that evolution ties in with all aspects of biology, both directly and indirectly, but, when I say "Evolutionary Biology," I'm trying to refer to those aspects of biology that concern the mechanics and direct consequences of "descent with modification." You know, like, studying how and why the brontotheres became progressively bigger throughout their evolutionary history, or how eukaryotics gained mitochondria, versus how mitochondria function.

blue · 14 May 2008
bobby,
I posted my math* on page 7, but you ignored it.
*Well, it's not my math, per se.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 14 May 2008
Henry J said: I'd think a prediction has to be something that's not expected if the hypothesis is wrong, since otherwise the prediction isn't useful.
For me a prediction is any consequence from a theory, not necessarily testable. Say, like the flatness of spatial curvature on the current cosmology implies (predicts) an infinite universe. How do the test that? We probably can't in principle, so it isn't a falsifiable prediction. But at this stage I think we are discussing terminology, essentially agreeing on what is necessary to have in a science.

Ian Musgrave · 14 May 2008
Sheesh. You get involved in marking exam papers and the world goes crazy. Doesn't anybody remember the aphorism, "Don't feed the Troll"?
As this thread is now unproductive, I'm turning off comments.