(Creation) science marches on!

Yikes. I'm going to have to agree with you on this one, Richard. These people think that because they can create fancy new words, we ought to listen to their theories.

Also, how is it that it's ok for creationism to have "intractable" problems, but not for evolutionary synthesis? I think they've thrown their baby science out with the bathwater religion here, just a bit.

Cheers,
NS

Comment left on the Dr. Boli site:

Hey, don't forget about all the extra herbivores that will be required to keep the predators fed until such time as enough new herbivores can be born to prevent immediate extinction of the baramin by one act of predation! And of course the Ark had to contain enough fodder to keep all those herbivores fed for at least a year until new plants could grow on all that flooded land.

notedscholar said: Yikes. I'm going to have to agree with you on this one, Richard. These people think that because they can create fancy new words, we ought to listen to their theories. Also, how is it that it's ok for creationism to have "intractable" problems, but not for evolutionary synthesis? I think they've thrown their baby science out with the bathwater religion here, just a bit. Cheers, NS

(From the site) We believe the question has been approached from the wrong direction, with creation scientists attempting to answer it by analyzing current species’ common characteristics and working backward to the original baramin. ...(snip)... (so work backwards) Given the dimensions of the ark specified in the sixth chapter of Genesis, it then becomes a trifling mathematical exercise to determine approximately how many animals were housed on board the ark, each breeding pair of which, as one of the sources of all succeeding animal life, must correspond to a single baramin.

WHY do you keep deleting my comments? My last one wasn't even controversial!

NS

Not this one I mean, but I keep getting Panda links that go to some bin or something, but link to my site? What?

NS

The results of this study will revolutionize the field of creation science, putting it for the first time on a comparable level with reflexology, astrology, psychology, and other sciences of undisputed certainty and utility.

The baramin was the first successful self-replicating molecule. I am pleased to know the scientific term for same.

notedscholar said: Not this one I mean, but I keep getting Panda links that go to some bin or something, but link to my site? What? NS

The Deep-Cover Poe said: Not this one I mean, but I keep getting Panda links that go to some bin or something, but link to my site? What? NS

Frankly I once tried to engage Dembski and he immediately shut off comments like a pansy.

I'm serious, too:
http://sciencedefeated.wordpress.com/2009/08/21/william-dembskis-estrogen-level-increases-to-new-record-high/

Cheers,
NS

And what the jeepers are the tard mines anyway??

NS

notedscholar,

Are you trying to pretend you're Woody Allen or Harlan Ellison (or both)? Couldn't quite tell whether you're really serious in taking on IDiots like Dembski or rather, instead, you might be an online "Trojan Horse" DI sycophant.

Assuming that you're serious, I tried twice to get Dembski to answer how he would calculate confidence limits to his Explanatory Filter. The first time was face to face after the Spring 2002 AMNH ID debate. The second time was two years ago, after I received an unsolicited e-mail from him. Both times he refused to answer.

Before anyone takes "Noted Scholar" seriously, I thought I might point out that the first entry on his blog contains the "10 Worst Ideas of the Last Hundred Years". They are:

(1) NASA (QED, QED)
(2) Nuclear Physics (QED TBA)
(3) The Apollo Program (QED)
(4) Special Relativity (QED)
(5) Quantum Mechanics (QED TBA)
(6) Abortion / Feminism (QED, QED)
(7) Asia (QED, QED, QED)
(8) Bombing the moon (QED)
(9) Micro-Evolution (QED, QED)
(10) Bayes theorem (QED)
(10) Dark Matter/Anti-Matter (QED, QED)
(10) More-than-three dimensional space (QED)
(10) Brian Greene/Stephen Hawking (QED)

The level of ignorance, stupidity, and willful foolishness demonstrated here is remarkable.

"The level of ignorance, stupidity, and willful foolishness demonstrated here is remarkable."

Yes, it is. But it isn't coming from the referenced web site.

From the list of the ten worst ideas of the last hundred years:

(9) Micro-Evolution

Man, someone should alert the creationists, They all believe in microevolution, or so they claim. Of course it would be interesting to see their definition of the term.

But seriously, why on earth does a well validated concept such as this qualify as a "bad idea"? Is the round earth a "bad idea"? Is plate tectonics a "bad idea". Reality is what it is. You don't like it, that's too bad.

Darren Garrison said: "The level of ignorance, stupidity, and willful foolishness demonstrated here is remarkable." Yes, it is. But it isn't coming from the referenced web site.

Since I only believe in the partial effects of gravity I am going to preemptively coin the term Micro-Gravitation.

Let it be known in case anyone tries to steal my Nobel Prize a few years down the line.

RDK said: Since I only believe in the partial effects of gravity I am going to preemptively coin the term Micro-Gravitation. Let it be known in case anyone tries to steal my Nobel Prize a few years down the line.

Mike Elzinga said: The gravity of this situation for the physics community is yet to be fully appreciated.

well duh. it's called baraminology because it studies the bare min required to seed the observed ecosystem

Thanks for the link.

The ad is obviously bogus, because no true baraminologist would set a publication date to come after the Rapture. Dr. Boli has been deceived!

"How do new species arise? Darwin's original idea, that new species arise gradually from the action of natural selection over time, is now seriously in doubt. In fact Darwin was disappointingly vague and inexplicit about the actual mechanics of speciation (despite the title of his magnum opus). The events which lead to the 'creation' of new species are still largely a puzzle. Is selection alone strong enough to bring about new, distinct sexually isolated species in the wild? Is this process necessarily a gradual one, or may new species arise quite abruptly? The results of thousands of experiments and observations from nature are ambiguous natural selection may be strong enough to create adaptations, but some recent experiments suggest that selection may actually be irrelevant in the origin of species. There is also a wrangle over the speed at which new species are formed-the latest results implying that this may be sudden rather than gradual." (Leith, Brian [producer, Natural History Unit, BC, Bristol UK], "The Descent of Darwin: A Handbook of Doubts about Darwinism," Collins: London, 1982, pp.22-23) "

and

"Bacteria, the study of which has formed a great part of the foundation of genetics and molecular biology, are the organisms which, because of their huge numbers, produce the most mutants. This is why they gave rise to an infinite variety of species, called strains, which can be revealed by breeding or tests. Like Erophila verna, bacteria, despite their great production of intraspecific varieties, exhibit a great fidelity to their species. The bacillus Escherichia coli, whose mutants have been studied very carefully, is the best example. The reader will agree that it is surprising, to say the least, to want to prove evolution and to discover its mechanisms and then to choose as a material for this study a being which practically stabilized a billion years ago!" (Grasse, Pierre-P. [former editor of the 28-volume "Traite de Zoologie," for 30 years Chair of Evolution, Sorbonne University, and ex-president of the French Academie des Sciences], "Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation," [1973], Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, p.87).

quoatmyner said: "How do new species arise? Darwin's original idea, that new species arise gradually from the action of natural selection over time, is now seriously in doubt. In fact Darwin was disappointingly vague and inexplicit about the actual mechanics of speciation (despite the title of his magnum opus). The events which lead to the 'creation' of new species are still largely a puzzle. Is selection alone strong enough to bring about new, distinct sexually isolated species in the wild? Is this process necessarily a gradual one, or may new species arise quite abruptly? The results of thousands of experiments and observations from nature are ambiguous natural selection may be strong enough to create adaptations, but some recent experiments suggest that selection may actually be irrelevant in the origin of species. There is also a wrangle over the speed at which new species are formed-the latest results implying that this may be sudden rather than gradual." (Leith, Brian [producer, Natural History Unit, BC, Bristol UK], "The Descent of Darwin: A Handbook of Doubts about Darwinism," Collins: London, 1982, pp.22-23) " and "Bacteria, the study of which has formed a great part of the foundation of genetics and molecular biology, are the organisms which, because of their huge numbers, produce the most mutants. This is why they gave rise to an infinite variety of species, called strains, which can be revealed by breeding or tests. Like Erophila verna, bacteria, despite their great production of intraspecific varieties, exhibit a great fidelity to their species. The bacillus Escherichia coli, whose mutants have been studied very carefully, is the best example. The reader will agree that it is surprising, to say the least, to want to prove evolution and to discover its mechanisms and then to choose as a material for this study a being which practically stabilized a billion years ago!" (Grasse, Pierre-P. [former editor of the 28-volume "Traite de Zoologie," for 30 years Chair of Evolution, Sorbonne University, and ex-president of the French Academie des Sciences], "Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation," [1973], Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, p.87).

Well I am slowly investigating the possibility of using Dembski's Explanatory Filter as a means of ascertaining whether Zefrem Cochrane's warp drive is a potentially credible scientific and technological idea. But I'm not holding my breath that I will obtain anything useful from a Panglossian "artifact" like the Explanatory Filter!

John Kwok said: Well I am slowly investigating the possibility of using Dembski's Explanatory Filter as a means of ascertaining whether Zefrem Cochrane's warp drive is a potentially credible scientific and technological idea. But I'm not holding my breath that I will obtain anything useful from a Panglossian "artifact" like the Explanatory Filter!

quoatmyner said: "How do new species arise? Darwin's original idea, that new species arise gradually from the action of natural selection over time, is now seriously in doubt. In fact Darwin was disappointingly vague and inexplicit about the actual mechanics of speciation (despite the title of his magnum opus). The events which lead to the 'creation' of new species are still largely a puzzle. Is selection alone strong enough to bring about new, distinct sexually isolated species in the wild? Is this process necessarily a gradual one, or may new species arise quite abruptly? The results of thousands of experiments and observations from nature are ambiguous natural selection may be strong enough to create adaptations, but some recent experiments suggest that selection may actually be irrelevant in the origin of species. There is also a wrangle over the speed at which new species are formed-the latest results implying that this may be sudden rather than gradual." (Leith, Brian [producer, Natural History Unit, BC, Bristol UK], "The Descent of Darwin: A Handbook of Doubts about Darwinism," Collins: London, 1982, pp.22-23) " and "Bacteria, the study of which has formed a great part of the foundation of genetics and molecular biology, are the organisms which, because of their huge numbers, produce the most mutants. This is why they gave rise to an infinite variety of species, called strains, which can be revealed by breeding or tests. Like Erophila verna, bacteria, despite their great production of intraspecific varieties, exhibit a great fidelity to their species. The bacillus Escherichia coli, whose mutants have been studied very carefully, is the best example. The reader will agree that it is surprising, to say the least, to want to prove evolution and to discover its mechanisms and then to choose as a material for this study a being which practically stabilized a billion years ago!" (Grasse, Pierre-P. [former editor of the 28-volume "Traite de Zoologie," for 30 years Chair of Evolution, Sorbonne University, and ex-president of the French Academie des Sciences], "Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation," [1973], Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, p.87).

quoatmyer,

I don't know where you are getting this stuff (but I can guess). Nothing in the first paragraph is at all a problem for evolution and the second paragraph is just plain wrong. Do try to do better next time. You are not going to convince anyone of anything this way.

As John suggests, you might want to try some references from the primary literature and something less than twenty seven and thirty six years old, respectively. We have actually learned quite a bit about speciation in the last thirty years. I can provide references, but that never seems to work out.

Quoatmyner said:

"The results of thousands of experiments and observations from nature are ambiguous natural selection may be strong enough to create adaptations, but some recent experiments suggest that selection may actually be irrelevant in the origin of species."

So just where are the referenced experiments Quoatmyner, that substantiate your arguments?

Mike Elzinga said:

"F = GmM/r2 for values of r for which F is in the Micro-gravity range.

Since there is no such thing as Micro-gravity changing into Macro-gravity, this means that once r becomes sufficiently small, there is no more gravity.

So there is Micro-gravity far away, but when you get closer to a gravitating body, gravity stops evolving any further."

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your idea here, but as r -> 0, F -> infinity, no?

DavidK said: Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your idea here, but as r -> 0, F -> infinity, no?

Institute for Noachian Studies.

Not to be confused with the Institute for Noetic Sciences. I'm not sure which one is worse.

quoatmyer wrote:

“The results of thousands of experiments and observations from nature are ambiguous natural selection may be strong enough to create adaptations, but some recent experiments suggest that selection may actually be irrelevant in the origin of species.”

This is actually correct, but is in no way a problem for evolution. Darwin did not claim that selection was the only important factor in speciation. Selection can definitely be an important factor, but mutations and drift alone can produce speciation events. Reproductive isolation is really all that is required in order for divergence to occur. The process may be faster if selection operates, but that need not be the case in order for speciation to occur. Of course this does not mean that Darwin was wrong in any way. It just means that we have learned a few things since Darwin wrote On the Origin of Species. Why is this always such a big surprise to creationists? Oh ... right, I forgot. Never mind.

Wonder if the theory of intelligent falling fits in here anywhere?

Henry

quoatmyner said: bla bla bla bla bla bla

There must be some relationship to the observation that the theory of flight is only a theory, and that the only reason that airplanes can fly is that they are intelligently designed. (Which, by the way, proves that birds are intelligently desinged.)

TomS said: There must be some relationship to the observation that the theory of flight is only a theory, and that the only reason that airplanes can fly is that they are intelligently designed. (Which, by the way, proves that birds are intelligently desinged.)

Do they still confuse philosophy with science? Or do they think the philosophical axioms of science are under debate?
(you know, like that whole evidence thing...)

I swear these guys think they are the next Karl Popper...only without the reasoning power and diabolically opposed to logical thinking.

notedscholar said: Go trolling somewhere else dude. Cheers, NS

Mike Elzinga said:

RDK said: Since I only believe in the partial effects of gravity I am going to preemptively coin the term Micro-Gravitation. Let it be known in case anyone tries to steal my Nobel Prize a few years down the line.

F = GmM/r² for values of r for which F is in the Micro-gravity range. Since there is no such thing as Micro-gravity changing into Macro-gravity, this means that once r becomes sufficiently small, there is no more gravity. So there is Micro-gravity far away, but when you get closer to a gravitating body, gravity stops evolving any further. The gravity of this situation for the physics community is yet to be fully appreciated.

DavidK said: Quoatmyner said: "The results of thousands of experiments and observations from nature are ambiguous natural selection may be strong enough to create adaptations, but some recent experiments suggest that selection may actually be irrelevant in the origin of species." So just where are the referenced experiments Quoatmyner, that substantiate your arguments? Mike Elzinga said: "F = GmM/r2 for values of r for which F is in the Micro-gravity range. Since there is no such thing as Micro-gravity changing into Macro-gravity, this means that once r becomes sufficiently small, there is no more gravity. So there is Micro-gravity far away, but when you get closer to a gravitating body, gravity stops evolving any further." Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your idea here, but as r -> 0, F -> infinity, no?

Stuart Weinstein said:

Mike Elzinga said: Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your idea here, but as r -> 0, F -> infinity, no?

Details, details...

quoatmyner said: True, I'm a visiting troll. So nice to meet the /resident/ trolls here!

Joe Felsenstein said:

Stuart Weinstein said:

Mike Elzinga said: Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your idea here, but as r -> 0, F -> infinity, no?

Details, details...

Location! location!

Kevin B said:

John Kwok said: Well I am slowly investigating the possibility of using Dembski's Explanatory Filter as a means of ascertaining whether Zefrem Cochrane's warp drive is a potentially credible scientific and technological idea. But I'm not holding my breath that I will obtain anything useful from a Panglossian "artifact" like the Explanatory Filter!

You could try using the Explanatory Filter on itself.

TomS said: There must be some relationship to the observation that the theory of flight is only a theory, and that the only reason that airplanes can fly is that they are intelligently designed. (Which, by the way, proves that birds are intelligently desinged.)

Sylvilagus said:

Kevin B said:

John Kwok said: Well I am slowly investigating the possibility of using Dembski's Explanatory Filter as a means of ascertaining whether Zefrem Cochrane's warp drive is a potentially credible scientific and technological idea. But I'm not holding my breath that I will obtain anything useful from a Panglossian "artifact" like the Explanatory Filter!

You could try using the Explanatory Filter on itself.

Wouldn't that produce a blackhole???

Sylvilagus said:

Kevin B said:

John Kwok said: Well I am slowly investigating the possibility of using Dembski's Explanatory Filter as a means of ascertaining whether Zefrem Cochrane's warp drive is a potentially credible scientific and technological idea. But I'm not holding my breath that I will obtain anything useful from a Panglossian "artifact" like the Explanatory Filter!

You could try using the Explanatory Filter on itself.

Wouldn't that produce a blackhole???

RDK said:

Sylvilagus said:

Kevin B said:

John Kwok said: Well I am slowly investigating the possibility of using Dembski's Explanatory Filter as a means of ascertaining whether Zefrem Cochrane's warp drive is a potentially credible scientific and technological idea. But I'm not holding my breath that I will obtain anything useful from a Panglossian "artifact" like the Explanatory Filter!

You could try using the Explanatory Filter on itself.

Wouldn't that produce a blackhole???

Kind of like dividing by zero, yeah. Which I'm sure Dembski has plenty of history with considering his "papers" in mathematics.

DS said: Pontification!

NS said: Vociferation!

quoatmyner ("Quote Miner") said: Speciousinformation!

TomS said: There must be some relationship to the observation that the theory of flight is only a theory, and that the only reason that airplanes can fly is that they are intelligently designed. (Which, by the way, proves that birds are intelligently desinged.)

TomS said: There must be some relationship to the observation that the theory of flight is only a theory, and that the only reason that airplanes can fly is that they are intelligently designed. (Which, by the way, proves that birds are intelligently desinged.)

Mike Elzinga said:

TomS said: There must be some relationship to the observation that the theory of flight is only a theory, and that the only reason that airplanes can fly is that they are intelligently designed. (Which, by the way, proves that birds are intelligently desinged.)

What about birds that fly into airplanes?

John Kwok said: According to the prophet Stephen Meyer, birds who fly into airplanes are examples of perfect designs which have deteriorated from their ideal true state:

Mike Elzinga said: Uh, now I'm confused. Did I say say that? The gravity of this situation is giving me vertigo. It appears that the comments are being scrambled. They aren't posting or previewing as they appear in the comment box.

Mike Elzinga said:

TomS said: There must be some relationship to the observation that the theory of flight is only a theory, and that the only reason that airplanes can fly is that they are intelligently designed. (Which, by the way, proves that birds are intelligently desinged.)

What about birds that fly into airplanes?

Mike Elzinga said:

TomS said: There must be some relationship to the observation that the theory of flight is only a theory, and that the only reason that airplanes can fly is that they are intelligently designed. (Which, by the way, proves that birds are intelligently desinged.)

What about birds that fly into airplanes?

Consider two sister species: how could one tell how much of the differences between them are due to natural selection, and how much to genetic drift? If the differences are mostly neutral mutations, I would think drift more important. If they are mutations which are expressed, then I would suspect natural selection. I would also expect different results from different sister species pairs.

The Dishonesty Insitute's prophet de jour, Stephen Meyer, is whining and moaning about how global warming denialists are being subjected to as much "persecution" as evolution denialists, as noted here:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=34935

Elsewhere, in the latest issue of the DI agitprop e-mail newsletter Nota Behe, David Berlinski has written an open letter to Don Prothero, begging him to review his book too, claiming that Don's negative one star Amazon.com review has helped "boost" sales of Meyer's latest pathetic published example of mendacious intellectual pornography.

Jim wrote:

"Consider two sister species: how could one tell how much of the differences between them are due to natural selection, and how much to genetic drift? If the differences are mostly neutral mutations, I would think drift more important. If they are mutations which are expressed, then I would suspect natural selection. I would also expect different results from different sister species pairs."

There are technical differences between drift and selection and the effects that they have on populations. By looking for specific patterns in genetic markers, one can tell which processes are in operation. Once the processes are identified, specific factors responsible can be examined in more detail in order to confirm predictions. It can get rather complicated if more than one process is operating but there are lots of studies that address combinations of factors as well.

For example, drift tends to be faster in small populations and it affect genetic variation and in the entire genome and it reduces heterozygosity. Selection tends to be more specific in that it usually affects only certain regions of the genome and depending on what type of selection is operating it can increase or decrease heterozygosity. If population sizes are large and specific environmental factors can be correlated with specific genes or regions of the genome, selection hypotheses can be substantiated. This is rather general, but basically different factors can be differentiated in divergence and in speciation events because they have different genetic consequences. It can also be important to identify the reproductive isolating mechanisms that are operating as well, since these can also have important genetic consequences.

Dave said: And on that note, Merry Midwinter to all ye 'Thumbers! (Except to any of you living in the Antipodes. To you I say, "Why in Cook's name haven't you developed your own solstice traditions yet??") ;-) Cheers,

Shit! Satire? I really wanted to know what the "Six Simple Questions Tell You If You’re Damned" were. :(