The Disco 'Tute Dance continues

Wow, what an embarrassment for MIT, University of Washington, and Harvard.

Her entire train of reasoning can be paraphrased as this -

"I am entirely ignorant (or pretending to be entirely ignorant) of any quantitative treatment of evolution, whether from classical population genetics or from molecular biology.

I now use my ignorance to advance a non sequitur argument."

At best she's a quantitatively-challenged and emotionally biased person who should have been more rigorously vetted before they handed out a PhD.

However, being cynical, I can't help subjectively speculating that crass self-interest may also be a driving factor here. Of course, that's just my subjective speculation.

Also recently released by the DI

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/07/15/jeffersons_support_for_intelligent_design/

I was somewhat humored to read it and appreciate that the opinion was perfectly in the mainstream 100 years ago before such minor discoveries as genetics. Of course pointing out that natural selection was ever out of favor as a mechanism for evolution would require them to admit that their myth of a vast Darwinist conspiracy is just that, a myth. And it had been subject to vigorous debate. And heavily tested. And found wanting until a solid explanation for heredity (by people who largely did not believe natural selection was a significant factor in evolution) allowed for detailed empirical studies and a unification of biology.

harold said: Also recently released by the DI http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/07/15/jeffersons_support_for_intelligent_design/

You can comment on the article.

harold said: Also recently released by the DI http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/07/15/jeffersons_support_for_intelligent_design/

Mike #1 -

There is indeed a Comments section associated with the Boston Globe article. As you can see via the link I provided, the comments, presumably mainly from Boston area readers, are predominantly negative.

Although I don't live in Boston, a friend of mine does, and he frequently sends me some of the more ridiculous nonsense that's published in the Globe. The comments generated by propaganda pieces are often negative. Perhaps not coincidentally, the Globe is going bankrupt. Management may have a stronger interest in maintaining a bully pulpit for creationism and related ideas, than for turning a profit for sap shareholders, for all I know.

HOWEVER, my point here is not to discuss the Boston Globe per se. My point is to draw the attention of PT readers to yet another intensely dishonest output from the DI, one with blatant political and legal overtones, so that it can be critiqued, not just in the limited Comments section provided by the Globe, but even more widely.

Mike said:

harold said: Also recently released by the DI http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/07/15/jeffersons_support_for_intelligent_design/

You can comment on the article. All letters to the editor (web comments don't count for some reason), including those not printed, are tabulated and the end of the week, and a graph of agree vs disagree is printed.

harold said: HOWEVER, my point here is not to discuss the Boston Globe per se. My point is to draw the attention of PT readers to yet another intensely dishonest output from the DI, one with blatant political and legal overtones, so that it can be critiqued, not just in the limited Comments section provided by the Globe, but even more widely.

My letter to the Globe editor:

"I am rather appalled that the Globe would publish Stephen C. Meyer's unscientific claptrap without any commentary from a reputable scientist. Ever since the leak of the "Wedge Strategy" document ten years ago we have known that the goal of the author's Discovery Institute desires to "reverse the stifling materialist world view and replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions." They are biased, and try to mix science with religion, the opposite of what Jefferson would have ever wanted. Please, leave science to the scientists, and keep ideologically motivated ideas like Intelligent Design away from our education system."

Earth, water, air, fire.

Water good, fire bad.

Evolution bad, too.

Oh, and no stinkin monkeys. Monkeys bad.

It seems as though the main strategy of all anti-evolutionists when they are losing is to simply crank up the output of their manure spreaders; apparently there is no upper limit to the amount of bullshit they can crank out in few minutes.

Answers in Genesis is also doing this on one of the religion channels on TV. It comes so thick and fast that it would be almost hopeless for someone to answer each injected piece of crap and out-of-context assertion as it comes out. The audiences don’t appear to grasp any of the concepts, but enjoy all the sly jokes that are slipped in practically every other sentence. They don’t have the slightest clue about what follows, or does not follow, from what.

You have to admit that these ID/creationist predators know their rubes. It doesn’t appear to be important to these clowns that scientists can recognize the crap instantly; it is only important to these IDiots what the rubes think.

Mike Elzinga said: Answers in Genesis is also doing this on one of the religion channels on TV... ...You have to admit that these ID/creationist predators know their rubes. It doesn’t appear to be important to these clowns that scientists can recognize the crap instantly; it is only important to these IDiots what the rubes think.

harold said: Wow, what an embarrassment for MIT, University of Washington, and Harvard.

Editor’s Note: Ann Gauger is a senior research scientist at Biologic Institute. Her work uses molecular genetics and genomic engineering to study the origin, organization and operation of metabolic pathways.

Gee, I wonder what she discovered and where she published it? I mean, if natural selection is impotent to produce any improvement in biological organisms, then I guess she must have genetic evidence of "poof". Either that or she never published anything and has no idea what she is talking about. Either that or she is just plain lying through her teeth.

DS said: Gee, I wonder what she discovered and where she published it? I mean, if natural selection is impotent to produce any improvement in biological organisms, then I guess she must have genetic evidence of "poof". Either that or she never published anything and has no idea what she is talking about. Either that or she is just plain lying through her teeth.

She had several pubs in respectable journals back in the 1980s and the early 1990s. Here are the four I find in PubMed:

Gauger AK. The Drosophila kinesin light chain. Primary structure and interaction with kinesin heavy chain. J Biol Chem. 1993 Jun 25;268(18):13657-66.

Gauger A, Glicksman MA, Salatino R, Condie JM, Schubiger G, Brower DL.. Segmentally repeated pattern of expression of a cell surface glycoprotein in Drosophila embryos. Development. 1987 Jun;100(2):237-44.

Gauger A, Fehon RG, Schubiger G. Preferential binding of imaginal disk cells to embryonic segments of Drosophila. Nature. 1985 Jan 31-Feb 6;313(6001):395-7.

Riederer-Henderson MA, Gauger A, Olson L, Robertson C, Greenlee TK Jr. Attachment and extracellular matrix differences between tendon and synovial fibroblastic cells. In Vitro. 1983 Feb;19(2):127-33.

I see nothing since 1993, and nothing hinting at any expertise in molecular or morphological evolution, nor any in popgen.

Sometimes lousy PhD dissertations are passed. That happens all over the world. No big deal in itself, provided the percentage is low.

I have understood that you (at PT) are mainly concerned about attempts to introduce non-scientific material in the basic education.

Do you think that those attempts are already seeping to the university level education? Is your emphasis (at PT) due to the fact that university education is not protected by your constitution?

Eric Finn -

Behe and Dembski are actually good examples of creationists in legitimate universities.

Dembski was legitimately fired from Baylor, not for being full of crap (although poor quality of academic output would be a legitimate reason to deny tenure or fail to renew a contract), but for his disruptive and uncollegial way of dealing with colleagues. (This is my personal understanding, based on my recollections of what I have seen in the public record). Please note that Baylor is a private institution, affiliated with the Baptist faith, but that it is also a strong scientific research school.

Behe has been more astute at keeping his job. However, he is marginalized at the university. The department even has disclaimers in some of their printed material, emphasizing that his views are not accepted by others.

You may comment that this seems superficially better than the fate of say, Freshwater. After all, Behe still has his job (and a lot of money from books), and Dembski might have held onto his if he had been able to control himself (and is surely making more now at any rate).

However, this does not necessarily compare well with the fantasy of pounding propaganda into the heads of immature high school students, forcing them to regurgitate it, creating an atmosphere of social rejection for those who do not accept it, and so on.

Thanks for the link but there doesn’t appear to be anything new here

Eric -

No disrespect, of course, I'm emphatically agreeing with your interpretation.

You have to admit that these ID/creationist predators know their rubes. It doesn’t appear to be important to these clowns that scientists can recognize the crap instantly; it is only important to these IDiots what the rubes think.

Thanks RBH. That's about what I thought.

So she has never published anything whatsoever on the origin of metabolic pathways and nothing at all having to do with selection, population genetics or drift. A perfect expert in the field for the DIsco tute.

Man why are these evilutionists so hung up on publications? Can''t anyone claim to be an expert in something without actually knowing anything about it? In this case she doesn't even seem to realize that the field exists. Oh well, neither do the people she's trying to fool. Of course this is exactly the kind of thing that drives people away from religion when they realize they have been lied to.

Wheels said: I wonder how many "materialist evolutionary ideas" for the origin and diversity of life had actually been floated for discussion about fifty years prior to Darwin and Wallace writing on the role of natural selection, and before Darwin posited his 'warm puddle' guess for abiogenesis. I know there was Lamarckism around the turn of the 19th century.

"So, creationist organizations are following a “tap the base for more support” strategy rather than an “increase the base by convincing outsiders” strategy. Good for them, we all know how well that works."

The DI folks promote sign-up sheets at every one of their events where they capture the Rube's info & request donations. They actually charge admission fees to some of their events as well. Yes, the DI is milking this to the utmost.

The Rube's can vote, so can the DI, and so can their reps & senators and even GWB. It's politics, and they're out to win a popularity contest, and the masses seem to be on their side. They have a loaded gun aimed at science because every time you point out their failure they immediately run behind their god's skirts for protection like little kids. And offending religion is a no-no, and they will milk this too to the utmost. They claim they represent the other side of science, and when they are exposed, they'll always say you're attacking their religion. As I said, it's irreducible stupidity that is their pillar of strength.

BTW, I wrote ComCast regarding their new spokesperson - you might have heard of him or seen him in their recent ads on TV - the one and only Ben Stein.

BTW, I wrote ComCast regarding their new spokesperson - you might have heard of him or seen him in their recent ads on TV - the one and only Ben Stein.

— DavidK

Dr. Ann Gauger writes about '4 evolutionay forces' then draws the non sequitor that since natural selection is 'the weakest' it can be dismissed - this is completely bogus for several reasons

I will illustrate by anology

there are 4 main forces in physics, electromagnetic, gravity, and the stong and weak nuclear forces. Since gravity is so much weaker thatn any of the others (insert appropriate maths) we can ignore it - I'll demonstate my point- eloctromagnetc forces are largely what hold the crystal structure of theis wine glass together - I will drop it and gravity will pull it towards the earth, since the electromagnetic force is stonger than gavatic foree the glass will be unaffected --- now watch......

Jason wrote:

"Dr. Ann Gauger writes about ‘4 evolutionay forces’ then draws the non sequitor that since natural selection is ‘the weakest’ it can be dismissed - this is completely bogus for several reasons I will illustrate by anology"

In baseball, hitting a home run is only one of many possible outcomes when the batter swings at a pitch. In fact, it is the most unlikely outcome. And you usually only get one run for a home run and that is usually not enough to win the game. Therefore, home runs can be safely ignored since they will be so rare and so inconsequential as to never affect the outcome of the game.

If only scientists had thought to quantify the effects of selection we wouldn't be in this mess. Oh wait ...

She is one of three researchers (sic) at the Biologic Institute, which is nothing more than an arm of the Discovery Institute? She hasn't published since 1993? What has she been doing for the last 16 years, then? Has anyone ever visited these laboratories to confirm that they actually exist (and are in fact used for anything other than photo shoots)?

I love the irony of her having discovered a "beneficial mutation" in her own laboratory. There's a Mastercard commercial in there somewhere - priceless!

Dr. Ann Gauger writes about ‘4 evolutionay forces’ then draws the non sequitor that since natural selection is ‘the weakest’ it can be dismissed - this is completely bogus for several reasons I will illustrate by anology

stevaroni said:

Dr. Ann Gauger writes about ‘4 evolutionay forces’ then draws the non sequitor that since natural selection is ‘the weakest’ it can be dismissed - this is completely bogus for several reasons I will illustrate by anology

OOOh! Let me play! When playing Russian roulette, blowing one's brains out is the least likely outcome for any given trigger pull. At least 5 times as unlikely as successfully "missing". Ergo, it can be dismissed.

This suggests that the motifs (and repeats as well) diverged from one another within KLC before the ancestors of rat and Drosophila diverged; thus they are of ancient origin. Furthermore, motifs 1, 2, 3, and 6 differ by only one residue out of 21 when compared across species; motifs 4 and 5 show less, but still significant, sequence conservation. There must therefore be some selection pressure keeping the repeats so similar in sequence.

“Dr. Ann Gauger writes about ‘4 evolutionay forces’ then draws the non sequitor that since natural selection is ‘the weakest’ it can be dismissed - this is completely bogus for several reasons I will illustrate by anology”

harold said: Wow, what an embarrassment for MIT, University of Washington, and Harvard. Her entire train of reasoning can be paraphrased as this - "I am entirely ignorant (or pretending to be entirely ignorant) of any quantitative treatment of evolution, whether from classical population genetics or from molecular biology. I now use my ignorance to advance a non sequitur argument." At best she's a quantitatively-challenged and emotionally biased person who should have been more rigorously vetted before they handed out a PhD. However, being cynical, I can't help subjectively speculating that crass self-interest may also be a driving factor here. Of course, that's just my subjective speculation.

raven said:

“Dr. Ann Gauger writes about ‘4 evolutionay forces’ then draws the non sequitor that since natural selection is ‘the weakest’ it can be dismissed - this is completely bogus for several reasons I will illustrate by anology”

You don't have to use the analogy. Her statements aren't even true anyway. Natural selection is very powerful and we see it and deal with it every day. SARS anyone? HIV/AIDS? How about some swine flu? That latter one will be given to a fair percentage of the population whether they like it or not.

This is an interesting summary of the so-called "Biologic_Institute" which is a the pseudo-research arm of the DI.

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

Interestingly, what the Greeks and Romans called the four elements, correspond quite closely with what we now call the four states of matter (solid, liquid, gas, plasma); the difference being that some substances can be in different states depending on conditions at the time.

"Dr. Ann Gauger writes about ‘4 evolutionay forces’ then draws the non sequitor that since natural selection is ‘the weakest’ it can be dismissed"

Hey man what about "microevolution"? I thought that stuff was supposed to be OK. Isn't selection part of "microevolution" anymore? This chick better check with her pastor cause she seems to be confused. I mean, she didn't claim that selection could not produce anything she regards as "macroevolution", she says it can be completely ignored, you know on accoount of it being so weak all the time and all. How bout that. I guess all them predictive models used to fight genetical type diseases will have to be abandoned now. Shucks, and they was doin so good and all.

Given a designer, there is little motivation to assume common descent...

— DNAJock

Hey man what about “microevolution”? I thought that stuff was supposed to be OK.

— DS

University of Warwick sociologist Steve Fuller, who testified in support of intelligent design at the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial, opines that research at the Biologic Institute will reduce tensions between scientists and the religious community. Fuller states that "Regardless of whether the science cuts any ice against evolution, one of the virtues is that it could provide a kind of model for how religiously motivated people can go into the lab."[4]

Frank wrote:

"Not according to Ray Martinez."

Ray, isn't he the guy who keeps whining about natural selection and speciation? Perhaps he and this Gauger person should read the scientific literature.

Via. (2009) Natural selection in action during speciation. PNAS 106:9939-0046.

Why is it that those who doubt evolution never know, or even want to learn, anything about it? Coincidence? I don't think so.

DNAJock said: Given a designer, there is little motivation to assume common descent, and furthermore she clearly views selective pressure as weak enough to be ignored, so I am puzzled by her statement

This suggests that the motifs (and repeats as well) diverged from one another within KLC before the ancestors of rat and Drosophila diverged; thus they are of ancient origin. Furthermore, motifs 1, 2, 3, and 6 differ by only one residue out of 21 when compared across species; motifs 4 and 5 show less, but still significant, sequence conservation. There must therefore be some selection pressure keeping the repeats so similar in sequence.

http://www.jbc.org/cgi/reprint/268/18/13657?view=long&pmid=8514798 And she wrote this after she got her much-vaunted PhD, so blaming her youthful enthusiasm won't cut it. I wonder if the boys at the Disco'Tute know about this...

Ray, isn’t he the guy who keeps whining about natural selection and speciation? Perhaps he and this Gauger person should read the scientific literature.

— DS

For the conspiracy theory crowd, NASA has just recently imaged the Apollo Lunar Modules on the surface of the Moon with the LROC camera on LRO.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/apollosites.html

Rob

Wesley R. Elsberry I heard Richard Dawkins field a question as to whether natural selection could be said to be the main process in evolutionary change, and in his response he explicitly stated that when one looks at the level of proteins and the genome, what one mainly sees is change via genetic drift, but that if one looks at the level of visible or discernible morphological and behavioral traits, most of those have been shaped by selection.

What's the difference between

"f one looks at the level of visible or discernible morphological and behavioral traits, most of those have been shaped by selection"

and

"natural selection was “the main process in evolutionary change”"

?

Wes said Dawkins said: when one looks at the level of proteins and the genome, what one mainly sees is change via genetic drift, but that if one looks at the level of visible or discernible morphological and behavioral traits, most of those have been shaped by selection

At which point Ray piped up: Dawkins wrote a book in 1986 that said natural selection was “the main process in evolutionary change” (refer to book title). In 1996, for the 10th anniversary edition, Dawkins said he re-read the entire volume and wouldn’t change one word. Are the facts above now obsolete?

Ray,

For a more current view of the importance of natural selection in evolution and speciation please read the reference I provided five comments above. Of course natrual selection is almost never the only force operating on natural populations, however no one can dispute the mountains of evidence that show the importance of selection for many different types of evolutionary change.

It's just like in baseball. Scoring runs is important. It may not be the only important thing and you may not even be able to do it for half of the entire game, but in the end it is almost always critical to the outcome of the game.

Rob said: For the conspiracy theory crowd, NASA has just recently imaged the Apollo Lunar Modules on the surface of the Moon with the LROC camera on LRO. http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/apollosites.html Rob

I was 13 years old at the time, and for me that was the perfect age - old enough to understand, and young enough to have an incredible sense of wonder. Nothing before or since has impressed me quite as much.

Ah, but where's a picture of that golf ball that one of them supposedly left up there? Huh? Huh? !!!111!!!one!

Ray Martinez said:

Wesley R. Elsberry I heard Richard Dawkins field a question as to whether natural selection could be said to be the main process in evolutionary change, and in his response he explicitly stated that when one looks at the level of proteins and the genome, what one mainly sees is change via genetic drift, but that if one looks at the level of visible or discernible morphological and behavioral traits, most of those have been shaped by selection.

Dawkins wrote a book in 1986 that said natural selection was "the main process in evolutionary change" (refer to book title). In 1996, for the 10th anniversary edition, Dawkins said he re-read the entire volume and wouldn't change one word. Are the facts above now obsolete?

GvlGeologist, FCD said: Well, if the entire moon landing can be faked, surely a few photos can be faked as well. The conspiracy continues... Seriously, though, thanks for the info. These photos are coming in just in time for the 40^th anniversary of the Apollo 11 moon landing. The photos are spectacular. I was 13 years old at the time, and for me that was the perfect age - old enough to understand, and young enough to have an incredible sense of wonder. Nothing before or since has impressed me quite as much.

And I guess an even bigger sigh of relief when they pulled three guys out of the ocean a few days later...

RBH said: I now officially feel old. For several years in the 1960s...

GvlGeologist, FCD said:

RBH said: I now officially feel old. For several years in the 1960s...

Wait until you teach a college class in which all the students consider this ancient history!

Yeah. There's a lot of people out there who've never seen the moon without footprints on it. And they're pushing 40.

Henry J said: And I guess an even bigger sigh of relief when they pulled three guys out of the ocean a few days later...

Wow, what an embarrassment for MIT, University of Washington, and Harvard... At best she’s a quantitatively-challenged and emotionally biased person who should have been more rigorously vetted before they handed out a PhD.

Agreed - yet it's hardly the first time. Kurt Wise, Marcus Ross... . It's bad enough that secular universities are awarding PhD's in science to creationists, but that Ivy League schools are participating in this lowering of standards is shameful. Let's just give Ray Comfort a doctorate in evolutionary biology while we're at it.

Alas, I find the competitor’s “service” even more horrendous than Comcast’s. So my wife has been warned; one more incident, and cable is gone for good at our house.

Now if we could just get the science and history channels to do something more compelling than ESP and haunted houses.

— midwifetoad

midwifetoad said: Now if we could just get the science and history channels to do something more compelling than ESP and haunted houses.

I now officially feel old. For several years in the 1960s I worked in Honeywell’s Development & Evaluation Lab, stress testing components of the Apollo Command Module control system. When the Eagle landed at Tranquility Base that day, all of us who had worked on the project breathed a mighty sigh of relief and exultation: The damned thing worked!

Well, Apollo 13 was documented in a movie, and they don't do that for things that didn't happen, write? er, right?

Henry

The Dishonesty Institute has part 3 of their slick movies coming out on August 3:

"Premiere screening of Darwin’s Dilemma
Seattle Art Museum, Plestcheef Auditorium, (1st and University Entrance)
Cost: $20 per person (Pre-registration is necessary)
Includes Dessert Reception prior to the screening

Darwin’s Dilemma recreates the prehistoric world of the Cambrian era with state-of-the-art computer animation, and the film features interviews with Discovery Institute scientists as well as leading evolutionary paleontologists such as Simon Conway Morris of Cambridge University and James Valentine of the University of California at Berkeley. The new film forms the conclusion of a trilogy of science documentaries by Illustra Media that includes the previous acclaimed films Unlocking the Mystery of Life and The Privileged Planet. Don’t miss your chance to see this exciting new film at its exclusive Pacific Northwest
premiere! Special honored guests for the evening will include biologists Dr. Richard Sternberg and Dr. Jonathan Wells."

Appears they're checking whose attending because they require preregistration, but that doesn't make sense since they'll have tickets for sale at the door, too. This way they can screen out all real scientists.

Morris is a known ID critic, but he also argues against what he sees as philosophical naturlism and for some quasi-mystical patterns behind biology. I wouldn't be surprised if the interviews of him in the film are very... how shall we say.... selective?
I have no idea how they intend to use Valentine, though. From what I've read about him he seems pretty firmly in the "materialist" camp, that is he doesn't invoke God to explain things but natural processes.

Ray, find some evidence for your imaginary god and your preposterous delusions, or shut the fuck up. Facts or fuck off.

I will savour that one as an example of a perfect double-overhead reverse Poe in the tuck position. I really can't tell if Ray is serious or not, considering that the statement is, on the face of it, obvious nonsense, but more! This is nonsense so elegantly refined, so gloriously confused on at least three levels, as to render it impossible to know what he thinks he's driving at.

Essence of Poe taken to the realms of the highest and most rarified art!

Dave Luckett said: I will savour that one as an example of a perfect double-overhead reverse Poe in the tuck position. I really can't tell if Ray is serious or not, considering that the statement is, on the face of it, obvious nonsense, but more! This is nonsense so elegantly refined, so gloriously confused on at least three levels, as to render it impossible to know what he thinks he's driving at. Essence of Poe taken to the realms of the highest and most rarified art!

Ray Martinez said: You forgot to answer the question: "Since most evolutionists are Christians---evolution is evidence of God---right?" ...I have placed Atheists and evolutionists in a very difficult spot. My question, and your inability to answer forthrightly, exposes many lies told by supporters of evolution.

Ray Martinez said:

Ray, find some evidence for your imaginary god and your preposterous delusions, or shut the fuck up. Facts or fuck off.

Since most evolutionists are Christians----evolution is evidence of God----right?

Ray Martinez lied: I have placed Atheists and evolutionists in a very difficult spot. My question, and your inability to answer forthrightly, exposes many lies told by supporters of evolution.

Ray Martinez lied: “various segments in the evolutionary establishment” deny the round earth fact.

Ray Martinez lied: I can produce quotes of evolutionists denying the round earth fact.

When did you ever care about evidence, Ray?

You've already made it clear long ago that you've commanded God to deny evolutionists, be they Christian or otherwise, salvation because they committed the unforgivable sin of not grovelling before your personal denial of reality.

eric said:

eric said: He makes the same bad analogy to software they ID crowd has been making for years. He makes the standard bald assertion that information can only come from intelligence - which, aside frome being pure bald assertion.

It’s my understanding that ID advocates make a distinction with respect to information. They argue that there is a vast gulf that separates the organic world from the inorganic world, and that that gulf is characterized in terms of information. For example, the matter that makes up dirt and the matter that makes up your body is the same, but the arrangement of that matter, in terms of information vastly differs. The question is how is purely natural forces able to bridge the gulf between the organic and inorganic? A living organism is not merely a lump of matter, it must be suitable structured. ID proponents acknowledge that there are two sources of information, intelligent agency and physical processes. They deny that these two sources of information exhaust all logical possible sources of information because it is conceivable that there could be non-physical random process that generates information also. So I don’t think it’s the case that ID advocates are asserting a bald assertion that information “can only” come from intelligence. For example, consider the difference between a raw piece of wood and an acorn. Raw pieces of wood do not have the power to assemble themselves into a ship. That requires an external source of information, namely a shipbuilder. But the activity of a designing intelligence informing or giving shape to raw materials are not the only intelligent agents capable of conferring information. Where is the designer that causes the acorn to develop into a full grown tree? The ID advocate would say there isn’t any. Because the acorn has the power to transform itself into an oak tree without the help of intelligent causation. So nature and design represent two different ways of producing information. Nature produces it internally, and the ship is built through powers external to it, a designing intelligence imposing a suitable structure on pieces of wood. Are they wrong in understanding information as coming from two sources?

And what, exactly, is the definition of "information"?

Are viruses designed or natural? Why? How much "information" is in, say, the polio virus, how does one measure it, and how does that show nature or design? How about prions?

Ant colonies: Natural or intelligent? How about beehives? Row after row of perfect hexagons, plus the complex formula for showing which cells will grow workers, warriors, queens, breeding males;
surely that can't be natural.

The organic molecules in space, how about those, natural or designed? Information content = ???

The sludge on Titan: natural or designed? Why?
What if areas of the sludge are self-sustaining/replicating catalytic reactions?

The entire "information" argument is nothing but obfuscation and rationalization.

It's as though they were treating information as if it were a substance that can only be moved from one place to another.

Colloquially, information is simply useful data, but to use that definition requires knowing to whom it is useful, and why.

Henry J said: It's as though they were treating information as if it were a substance that can only be moved from one place to another. Colloquially, information is simply useful data, but to use that definition requires knowing to whom it is useful, and why.

des said: [A 39-line long single paragraph.]

... or the magnetic alignment of rock on the sea bed? It'll tell you about the history of the earth's magnetic field, but is it information if it stays on the sea bottom? Is it still information if no-one knows what it means?

Mike Elzinga said: A guy makes a memo to himself in a cryptic arrangement of stones that only he can decode. Then he dies. Is there still information in those stones?

It is my understanding that the encode project revealed that not only do we have a digital code inside the living cell, but that digital code is structured and organized in much the same way we use code inside of a digital computer.

There are “operating systems” in the cell, a “spell check” in the cell, there are files within folders way of organizing information, and this seems to be a challenge to the idea that inorganic matter evolved into organic living things in a mindless, undirected way.

Dr. Leroy Hood at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine has conducted research focusing on the study of molecular immunology, biotechnology, and genomics describes this information as a digital code.

[http://www.systemsbiology.org/scientists_and_research/faculty_groups/Hood_Group/Profile]

Back to Crick’s sequence hypothesis, it is not the physical chemical properties of the four bases in the DNA molecule, it is their specific arrangement in accord with a convention that directs the cell to build all the proteins and the protein machines.

In discussing the genetic code, the following website notes that the sequence hypothesis states that the “messenger RNA thus acts as an intermediate in conveying information [emphasis added] from the sequence of nucleotides in DNA to the sequence of amino acids in the polypeptide chain.

[source: http://www.microbiologyprocedure.com/genetic-code/genetic-code.htm]

I don't think it's the case that only intelligent design advocates that talk about “information.”

Des wrote:

"There are “operating systems” in the cell, a “spell check” in the cell, there are files within folders way of organizing information, and this seems to be a challenge to the idea that inorganic matter evolved into organic living things in a mindless, undirected way."

That's funny, that's exactly what scientists have concluded. And your reason for refusing to believe this is exactly what? You don't want to believe it? It's way too complexified to have evolved? You need desperately to find proof that God exists?

Perhaps you can tell us what nucleotide sequence could not arise naturally? Perhaps you can tell us why all organisms share a virtually identical genetic code? Perhaps you can explain the nested hierarchy of genetic similarities found between all organisms?

And no, ID advocates are not the only ones who talk about information. They are however the only ones who think that a miracle is required in order to produce it.

Interesting how Des originally posted as if he were a casual, neutral observer. He is gradually revealing he is "Of The Body", as it were.

Des, are you Trolling For Grades? Be honest, now.

And please, let's not have any more of this "DNA is like computer code" bullshit, we went through that a couple months ago, what a mess.

Thank you.

des said: There are “operating systems” in the cell, a “spell check” in the cell, there are files within folders way of organizing information, and this seems to be a challenge to the idea that inorganic matter evolved into organic living things in a mindless, undirected way. .... I don't think it's the case that only intelligent design advocates that talk about “information.”

Humpty-dumpty-ally?

fnxtr said: Des, are you Trolling For Grades? Be honest, now. Thank you.