An Irreducibly Complex Party Trick

That...

is..

AWESOME!!!

Hmmm....

German speaking people demonstrating how to make a human swastika.... that might not be a good sign...

Hmmm...

Hadn't thought about that.

Still a neat demonstration of physics.

Wouldn't I be using intelligence if I performed this trick?
Aren't I displaying purposeful forethought of the structure I am making as I arrange the chairs properly, then assemble my buddies in just the right order, and then instruct helpers to remove the chairs? Haven't I used coded instruction, (in the form of this video) in order to get the information on how to do it?

I guess if this just randomly happened at a party it would be a good example of evolutionary processes but if it happens because someone else saw it done someplace and wanted to replicate what they saw isn't it actually evidence of Intelligent Design?

fittest meme said: Wouldn't I be using intelligence if I performed this trick? Aren't I displaying purposeful forethought of the structure I am making as I arrange the chairs properly, then assemble my buddies in just the right order, and then instruct helpers to remove the chairs? Haven't I used coded instruction, (in the form of this video) in order to get the information on how to do it? I guess if this just randomly happened at a party it would be a good example of evolutionary processes but if it happens because someone else saw it done someplace and wanted to replicate what they saw isn't it actually evidence of Intelligent Design?

fittest meme said: Wouldn't I be using intelligence if I performed this trick? Aren't I displaying purposeful forethought of the structure I am making as I arrange the chairs properly, then assemble my buddies in just the right order, and then instruct helpers to remove the chairs? Haven't I used coded instruction, (in the form of this video) in order to get the information on how to do it? I guess if this just randomly happened at a party it would be a good example of evolutionary processes but if it happens because someone else saw it done someplace and wanted to replicate what they saw isn't it actually evidence of Intelligent Design?

fittest meme said: Wouldn't I be using intelligence if I performed this trick? Aren't I displaying purposeful forethought of the structure I am making as I arrange the chairs properly, then assemble my buddies in just the right order, and then instruct helpers to remove the chairs? Haven't I used coded instruction, (in the form of this video) in order to get the information on how to do it? I guess if this just randomly happened at a party it would be a good example of evolutionary processes but if it happens because someone else saw it done someplace and wanted to replicate what they saw isn't it actually evidence of Intelligent Design?

harold said:

fittest meme said: Wouldn't I be using intelligence if I performed this trick? Aren't I displaying purposeful forethought of the structure I am making as I arrange the chairs properly, then assemble my buddies in just the right order, and then instruct helpers to remove the chairs? Haven't I used coded instruction, (in the form of this video) in order to get the information on how to do it? I guess if this just randomly happened at a party it would be a good example of evolutionary processes but if it happens because someone else saw it done someplace and wanted to replicate what they saw isn't it actually evidence of Intelligent Design?

Something is "irreducibly complex" if removing one part destroys the whole thing. Once the chairs are gone the congregation of humans is irreducibly complex. Behe made the "intelligent design" argument that things which are irreducibly complex have to be created all at once by magic. By Behe's logic, all the humans had to come together in that formation instantaneously. To Behe, there is no other possible explanation. The video is one more of many, many demonstrations that irreducibly complex structures can be built up one step at a time from simpler structures, but then become irreducibly complex when some simple structures are removed. This does not model biological evolution and is not intended to, but it refutes Behe's intelligent design assertion.

In other words, Steve P., you have nothing but whining and hot air.

Scaffolding IS evidence against Irreducible Complexity: scaffolding demonstrates how a biological structure developed in the first place. Irreducibly complex structures are explained as magically appearing as they are observed today, without scaffolds, without precursors, without having ever allegedly evolved from similar structures. Claiming that scaffolding reinforces Irreducible Complexity is a lie.

Plus, you're also deliberately lying when you claim that Behe didn't invoke magic. He claims that the Intelligent Designer created these allegedly irreducibly complex structures in a process that mortal researchers will never hope to comprehend, let alone understand, ergo, "magic."

Steve P. said: Harold is engaging in a strawman.

Steve P. said: ... No need invoking gods, goddesses, goblins, or gooks.

More evolved, irreducibly complex systems.

apokryltaros said: Scaffolding IS evidence against Irreducible Complexity: scaffolding demonstrates how a biological structure developed in the first place. Irreducibly complex structures are explained as magically appearing as they are observed today, without scaffolds, without precursors, without having ever allegedly evolved from similar structures. Claiming that scaffolding reinforces Irreducible Complexity is a lie. Plus, you're also deliberately lying when you claim that Behe didn't invoke magic. He claims that the Intelligent Designer created these allegedly irreducibly complex structures in a process that mortal researchers will never hope to comprehend, let alone understand, ergo, "magic."

Because we learn to do something well, like repetitive scaffolding or making building blocks from experience or from a good teacher it does not prove evolution. It proves that you want to do better and achieve excellence if you are borne with the intelligence to do so, not everyone excels in some subjects usually because they are better at another. It is important what your building blocks are to form the right foundations to build the right structure. Constable painted landscapes, Rembrandt portraits they reproduced scenes on canvas. @ John Wilkins, I think while at school even if you are talented in one subject you should study all the other subjects too as each are designed to prepare you for what you will need when you leave those very vital young learning years you spend at school learning. It is not mimicking, it’s for one thing progressing with hindsight and foresight. I don’t think learning in isolation and out of the school community is altogether the right thing you have to know what the community as a whole needs from you and what you need from them as a team. But also working by yourself to achieve your own goals is achieving too but in a different aspect I think you need both experiences. It’s not evolution it’s using the talents inbuilt in the human make up, like the monkey’s swing through trees the best because it’s in the monkey make up, but we can copy them, if you are a gymnast; the same as they can go into space.

Some of those commenting here apparently either do not know or do not understand Behe's argument about irreducibly complex (IC) systems.

Behe's premise is that an IC system cannot possibly evolve because any predecessor would be missing a key part and would therefore be non-functional.

This argument is defeated by showing the existence of a feasible evolutionary path leading to an irreducibly complex system.

Such feasible paths have been identified.

Behe's premise has thus been shown to be false.

Design arguments that rely on Behe's premise are thus invalid.

Atheistoclast said: No. To build a building you need scaffolding. But it is the end product that is alone useful, not the individual bricks and mortar. A house without a roof isn't very good!

Just Bob said:

Atheistoclast said: No. To build a building you need scaffolding. But it is the end product that is alone useful, not the individual bricks and mortar. A house without a roof isn't very good!

Don't you EVER stop to think before blathering? 1. Most of the buildings in the world are built without scaffolding. I have done that myself. 2. Bricks and mortar are eminently useful for millions of things besides making buildings. Heat a brick and drop it into your soup pot to boil it. Brain an enemy with it. Use it for a weight in a deadfall to catch a rabbit. 3. A "building without a roof" is a hell of a lot better than nothing. Ever hear of a fort? Even a single small wall can save your life in a blizzard of sandstorm.

fittest meme said: Wouldn't I be using intelligence if I performed this trick? Aren't I displaying purposeful forethought of the structure I am making as I arrange the chairs properly, then assemble my buddies in just the right order, and then instruct helpers to remove the chairs? Haven't I used coded instruction, (in the form of this video) in order to get the information on how to do it? I guess if this just randomly happened at a party it would be a good example of evolutionary processes but if it happens because someone else saw it done someplace and wanted to replicate what they saw isn't it actually evidence of Intelligent Design?

No one has really come through and answered my original questions.

Was or was not intelligence at play in this demonstration?

If it was then how can it be used as evidence against design? I quite honestly am surprised that the editors of this site would demonstrate their lack of understanding of the true claims of Darwinian Theory, Irreducible Complexity, and Intelligent Design by posting this video as if it bolstered their position. Either they are purposefully attempting to mislead people in this very important debate or they actually haven’t fully understood all sides of the argument.

The concept of Irreducible Complexity (which is a concept that is distinct from Behe who was the one who first articulated it in regards to this debate) doesn’t claim that irreducible complex things had to come together through “magic.” Nor does it claim that they can’t be assembled in a step by step process. It just claims that we have never witnessed such structures being assembled without a designing intelligence involved. Your video does not disprove this claim.

You can theorize that such structures as the “4 self-supporting guys” could have come together randomly as Sabz5150 has. However, to do so and claim it as fact you must provide evidence . . . not just a belief that it could have happened “rather easily.”

Admittedly, educated supporters of Darwinian Theory don’t make this naive claim. They would argue that the step by step assembly process will take place through the unguided process of Natural Selection; each step in the process must have utility and provide competitive advantage to it’s host organism. If you want to use this video to demonstrate this you should let us know how each step in the process did this for the organism ultimately using it. Remember, in this case your website was the organism and the purpose (albeit ineffective) was to disprove ID.

In your zeal to bolster your belief (a charge you frequently make of the other side) you have demonstrated some pretty poor reasoning in posting this. Probably time to admit your mistake.

Irreducible complexity says: "IRC structures could not have evolved."

"So that implies that reducibly complex (RC) structures could have evolved. Otherwise the distinction is meaningless."

"Well, I'll admit that."

"So what happens if an RC then evolves by losing parts of itself until it can't lose any more and still work? Then an evolvable RC system has evolved into an IRC system."

The example here may indeed be "intelligently design" but it is no different in its IRC characteristics than an unintelligently designed natural stone bridge.

No one has really come through and answered my original questions. Was or was not intelligence at play in this demonstration?

jps0869 said: Except that many of the elements of the demonstration aren't at all necessary to make it work. The chairs can be backless, it which point they merely need be arranged in a semicircular pattern that need not be especially exact to work. They can be of somewhat differing heights and the scaffold can still work. Stools with three legs rather than four would work. A less stable scaffold can be formed with only three people. Even a scaffold that only works for a little while still functions. Additionally, the video is totally unnecessary as a means of instruction and merely a red herring.

Your own trick here, which is nearly always the ID trick, is to look at an existing configuration and assume that it wouldn't work any other way, wouldn't work more simply, or couldn't have functional precursors. It isn't merely that biology disproves these ideas daily, but that biology is only one way of the many ways in which this idea can be debunked.

fittest meme said: Maybe you "scientists" here have forgotten that the supernatural elements of logic and reason are pretty important in the application of science as truth is pursued.

fittest meme asserts that "each step in the process must have utility and provide competitive advantage to it’s host organism."

Not true, not in the world of reality. This is where you fail miserably.

What is the utility of having chairs set in a square like that? Ascribing a purpose to the squared chairs is a post hoc process, not an a priori assumption. There are many possible reasons to place chairs in a square arrangement, some of them useful, the vast majority neutral.

How do squared chairs confer a competitive advantage? 'Tis far easier to eat dinner using different arrangements, say, for instance, around the dinner table. Squared chairs facilitate the game of musical chairs better than a scaffolding event. Ultimately, it is the environmental conditions that dictate the usefulness of squared chairs and not the arrangement of the chairs themselves.

Harold is engaging in a strawman. Nothing new here.

In fact, scaffolding reinforces the notion of irreducible complexity.

The only way for the 4 people to come together in that configuration is if a pre-existing scaffolding is present.

Behe never invoked magic in explaining this. He simply states that natural selection acting on fortuitous random mutations is simply not up to the job.

No need invoking gods, goddesses, goblins, or gooks.

But hey, lets try the darwinian way -

Harold you said:

"This does not model biological evolution and is not intended to, but it refutes Behe’s intelligent design assertion."

Reed introduced the video by stating:

"Wanna demonstrate how evolution and scaffolding can produce irreducibly complex structures at your next ivory tower wine and cheese party or evil atheist conspiracy kitten roast? Just repeat the demonstration see in this clip."

I guess your disagreement is with the editor not me.

Regarding your understanding of Behe's presentation of Irreducible Complexity I'd suggest you read the book before making the misrepresentations you do here. It would be helpful for the sake of all involved.

And yet, the only people here misrepresenting Behe are the Intelligent Design proponents. If they had actually read Darwin's Black Box, they would have known that Behe never discusses scaffolding, or anything else. All he did in explaining Irreducible Complexity is pontify about how impossible it is to conceive of evolution creating complex biological structures without an Intelligent Designer creating such structures in the first place.

fittest meme said: You can theorize that such structures as the “4 self-supporting guys” could have come together randomly as Sabz5150 has. However, to do so and claim it as fact you must provide evidence . . . not just a belief that it could have happened “rather easily.” Admittedly, educated supporters of Darwinian Theory don’t make this naive claim. They would argue that the step by step assembly process will take place through the unguided process of Natural Selection; each step in the process must have utility and provide competitive advantage to it’s host organism. If you want to use this video to demonstrate this you should let us know how each step in the process did this for the organism ultimately using it. Remember, in this case your website was the organism and the purpose (albeit ineffective) was to disprove ID.

apokryltaros said: If they had actually read Darwin's Black Box, they would have known that Behe never discusses scaffolding, or anything else. All he did in explaining Irreducible Complexity is pontificate about how impossible it is to conceive of evolution creating complex biological structures without an Intelligent Designer creating such structures in the first place.

fittest meme said: Regarding your understanding of Behe's presentation of Irreducible Complexity I'd suggest you read the book before making the misrepresentations you do here. It would be helpful for the sake of all involved.

Mike Elzinga said: Do you know why Behe, Dembski, Marks, Wells, et. al. came up with “information” to explain complex structures? Do you know why they think complex living systems require a designer?

I guess your disagreement is with the editor not me.

Regarding your understanding of Behe’s presentation of Irreducible Complexity I’d suggest you read the book before making the misrepresentations you do here. It would be helpful for the sake of all involved

And yet, the only people here misrepresenting Behe are the Intelligent Design proponents. If they had actually read Darwin’s Black Box, they would have known that Behe never discusses scaffolding, or anything else. All he did in explaining Irreducible Complexity is pontify about how impossible it is to conceive of evolution creating complex biological structures without an Intelligent Designer creating such structures in the first place.

It seems that all ID/creationist rubes think we haven’t read any ID/creationist literature. I would suggest that is pure projection, because no ID/creationist appears to have read or understood any science; and they apparently believe we all get our understanding of ID/creationism from mud wrestling on the Internet

By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution. (p. 39)

fittest meme said:

Mike Elzinga said: Do you know why Behe, Dembski, Marks, Wells, et. al. came up with “information” to explain complex structures? Do you know why they think complex living systems require a designer?

Because, like the video of the 4-guys, the presence of information is evident in these structures. Because coded information has only ever been empirically witnessed to have been created by an intelligent agent and because living systems all have coded information in the form of genentic material. It's simply a matter of logically following the evidence.

fittest meme said: Because coded information has only ever been empirically witnessed to have been created by an intelligent agent and because living systems all have coded information in the form of genentic material.

Wow, all this argument over a little party trick.

Reed A. Cartwright said: Wow, all this argument over a little party trick.

harold quoted Behe as follows:

"An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional."

When I suggested you hadn't read Behe I guess I should have been more specific that you have to read all the words. You seemed to skip over the part that says "(that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism)" It's amazing how the function of code can be dramatically changed with a minor omission isn't it?

You need a certain minimum of structures and steps to build the 4-guy table we saw in the video. If you don't have one of the chairs, (whether it has a back or doesn't doesn't matter) or don't have one of the guys, or don't pull out the chairs the trick won't serve it's purpose of impressing party guests or youtube viewers. Thus it is irreducibly complex.

What Behe means by his parenthetical statement is that none of the components of the irreducibly complex structure perform the structures purpose by themselves . . . so without forethought there would be no reason (from an impressing party guests standpoint) for any of the intermediate steps of the 4 guy table to have been formed. Guys by themselves don't function in a way that will impress party guests (that's an understatement isn't it!) neither does adding the chairs. To impress party guests (ie perform a specific function) with a 4-guy table all components must be included and assembled following the proper assembly instructions.

I hope I made this clear. It's an important aspect of irreducible complexity to understand so if I didn't do a good job of providing an example and explanation I'll try again.

Mike Elzinga said: Explain how “information” pushes atoms and molecules around.

fittest meme said: Natural Laws push atoms and molecules around. Exlplain where natural laws came from.

fittest meme said: Exlplain where natural laws came from.

fittest meme said: Exlplain where natural laws came from.

fittest meme said: "An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional."

What Behe means by his parenthetical statement is that none of the components of the irreducibly complex structure perform the structures purpose by themselves … so without forethought there would be no reason (from an impressing party guests standpoint) for any of the intermediate steps of the 4 guy table to have been formed.

Guys by themselves don’t function in a way that will impress party guests (that’s an understatement isn’t it!) neither does adding the chairs. To impress party guests (ie perform a specific function) with a 4-guy table all components must be included and assembled following the proper assembly instructions.

Reed A. Cartwright said:

fittest meme said: Exlplain where natural laws came from.

"Laws" don't exist in the natural world. They are (typically) mathematical descriptions about how the universe operates. In that sense, the natural laws are created by men. (Modern science tends to stay away from calling things laws because so many "laws" have been shown to be incomplete or incorrect.)

Atheistoclast said:

Just Bob said:

Atheistoclast said: No. To build a building you need scaffolding. But it is the end product that is alone useful, not the individual bricks and mortar. A house without a roof isn't very good!

Don't you EVER stop to think before blathering? 1. Most of the buildings in the world are built without scaffolding. I have done that myself. 2. Bricks and mortar are eminently useful for millions of things besides making buildings. Heat a brick and drop it into your soup pot to boil it. Brain an enemy with it. Use it for a weight in a deadfall to catch a rabbit. 3. A "building without a roof" is a hell of a lot better than nothing. Ever hear of a fort? Even a single small wall can save your life in a blizzard of sandstorm.

1. Try building a skyscraper without scaffolding. I have no care for your own hickboy efforts at house construction. 2. I'm sure you could use a brick for a variety of applications - like smashing car windows - but that doesn't help you build anything. 3. A house without a roof isn't much good against the elements. It defeats the whole purpose of a means of attaining "shelter". Idiot.

fittest meme said: If there are no such constant forces to discover what is the purpose of science?

By the way. What is the purpose of your site?

OK. Then what do you call the forces that push around the atoms and molecules of the universe?

By the way. What is the purpose of your site? Is it to bring truth to this debate or is it just to give viewers who are of the same belief as you have a place to emote? Your acknowledgement of making a mistake of fact in your initial post will go along way in demonstrating this purpose.

fittest meme said:

Mike Elzinga said: Explain how “information” pushes atoms and molecules around.

Natural Laws push atoms and molecules around.

Exlplain where natural laws came from.

Mike Elzinga said: But as long as you raised the issue, how do “supernatural laws” push atoms and molecules around?

Behe made the “intelligent design” argument that things which are irreducibly complex have to be created all at once by magic.

Steve P. said: Now explain to us how Behe has invoked magic, or even used the word magic, in his explanation of what IR is.

No, because if there can be scaffolding, there’s a way that the structure could come together incrementally, even though it can also become irreducibly complex incrementally. Behe’s claim that IRC rules out incremental construction is thus refuted.

Steve P. said: Now explain to us how Behe has invoked magic, or even used the word magic, in his explanation of what IR is.

Mike Elzinga said:

Steve P. said: Now explain to us how Behe has invoked magic, or even used the word magic, in his explanation of what IR is.

Maybe you could explain how “irreducibly complex” systems come about? Come on; walk us through it.

fittest meme said: Because, like the video of the 4-guys, the presence of information is evident in these structures.

Because coded information has only ever been empirically witnessed to have been created by an intelligent agent...It's simply a matter of logically following the evidence.

Steve P. said:

Mike Elzinga said:

Steve P. said: Now explain to us how Behe has invoked magic, or even used the word magic, in his explanation of what IR is.

Maybe you could explain how “irreducibly complex” systems come about? Come on; walk us through it.

Well, Gawd bless your haaart, Elzinga. Why dun we just do some science and find out. Intelligence seems to be embedded in life. Lets investigate how? Hmmm, interactive dimensions. Couldn't be any worse than string theory. I mean, er we have spend a billion bills on that so far. Higgs still a no-show. I figure a billion bills on interactive dimensions looks like a good bet. Where do I sign?

fittest meme said:

Mike Elzinga said: Do you know why Behe, Dembski, Marks, Wells, et. al. came up with “information” to explain complex structures? Do you know why they think complex living systems require a designer?

Because, like the video of the 4-guys, the presence of information is evident in these structures. Because coded information has only ever been empirically witnessed to have been created by an intelligent agent and because living systems all have coded information in the form of genentic material. It's simply a matter of logically following the evidence.

Why don’t you explain to us why all ID proponents have all the same misconceptions about matter and energy that Henry Morris saddled “scientific” creationism with back in the 1970s?

Regarding your understanding of Behe’s presentation of Irreducible Complexity I’d suggest you read the book before making the misrepresentations you do here. It would be helpful for the sake of all involved.

Forces

“Laws” don’t exist in the natural world. They are (typically) mathematical descriptions about how the universe operates. In that sense, the natural laws are created by men. (Modern science tends to stay away from calling things laws because so many “laws” have been shown to be incomplete or incorrect.)

Steve P. said:

Forces

. Alright, Reed. I'm game.

Mike Elzinga said:

Steve P. said:

Mike Elzinga said:

Steve P. said: Now explain to us how Behe has invoked magic, or even used the word magic, in his explanation of what IR is.

Maybe you could explain how “irreducibly complex” systems come about? Come on; walk us through it.

Well, Gawd bless your haaart, Elzinga. Why dun we just do some science and find out. Intelligence seems to be embedded in life. Lets investigate how? Hmmm, interactive dimensions. Couldn't be any worse than string theory. I mean, er we have spend a billion bills on that so far. Higgs still a no-show. I figure a billion bills on interactive dimensions looks like a good bet. Where do I sign?

So lay out a research program for us. Surely you know how to do that; don’t you?

Steve P. said:

Mike Elzinga said:

Steve P. said:

Mike Elzinga said:

Steve P. said: Now explain to us how Behe has invoked magic, or even used the word magic, in his explanation of what IR is.

Maybe you could explain how “irreducibly complex” systems come about? Come on; walk us through it.

Well, Gawd bless your haaart, Elzinga. Why dun we just do some science and find out. Intelligence seems to be embedded in life. Lets investigate how? Hmmm, interactive dimensions. Couldn't be any worse than string theory. I mean, er we have spend a billion bills on that so far. Higgs still a no-show. I figure a billion bills on interactive dimensions looks like a good bet. Where do I sign?

So lay out a research program for us. Surely you know how to do that; don’t you?

What? You are saying it is impossible? Well, you do know what Adidas says, don't you? Impossible is nothing. Take that to the think bank. That's what science is all about, shedding light on the impossible. Poor Elzinga, lost that lovin' feelin. Now its gone, gone, go a a one.

Steve P. said: What? You are saying it is impossible? Well, you do know what Adidas says, don't you? Impossible is nothing. Take that to the think bank. That's what science is all about, shedding light on the impossible. Poor Elzinga, lost that lovin' feelin. Now its gone, gone, go a a one.

Mike Elzinga said:

Steve P. said: What? You are saying it is impossible? Well, you do know what Adidas says, don't you? Impossible is nothing. Take that to the think bank. That's what science is all about, shedding light on the impossible. Poor Elzinga, lost that lovin' feelin. Now its gone, gone, go a a one.

If you ID/creationists have a research program, why can’t you articulate it? Do you even know what is involved in applying for research money? You don’t just ask, you submit a research proposal. Do you know how to write a research proposal for ID? Come on; demonstrate for us that you can do it. Stop throwing feces.

apokryltaros said: You remember when Steve P kept boasting how he was allegedly rich enough to fund his own experiments? One wonders why he didn't just go out and do his own experiments? Unless, of course, that was just internet troll trash talk.

This argument is defeated by showing the existence of a feasible evolutionary path leading to an irreducibly complex system. Such feasible paths have been identified.

Behe’s premise has thus been shown to be false.

Design arguments that rely on Behe’s premise are thus invalid.

Steve P. said: As long as you guys keep comin' up with doozers like scaffolding as a refutation of IR, Behe's can keep smiling that Mona smile.

apokryltaros, apropo.

Your memory is faulty. I said when I make 5M bills, I would lay my money done.

And no, you can't be on the team. I dun need people that slap "Do Not Enter" signs on every door they don't like or do not understand.

Like Elzinga, when he opens a door, sticks his head warily inside, just a peep, and sees that it 'appears' empty and so declares: "Nothing to see here. Apo, hang one of those DNE signs here, would ya?"

Steve P. said: Describe force. What is it composed of? How does it get its characteristics? How does it do anything?

Elzinga, is that your reductionist schtick at work now? Reducing it all to taunts?

Tot dat was my ting, mon?

Steve P. said: Elzinga, is that your reductionist schtick at work now? Reducing it all to taunts? Tot dat was my ting, mon?

Reed A. Cartwright said:

Steve P. said: Describe force. What is it composed of? How does it get its characteristics? How does it do anything?

What do I look like? A Jedi? The force is created by Midi-chlorians, but that is about all I know. Wookieepedia can tell you more.

Steve P. said: apokryltaros, apropo. Your memory is faulty. I said when I make 5M bills, I would lay my money done. And no, you can't be on the team. I dun need people that slap "Do Not Enter" signs on every door they don't like or do not understand. Like Elzinga, when he opens a door, sticks his head warily inside, just a peep, and sees that it 'appears' empty and so declares: "Nothing to see here. Apo, hang one of those DNE signs here, would ya?"

apokryltaros said:

Steve P. said: Elzinga, is that your reductionist schtick at work now? Reducing it all to taunts? Tot dat was my ting, mon?

That's all you're doing, Steve. If you want us to take you seriously, then why can't you move beyond taunting us with your grotesque ignorance and arrogant stupidity?

Steve P. said:

Reed A. Cartwright said:

Steve P. said: Describe force. What is it composed of? How does it get its characteristics? How does it do anything?

What do I look like? A Jedi? The force is created by Midi-chlorians, but that is about all I know. Wookieepedia can tell you more.

Well, there you go, Reed. "Hey, why are you playin' him dat way, mon? Hows he 'posed to know anyting 'bout about force? He knows it just IS. Don't ask 'im for friggin' details, come on! Its just out there. He knows it. He da mon. Take it down, sese!"

Steve P. said: Elzinga, is that your reductionist schtick at work now? Reducing it all to taunts? Tot dat was my ting, mon?

Mike Elzinga said:

Steve P. said: Elzinga, is that your reductionist schtick at work now? Reducing it all to taunts? Tot dat was my ting, mon?

Not taunting on my part. I’ve spent a lifetime in research and know what is involved. We in science don’t have to answer to you. Scientists have been at this for hundreds of years now. The mere fact that you are banging away on computer keys complaining about how we scientists go about things should be irony enough for even you to appreciate (well, maybe not).

So, are you going to lay out a research program for us?

apokryltaros said: No, Steve P is just going to continue taunting us for not being as stupid as he is, while flinging cyber-feces until the thread is closed.

Apo, I thought this thread was about scaffolding as evidence of evolution in action.

Lets stick to the program, shall we?

See folks, this here is a clear example of PT regulars derailing their own threads. Happens all too often. They are just itching to get ID into a cage match.

I will try to reel it in, and get the wheels turning in the right direction again.

So how is scaffolding evidence of natural selection, acting on random mutation, building functionality in cellular activity?

FYI, scaffolding is used when a distance threshold cannot be met. Man uses scaffolding when a structure is beyond his physical constraints. But Man, being an intelligent collection of molecules, figures a physical limitation is not an impediment to creative activity. He dreams, dares to achieve, thus finds a way. Impossible is nothing.

Like I have said before. As man designs, so does nature in general. The same goal orientation is seemingly present is microscopic structures as in macroscopic structures. If the physical characteristics of a molecular structure are beyond self-organization capabilities, the cell assists by providing a scaffold structure.

Evo-devo has the hard sell by trying to circumvent teleolgy and come up with such convoluted, patchy explanations for why something is so.

Teleology makes a whole lot more sense as it is close to our experience, is appealing, and is most likely the truth of what is taking place in the cell.

Again, why the dichotomy between Man as designer, but Nature as non-designer?

See nature as you see yourself. That simple.

We in science don’t have to answer to you. Scientists have been at this for hundreds of years now.

Steve P. said:

We in science don’t have to answer to you. Scientists have been at this for hundreds of years now.

That's where you are dead wrong, Elzinga! You DO have to answer to the public. You are using tax dollars. If you want to promote secular values, do it on your own dime. Leave it out of the classroom. Talk science, not humanism. Now back to our regularly scheduled program, scaffolding as evidence of natural selection in action.

You were the one derailing the thread with your inane taunts, while repeatedly deliberately ignoring our requests for you to lay out a research plan for Intelligent Design, Steve P. Your plea to stay on topic comes across as hypocritical, and your promise to reel in the taunting seems very empty.

That, and scaffolding is evidence against Irreducible Complexity, which Michael Behe originally insisted that irreducibly complex structures could only arise spontaneously in nature only through the magical intervention of an Intelligent Designer, constantly implied to be God, as described in the Bible. Scaffolding demonstrates how a complicated structure, structures that Behe would describe as "irreducibly complex," can arise through evolution. That your counter-arguments are nothing but childish taunts and maudlin appeals to faith show you know absolutely nothing about Biology.

Evo-devo does not have a "hard sell," given as how it actually explains the evidence in a logical way, totally unlike Intelligent Design. Claiming that things in nature are designed explains nothing: saying that DESIGNERDIDIT is not science, no matter how much you whine.

Steve P. said: Teleology makes a whole lot more sense as it is close to our experience, is appealing, and is most likely the truth of what is taking place in the cell.

Steve P. said: So how is scaffolding evidence of natural selection, acting on random mutation, building functionality in cellular activity? FYI, scaffolding is used when a distance threshold cannot be met.

Steve P. said:

This argument is defeated by showing the existence of a feasible evolutionary path leading to an irreducibly complex system. Such feasible paths have been identified.

Scaffolding is not evidence of a 'feasible' evolutionary pathway. Scaffolding is an organized, complete, precise structure. It is not as yet unused, random molecs floating in cytoplasm. You can now join the punt team of Reed, Harold, and SWT. Tenure is assured.

Behe’s premise has thus been shown to be false.

Writing that quip was easy, wasn't it? If only it were that simple, zipping that tart retort.

Design arguments that rely on Behe’s premise are thus invalid.

As long as you guys keep comin' up with doozers like scaffolding as a refutation of IR, Behe's can keep smiling that Mona smile.

SWT said: What we now have is an irreducibly complex system that was formed by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system ... exactly what Behe said was not possible. Behe's premise is false, and design arguments that rely on Behe's premise are invalid.

fittest meme said:

Mike Elzinga said: Do you know why Behe, Dembski, Marks, Wells, et. al. came up with “information” to explain complex structures? Do you know why they think complex living systems require a designer?

Because, like the video of the 4-guys, the presence of information is evident in these structures. Because coded information has only ever been empirically witnessed to have been created by an intelligent agent and because living systems all have coded information in the form of genetic material.

Mike Elzinga said:

Steve P. said: Teleology makes a whole lot more sense as it is close to our experience, is appealing, and is most likely the truth of what is taking place in the cell.

Ok, so you don’t understand chemistry and physics. So there is no hope that the scaffolding argument means anything to you. You simply don’t know what goes on with atoms and molecules. That is NOT our fault; it’s yours. There are hundreds of textbooks and courses you could study to learn. But it’s not going to happen here. You claim that “teleology” is the explanation. You are apparently setting yourself up as THE expert here. So what kind of a research program would you set up to demonstrate that atoms and molecules have goals?

Apo, it seems you are the one in the whining mood today.

Chill.

What Xubist and PT regulars fail to explain, as Elzinga and Apo just failed to explain, is why nature does not design.

The brute fact is we observe that Nature exhibits signs of teleology, just as we observe Man, a product of nature, also exhibits signs of teleology.

Therefore, you must show a dichotomy exists between Man as designer but Nature as non-designer; Man, which exhibits teleology but nature that does not.

SWT, you are trying to pull another Elzinga.

In case you don't know what an Elzinga is, let me define it:

-An Elzinga is demand we know how to calculate entropy equations in order to understand entropy.- The consequence of an Elzinga is that the vast majority of PT onlookers, posters, and probably several contributors would fail to understand entropy. In that case, science loses, pedagogically speaking.

So pulling Elzingas should not be encouraged.

FWIW, your example talks about the products and by-products of chemical reactions, which has nothing to do with the example in the OP, or Behe's IR. They both deal with functional structures.

Different animal.

So please put the pencil down, look us in the eye and start talking in terms of functional structures.

By the way,

I noticed how Reed, in his short OP seems to be admitting IR structures do in fact exist.

It seems now to only be a question of explaining their existence in naturalistic, non-teleological terms.

I tot IR was already debunked.

I just luv progress.

"Behe, no longer a Chevy in the levee."

FYI, SWT

Behe's definition says that all parts of a structure must be present for it to function.

You create a strawman by redefining IC to your liking and ability to debunk it.

What would debunk IC is if there are three guys lined up like a coffee table, with no one noticing the missing link, because they figured out a functional role for a three cornered, square coffee table.

But a 3-corner square coffee table does not make for a good party trick.

IC confirmed.

Steve P. said: By the way, I noticed how Reed, in his short OP seems to be admitting IR structures do in fact exist.

It seems now to only be a question of explaining their existence in naturalistic, non-teleological terms.

I tot IR was already debunked.

Behe’s definition says that all parts of a structure must be present for it to function.

IC confirmed.

Steve P. said: FWIW, your example talks about the products and by-products of chemical reactions, which has nothing to do with the example in the OP, or Behe's IR.

Steve P. said: SWT, you are trying to pull another Elzinga. In case you don't know what an Elzinga is, let me define it: -An Elzinga is demand we know how to calculate entropy equations in order to understand entropy.-

The consequence of an Elzinga is that the vast majority of PT onlookers, posters, and probably several contributors would fail to understand entropy. In that case, science loses, pedagogically speaking.

So pulling Elzingas should not be encouraged. FWIW, your example talks about the products and by-products of chemical reactions, which has nothing to do with the example in the OP, or Behe's IR. They both deal with functional structures. Different animal. So please put the pencil down, look us in the eye and start talking in terms of functional structures.

To be clear, when I talk about "PT commentators", I'm referring to people like me who post comments. I'm not talking about the people what make the original posts -- they very consistently know what they're talking about. The original posts are why I hang around here!

Steve P. said: I tot IR was already debunked.

Behe’s definition says that all parts of a structure must be present for it to function.

Then, the ignored molecs just happened to meet friendlies. These new molecs come along and decide to lounge, sort of (Gretchen Parlato in the background). But the funny thing in they don’t actually wind down, and lounge. They lay in friggin’ formation! Exactly like to uptight, homeless molecs they befriended! Now how does that work? How does the cell let 4 runaway chairs lay in formation, but nobody notices. Then, four more homeless molecs slip into groove moves, straddle the 4 chairs, meanwhile nobody notices, until the cell gets a 911 call.

Steve P. said: Apo, it seems you are the one in the whining mood today. Chill.

Steve P. said: What Xubist and PT regulars fail to explain, as Elzinga and Apo just failed to explain, is why nature does not design.

The brute fact is we observe that Nature exhibits signs of teleology, just as we observe Man, a product of nature, also exhibits signs of teleology.

Therefore, you must show a dichotomy exists between Man as designer but Nature as non-designer; Man, which exhibits teleology but nature that does not.

Your body is irreducibly complex. If you remove any one organ, heart, lungs, brain, etc. you will die. Therefore, development is impossible and god must have poofed every human being into existence all at once.

That was easy.

Steve P. wrote:

"Therefore, you must show a dichotomy exists between Man as designer but Nature as non-designer; Man, which exhibits teleology but nature that does not."

That's easy. Humans produce IC structures that could not have evolved, nature does not.

Behe said, in an interview for Eternal Word Television Network in 1996, “With Catholicism, you start with the knowledge that God made the universe and made light, but you don’t know how he did it. He might have done it in a puff of smoke, or he might have done it entirely through natural laws.”

A couple of points here:

1. Behe considers magic to be a viable explanation for observed natural phenomena. Alternatively, he accepts natural processes as an explanation.

2. Scaffolding is not a problem for natural processes, but it is a problem for IDC.

3. Behe doesn’t understand that molecules can perform functions differently under different conditions. And the key point, molecules do not need to play a role in any natural process; they can just sit in the cell and twiddle their thumbs. The IDC posters seem to think that everything has a purpose, but that is demonstratibly false. (Why does our genome contain endogenous retroviruses?)

4. IDC posters also exhibit a great fallacy of logic when they pose the man-build-objects therefore natural-processes-require-intelligence argument. Mainly because they are ignorant of physical and chemical interactions that can lead to self-assembly or other emergent properties.

(IDC of course stands for Intelligent Design Creationists, or mendacious intellectual pornographers if you prefer)

DS said: Your body is irreducibly complex. If you remove any one organ, heart, lungs, brain, etc. you will die. Therefore, development is impossible and god must have poofed every human being into existence all at once. That was easy.

JimNorth said: Behe said, in an interview for Eternal Word Television Network in 1996, “With Catholicism, you start with the knowledge that God made the universe and made light, but you don’t know how he did it. He might have done it in a puff of smoke, or he might have done it entirely through natural laws.” A couple of points here: 1. Behe considers magic to be a viable explanation for observed natural phenomena. Alternatively, he accepts natural processes as an explanation. 2. Scaffolding is not a problem for natural processes, but it is a problem for IDC. 3. Behe doesn’t understand that molecules can perform functions differently under different conditions. And the key point, molecules do not need to play a role in any natural process; they can just sit in the cell and twiddle their thumbs. The IDC posters seem to think that everything has a purpose, but that is demonstratibly false. (Why does our genome contain endogenous retroviruses?) 4. IDC posters also exhibit a great fallacy of logic when they pose the man-build-objects therefore natural-processes-require-intelligence argument. Mainly because they are ignorant of physical and chemical interactions that can lead to self-assembly or other emergent properties. (IDC of course stands for Intelligent Design Creationists, or mendacious intellectual pornographers if you prefer)

If you had read Behe, you would know he discusses “indirect evolution” of IC (not the “direct evolution” in harold’s previous quote - read it carefully.)

“An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional”.

“Indirect evolution” per Behe involves change of function. Behe announces, but never justifies, that such IC evolution is not impossible but incredibly improbable. That is the issue.

Masked Panda -

Well, I guess I'm guilty of a bit of a rant about Behe.

The primary trigger was the situation of ID/creationists themselves misrepresenting Behe's ID/creationist arguments (which is exceedingly strong evidence that Behe's arguments are not regarded as successful).

Behe is something of a weasel. He has also used other creationist strategies as well, such as false analogy to known human design ("if you found a bed of flowers in the forest spelling 'Lehigh'").

At the end of the day, though, it is highly accurate to note that Behe is most associated with the claim the irreducibly complex structures cannot (or are "highly unlikely to", when that mood strikes him, perhaps) form by incremental processes, such as evolution, because precursors would be in some way unstable.

It is easy to show that he made this claim via direct quotes from his works. It is extremely accurate to note that this claim is easily rebutted.

It is obvious to many people, both ID/creationists and pro-science people, that his reason for making this claim was to imply that a deity or similar "designed" at least some aspects of life as they are. This type of false dichotomy from error ("I have 'shown that it wasn't evolution', therefore it must have been my god") is very common.

We probably agree on all of this.

Steve P. said: -An Elzinga is demand we know how to calculate entropy equations in order to understand entropy.- The consequence of an Elzinga is that the vast majority of PT onlookers, posters, and probably several contributors would fail to understand entropy. In that case, science loses, pedagogically speaking.

Mike Elzinga said: The fact that you get so particularly pissed off at me isn’t helping you.

Steve P. -

Who is the designer, what did the designer do, when did the designer do it, how did the designer do it, how can we differentiate between alternate potential designers with similar powers, and what is an example of something that isn't designed?

What experiments could we do to test your answers?

Can you explain the theory of evolution in a way that be an acceptable summary, to a scientifically educated person, with reference to currently known molecular genetic mechanisms? (Answer so far - "no" - but prove me wrong.)

Can you explain some of the evidence that scientists believe supports the theory of evolution?

Could any evidence ever convince you?

So you could say then that God was the scaffolding while man was developed as the body of the church that if demolished the son of man could raise in three days.
Possibly it should be “intentionally moulded” instead of “intelligently designed” as everything is constrained within the boundaries of the building materials and of the elements that it is being built in.

Marilyn said: So you could say then that God was the scaffolding while man was developed as the body of the church that if demolished the son of man could raise in three days. Possibly it should be “intentionally moulded” instead of “intelligently designed” as everything is constrained within the boundaries of the building materials and of the elements that it is being built in.

harold said: So you're telling me that a direct quote from Behe, an extremely well-known one, one that summarizes his claims about IRC, is not what "Behe discusses".

Behe, p. 39: “An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional”.

Behe on the next page: (p.40) "Even if a system is irreducibly complex (and thus cannot have been produced directly), however, one can not definitely rule out the possibility of an indirect, circuitous route. As the complexity of an interacting system increases, though, the likelihood of such an indirect route drops precipitously."

A Masked Panda (TPcA) said: a)

harold said: So you're telling me that a direct quote from Behe, an extremely well-known one, one that summarizes his claims about IRC, is not what "Behe discusses".

No, I'm saying Behe makes a several page distinction between "direct" and "indirect" evolution of IC. Your lone sentence from Behe is only about the first.

Behe, p. 39: “An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional”.

"Directly" being one key word. And "by definition nonfunctional" just means having no identical function to the final IC function, as IC is defined, not no other function. It is clearer in context. His "directly" is adding parts while always keeping the same function. "By definition", this is impossible, because the N part system would not be IC in the first place, since N-1 parts would identically function as well, so the N-1 parts system can't have that function by definition. That is all the sentence is saying. Don't make me type from my copy the entire pages 39-41 quote.

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawk8DvSOY0r1jrV-SzeCiMOibrnXTMnTPcA said: a)

harold said: So you're telling me that a direct quote from Behe, an extremely well-known one, one that summarizes his claims about IRC, is not what "Behe discusses".

No, I'm saying Behe makes a several page distinction between "direct" and "indirect" evolution of IC. Your lone sentence from Behe is only about the first.

Behe, p. 39: “An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional”.

"Directly" being one key word. And "by definition nonfunctional" just means having no identical function to the final IC function, as IC is defined, not no other function. It is clearer in context. His "directly" is adding parts while always keeping the same function. "By definition", this is impossible, because the N part system would not be IC in the first place, since N-1 parts would identically function as well, so the N-1 parts system can't have that function by definition. That is all the sentence is saying. Don't make me type from my copy the entire pages 39-41 quote. It's just a tautology, if one understands his linked meanings of "directly" and "by definition nonfunctional".

Behe on the next page: (p.40) "Even if a system is irreducibly complex (and thus cannot have been produced directly), however, one can not definitely rule out the possibility of an indirect, circuitous route. As the complexity of an interacting system increases, though, the likelihood of such an indirect route drops precipitously."

By "indirect circuituous", he then makes it clear he includes functional changes, ruled out by his "produced directly" definition. He goes on in p 40-41 to talk about combining different functional parts of a car, like transmission and heater to improbably get an engine. And other examples. A junk argument. Repeating: “Indirect evolution” per Behe involves change of function. Behe announces, but never justifies, that such IC evolution is, not impossible, but merely incredibly improbable. That is the bogus claim that Steve P failed to understand. b) calm down.

Dave Lovell said:

Steve P. said: FWIW, your example talks about the products and by-products of chemical reactions, which has nothing to do with the example in the OP, or Behe's IR.

Did you hear the one about blood clotting pathways?

Steve P. said:

Dave Lovell said:

Steve P. said: FWIW, your example talks about the products and by-products of chemical reactions, which has nothing to do with the example in the OP, or Behe's IR.

Did you hear the one about blood clotting pathways?

I stand corrected. Behe's IC focuses 'mostly' on functional structures but is obviously not limited to it. As for the BCC, lampreys having a simplified BCC does not invalidate IC, it simply shows there are variable BCCs. If you take an element away from the current human BCC, could it function in a different capacity, have a different task? Is there evidence that such a simplified version of a human BCC existed in an ancestoral population, and served a different function?

If you were unable to answer Mike Elzinga’s entropy question – and remember, this is an open book forum, so you can look up what you need to answer it! – then you did’t understand enough about entropy to participate in anything approaching a technical discussion of entropic effects.

Steve P. said:

Dave Lovell said:

Steve P. said: FWIW, your example talks about the products and by-products of chemical reactions, which has nothing to do with the example in the OP, or Behe's IR.

Did you hear the one about blood clotting pathways?

I stand corrected. Behe's IC focuses 'mostly' on functional structures but is obviously not limited to it. As for the BCC, lampreys having a simplified BCC does not invalidate IC, it simply shows there are variable BCCs. If you take an element away from the current human BCC, could it function in a different capacity, have a different task? Is there evidence that such a simplified version of a human BCC existed in an ancestoral population, and served a different function?

Steve P. said: If you take an element away from the current human BCC, could it function in a different capacity, have a different task?

Is there evidence that such a simplified version of a human BCC existed in an ancestoral population, and served a different function?

Steve P. said: That won't do. As Im sure you understand, more than one scientist has pointed out that if you can't explain a scientific concept to your grandmother, it is worthless.

Steve P. said: I am not qualified to have a technical discussion of entropy.

Mike Elzinga said:

Steve P. said: -An Elzinga is demand we know how to calculate entropy equations in order to understand entropy.- The consequence of an Elzinga is that the vast majority of PT onlookers, posters, and probably several contributors would fail to understand entropy. In that case, science loses, pedagogically speaking.

Every time anyone tries to pin you down on your misunderstandings, misrepresentations, and claims, you just ricochet all over the place. The end result of all that ricocheting is that you have never yet answered any of those direct questions with direct answers. As SWT said, the questions are mirrors. If you don’t like what you see, you have only yourself to blame. But, as far as any of the topics here are concerned, those mirrors tell us everything we need to know about you. The fact that you get so particularly pissed off at me isn’t helping you.

Steve P. said: Life by contrast, does not obey these laws. Bears put on fat and grow thicker coats in winter. Humans but on a Gore-tex jacket in winter, and apply suncreen and put on a hat in summer. Again, in contrast ice can do neither. That is why there are three faces of water. One face for each range of temperature: hot, warm, and cold.

oclarki said:

Steve P. said: Life by contrast, does not obey these laws. Bears put on fat and grow thicker coats in winter. Humans but on a Gore-tex jacket in winter, and apply suncreen and put on a hat in summer. Again, in contrast ice can do neither. That is why there are three faces of water. One face for each range of temperature: hot, warm, and cold.

Wow...OK...no wonder there is a comprehension problem here. The term is "phase", not "face". There are three basic PHASES of water, not "faces". Oddly enough, my grandmother understood the term "phase" and could use it correctly in the context of chemistry (and physics). I suspect that she also would have understood the term "entropy" as the term is used in chemistry (and physics), since two her grandchildren turned out to be geochemists (lucky her!) but that subject ever came up. But I am really curious.....in thermodynamics the term "entropy" has a very specific - and therefore very restricted - definition. Do you actually know what that definition is? If so,pleas do enlighten us all...but most especially enlighten those of us who actually use thermodynamics in our daily lives.

The Masked Panda: Irreducible Complexity’s theoretical claim to unevolvability has been debunked, not the existence of IC.

NO, Ocklari, I did mean f a c e, not p h a s e.

No Mike, my objective is to show that you (pl) are living in an ivory tower.

You are old school, with this 'its all physics and chemistry' schtick.

21st century science is all about wrapping our brains around the idea of information as a real, yet immaterial entity that is integral to our understanding of who and what we are.

Too bad you refuse to ride that train.

"My baby thinks she's a train". -Asleep at the Wheel.

Steve P. said: Life by contrast, does not obey these laws.... On another note I mentioned Frank Lambert alluded to life violating entropy but apparently could not bring himself to using the word violate, but used the word obstructing, instead. The question was and is, how long do we wait before obstruction gives way to violation. Life has been obstructing entropy for 3.5by. Isn't it about time we use the v word?

Steve P. said: I am not qualified to have a technical discussion of entropy.

Steve P. said: No Mike, my objective is to show that you (pl) are living in an ivory tower. You are old school, with this 'its all physics and chemistry' schtick.

21st century science is all about wrapping our brains around the idea of information as a real, yet immaterial entity that is integral to our understanding of who and what we are.

Steve P. said: 21st century science is all about wrapping our brains around the idea of information as a real, yet immaterial entity that is integral to our understanding of who and what we are.

Steve P. said:

The Masked Panda: Irreducible Complexity’s theoretical claim to unevolvability has been debunked, not the existence of IC.

It is not sufficient to elucidate a 'potentially' evolvable IC system...

stevaroni said: The laws of thermodynamics refer to closed systems. Living things are not, in and of themselves, closed systems.

Steve P. said: NO, Ocklari, I did mean f a c e, not p h a s e.

Many creationist arguments, including Irreducible Complexity (hereafter IC) generally end up being equivocations on the term "impossible".

If I claim that something is absolutely impossible, and you demonstrate a plausible method by which that something could happen, then I can claim that unless you prove with absolute certainty that your "plausible" scenario actually happened then we must continue to assume that it's impossible. In this case the term impossible starts out meaning "not possible" and ends up meaning "not demonstrated".

This is the equivocation used to defend IC. IC says that it's impossible for evolution to generate irreducibly complex systems. Scientists demonstrate plausible scenarios by which this could be done, including such concepts as alternate functions and scaffolding. Then since scientists can't prove the exact step by step method by which a specific IC system evolved, the creationists claim to be justified in maintaining that it's impossible.

IC is defined using the "not possible" definition of impossible, and is defended using the "not demonstrated" definition.

Steve P. said: I am not qualified to have a technical discussion of entropy.

But that is not the issue at hand. The issue was and is can you explain entropy to a layman without reference to equations.

The equations are not entropy but lead you to conclusions about the characteristic of entropy. To explain its characteristics, you cannot point us to the equations. That would be an argument from authority; ie only if you understand the equations can you understand entropy, so you have to have a degree in physics and/or chemistry to have a say in the matter.

That won't do. As Im sure you understand, more than one scientist has pointed out that if you can't explain a scientific concept to your grandmother, it is worthless.

So when a poster was attempting to explain entropy in the form of an analogy to ice to me, the grandmother, i replied that if this is the case, then life does in fact violate entropy (im one of those obsinate, crafty, grandmas see. Anyway, grandma continues ...ice melts at high temperature, causing an increase in entropy. In the opposite direction, water at low temperature freezing reducing its entropy. Water has no say in the matter. It will happen every time.

Life by contrast, does not obey these laws. Bears put on fat and grow thicker coats in winter. Humans but on a Gore-tex jacket in winter, and apply suncreen and put on a hat in summer. Again, in contrast ice can do neither. That is why there are three faces of water. One face for each range of temperature: hot, warm, and cold. So is ice a good pedagogical example of entropy?

On another note I mentioned Frank Lambert alluded to life violating entropy but apparently could not bring himself to using the word violate, but used the word obstructing, instead. The question was and is, how long do we wait before obstruction gives way to violation. Life has been obstructing entropy for 3.5by. Isn't it about time we use the v word?

Steve P. said: No Mike, my objective is to show that you (pl) are living in an ivory tower. You are old school, with this 'its all physics and chemistry' schtick.

There's a clearer way of illustrating the "thermodynamic fallacy": if the SLOT rules out evolutionary "constructions", then human constructions such as cars, PCs, bridges, cakes, and so on must be ruled out as well.
After all, although evolution can't violate the SLOT -- we can't violate the SLOT either.

"But we have intelligence and that allows us to reverse nature's tendency towards disorder."

"Nobody's been intelligent enough to figure out how to violate the SLOT so far -- we'd have perpetual motion machines if we were -- and so it's hard to see what the SLOT has to this argument one way or another."

Steve P. said:

The Masked Panda: Irreducible Complexity’s theoretical claim to unevolvability has been debunked, not the existence of IC.

It is not sufficient to elucidate a 'potentially' evolvable IC system, but must show it to be the rule and not the exception. Otherwise, you are just arm-chairing the issue into your mental graveyard. How many times has ID heard evo-devo say: "We only need to show that a potential evolutionary pathway 'can' exist for IC to be debunked!"? If only it were so simple. Potential exceptions don't make the rule and don't debunk the non-evolvability of IC systems. THAT was Behe's point.

terenzioiltroll said:

Steve P. said: 21st century science is all about wrapping our brains around the idea of information as a real, yet immaterial entity that is integral to our understanding of who and what we are.

I reckon we might have a communication problem. Could you please state what do you mean by "information" in this sentence? Or give a link to a source that could explain it. Thank you.

Steve P. said: That won't do. As Im sure you understand, more than one scientist has pointed out that if you can't explain a scientific concept to your grandmother, it is worthless.

... to avoid accepting that magical fairies aren't necessary to connect to the Internet.

apokryltaros said:

Steve P. admitted: I am not qualified to have a technical discussion of entropy.

You're not qualified to have any sort of discussion about any science, period.

Roger said:

Steve P. said: No Mike, my objective is to show that you (pl) are living in an ivory tower. You are old school, with this 'its all physics and chemistry' schtick.

rofl. And don't forget biology - all those darwinists use that biology schtick to try and prove their points too. I mean, can't they just fight fair for a change??

21st century science is all about wrapping our brains around the idea of information as a real, yet immaterial entity that is integral to our understanding of who and what we are.

Yeah Mike. It's time Steve.P got a bit of respect because I reckon he knows a thing or two about immaterial entities.

I am trying to wrap my head around something - I think any intellectually honest individual sees that IDC, creeationism, creaion-science, evolution denial etc. doesn't have any scientific legitimacy (at least once they understand an 8-9th grade level of science) - that part I don't get is what is the philosophical objection that evolution deniers have to science/evolution (reality)? I keep seeing objections evolution = atheism (which doesn't add up as almost every scientist I know is a Christian) or that the philisophical implications of evolution are repugnant - I don't get it what ARE these philisophical implications? "social darwinism" (an oxymoron) ? again these don't seem to add up THE SAME people/groups the so vociferously object to "darwinism" or "evolutionism" are the SAME that advocate libertarianism/ the "invisible hand of the marketplace" (which at it's core = the ugliest social darwinism)

I just don't "Get it"
- Jasonmitchell

When creationists describe, invariably in a willfully confusing fashion, what they mean by "information", what they end up describing is "instructions". The genome is a list of "instructions", along the lines of an assembly instructions sheet (think Lego models), or a recipe, or a computer program ... something like that, though they tend to fuss about being specific.

And in doing so they are merely saying that since there's a "program", there must be a "programmer", since programs don't create themselves. It's 100% a Paley argument, using programs instead of watches -- Paley not having computers as such at the time. In support of the "information theory" argument creationists are quick to point out that living things have "information", meaning they have a genome, while nonliving things do not. One could of course similarly point out that living things can have eyes, of course as per Paley, while nonliving things never do. Eyes are like cameras, you see, and cameras don't build themselves ...

I get exasperated with people trying to argue the definition of "information" with creationists, since to creationists it's never been anything but an attempt to cover up a ham-fisted Paley argument with a skin of fake sophistication, or even to claim the Paley argument is based in a phoney law of physics, the "Law of Conservation of Information".

The Paley argument is of course no more than reasoning by analogy, saying that since humans design complicated artifacts, then complicated natural object must have been designed as well. There is no other basis for it. It's silly for a wide range of reasons -- one being that, since the only designers we know exist for a fact are humans, then the only candidate we have for designers of natural objects are humans.

Creationists tend to be partly aware of the weakness of such reasoning by analogy, which is why they will often fuss at the suggestion that the genome looks like a computer program. They know perfectly well the resemblance is superficial and the comparison sounds silly, so they try to obscure the "computer program" comparison even while they are simultaneously belaboring it.

jasonmitchell said: I keep seeing objections evolution = atheism (which doesn't add up as almost every scientist I know is a Christian) ...

mrg said:

jasonmitchell said: I keep seeing objections evolution = atheism (which doesn't add up as almost every scientist I know is a Christian) ...

I can state as an unambiguous fact that there are plenty of people on the evo science side of the argument who would emphatically proclaim that evo science blows holes in religion. Maybe it does for all I care about the question, but when the argument comes up I like to point out that, if so, there is nothing unique about evo science in that regard. No scientific theory includes AND THEN A MIRACLE HAPPENS in the equations, it's hard to see how one could, and so it's not a question of evo science versus religion -- it's SCIENCE versus religion. Many creationists agree with this: "Science is the enemy!" I then like to add that most outspoken atheists would have no problem with the statement that COMMON SENSE blows holes in religion, that nobody with a brain in his head would buy religion. "Do you guys agree with that?"

https://me.yahoo.com/a/XRnHyQl8usUn8ykD1Rji0ZXHNe.9lqmg3Dm7ul96NW4vxpbU3c_GLu.k#d404b said: YMMV but as a "cafeteria catholic" I can say that common sense blows holes in religious claims 'in vitro' or absent from faith/belief.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/XRnHyQl8usUn8ykD1Rji0ZXHNe.9lqmg3Dm7ul96NW4vxpbU3c_GLu.k#d404b said: THE SAME people/groups the so vociferously object to "darwinism" or "evolutionism" are the SAME that advocate libertarianism/ the "invisible hand of the marketplace" (which at it's core = the ugliest social darwinism) I just don't "Get it" - Jasonmitchell

https://me.yahoo.com/a/XRnHyQl8usUn8ykD1Rji0ZXHNe.9lqmg3Dm7ul96NW4vxpbU3c_GLu.k#d404b said: I am trying to wrap my head around something - I think any intellectually honest individual sees that IDC, creeationism, creaion-science, evolution denial etc. doesn't have any scientific legitimacy (at least once they understand an 8-9th grade level of science) - that part I don't get is what is the philosophical objection that evolution deniers have to science/evolution (reality)?

John said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/XRnHyQl8usUn8ykD1Rji0ZXHNe.9lqmg3Dm7ul96NW4vxpbU3c_GLu.k#d404b said: THE SAME people/groups the so vociferously object to "darwinism" or "evolutionism" are the SAME that advocate libertarianism/ the "invisible hand of the marketplace" (which at it's core = the ugliest social darwinism) I just don't "Get it" - Jasonmitchell

Those same people you are referring to should heed the likes of Michael Shermer ("Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design"), Larry Arnhart ("Darwinian Conservatism"), Paul R. Gross ("Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design", co-authored with Barbara Forrest), Richard Tokumei ("Monkeys on Our Backs"), National Review columnist John Derbyshire, Washington Post columnists Charles Krauthammer and George Will, Rolling Stone and The Weekly Standard contributor P. J. O'Rourke, Federal judge John Jones, nationally syndicated radio talk show host John Batchelor, attorney Timothy Sandefur, yours truly (as well as other conservative PT posters like Frank J; do not infer from this list that I regard myself or Frank J as important as the others I am listing here; I most certainly do not), and, most importantly, Republican Presidential candidates Newt Gingrich, Jon Huntsman and Mitt Romney; all of whom do "get it" with respect to Darwinian thought, modern evolutionary theory and biological evolution.

mrg said:

jasonmitchell said: I keep seeing objections evolution = atheism (which doesn't add up as almost every scientist I know is a Christian) ...

I can state as an unambiguous fact that there are plenty of people on the evo science side of the argument who would emphatically proclaim that evo science blows holes in religion. Maybe it does for all I care about the question, but when the argument comes up I like to point out that, if so, there is nothing unique about evo science in that regard. No scientific theory includes AND THEN A MIRACLE HAPPENS in the equations, it's hard to see how one could, and so it's not a question of evo science versus religion -- it's SCIENCE versus religion. Many creationists agree with this: "Science is the enemy!" I then like to add that most outspoken atheists would have no problem with the statement that COMMON SENSE blows holes in religion, that nobody with a brain in his head would buy religion. "Do you guys agree with that?"

phantomreader42 said: I don't think evolutionary science necessarily blows holes in religion.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/XRnHyQl8usUn8ykD1Rji0ZXHNe.9lqmg3Dm7ul96NW4vxpbU3c_GLu.k#d404b said:

John said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/XRnHyQl8usUn8ykD1Rji0ZXHNe.9lqmg3Dm7ul96NW4vxpbU3c_GLu.k#d404b said: THE SAME people/groups the so vociferously object to "darwinism" or "evolutionism" are the SAME that advocate libertarianism/ the "invisible hand of the marketplace" (which at it's core = the ugliest social darwinism) I just don't "Get it" - Jasonmitchell

Those same people you are referring to should heed the likes of Michael Shermer ("Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design"), Larry Arnhart ("Darwinian Conservatism"), Paul R. Gross ("Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design", co-authored with Barbara Forrest), Richard Tokumei ("Monkeys on Our Backs"), National Review columnist John Derbyshire, Washington Post columnists Charles Krauthammer and George Will, Rolling Stone and The Weekly Standard contributor P. J. O'Rourke, Federal judge John Jones, nationally syndicated radio talk show host John Batchelor, attorney Timothy Sandefur, yours truly (as well as other conservative PT posters like Frank J; do not infer from this list that I regard myself or Frank J as important as the others I am listing here; I most certainly do not), and, most importantly, Republican Presidential candidates Newt Gingrich, Jon Huntsman and Mitt Romney; all of whom do "get it" with respect to Darwinian thought, modern evolutionary theory and biological evolution.

John- I never said that a conservative or a republican couln't be rational or that they all espouse social darwinism. As noted elsewhere in this thread and numerous other times - at heart the IDC vs evolution battle isn't about the science - it's about politics- are you going to tell me with a (straight face) that the republican party isn't infulenced by fundamentalist christians/ dominionists? or that recent tea party noteriety isn't fueled by these same individuals or that libertarianism (as spoken about by tea party/ fundie/ dominionists) doesn't boil down to - "every man for himself" and "we don't need government regulations interfereing with the american capitalist marketplace"?? for the lurkers out there - the SAME arguments being made by the fundie/rightwing of the republican party & teabaggers about "small government" were the SAME arguments being made by advocates of 'social darwinism' around 1890-1930

SWT spanked me thusly: This is incorrect. The laws of thermodynamics apply to all systems -- open, closed, adiabatic, non-adiabatic, isolated.

stevaroni said:

SWT spanked me thusly: This is incorrect. The laws of thermodynamics apply to all systems -- open, closed, adiabatic, non-adiabatic, isolated.

You are, of course, correct. My old professor Holtzinger would spin turbine-like in his grave upon hearing me be so sloppy with my argument ( provided, of course, that a sufficient energy gradient could be found, Professor H was a stickler about things like that ).

stevaroni said: My old professor Holtzinger would spin turbine-like in his grave upon hearing me be so sloppy with my argument ( provided, of course, that a sufficient energy gradient could be found, Professor H was a stickler about things like that ).

The following is an elementary concept test. Take a simple system made up of 16 atoms, each of which has a non-degenerate ground state and a single accessible excited state. Start with all of the atoms in the ground state. 1. What is the entropy when all atoms are in the ground state? 2. Add just enough energy to put 4 atoms in the excited state. What is the entropy now? 3. Add more energy so that 8 atoms are in the excited state. What is the entropy now? 4. Add still more energy so that 12 atoms are in the excited state. What is the entropy now? 5. Add more energy so that all atoms are in the excited state. What is the entropy now? 6. Rank order the temperatures in each of the above cases.

I don’t think evolutionary science necessarily blows holes in religion. But the creationist response to evolutionary science, in my opinion, does not so much blow holes in religon as shatter it and set fire to the fragments. It is possible (albeit unnecessary) to posit a god that could create life by evolutionary means, and this could even be an elegant solution, the difference between a talentless hack churning out uninspired “art” by the pound and a true artist slowly and carefully creating a masterpiece. But when the religious response to learning the amount of time it took for the world to develop to this point is to retreat into the darkness of willful ignorance, screaming “Science! We hates it for ever!” at the top of their lungs, and to try to drag others down with them, then it just shows that their faith is too fragile to survive contact with reality, too flimsy to hold together in the face of the slightest change, and too cowardly to tolerate any learning. So, creationists rob their faith of any value. They reduce a religion that could have been flawed but caring to a grotesque worship of stupidity and hatred.

xubist said: Anti-evolution argumentation isn't a species of scientific discussion; rather, it's a species of Christian apologetics.

stevaroni said: Living things only appear to surmount 2LOT in the same way that an air conditioner appears to. But the key is, of course, that the living thing and the air conditioner are not closed systems. If you look carefully it's quite obvious that energy is going in and waste heat is coming out, and, since these systems are lossy and inefficient, any local decrease in entropy is the corresponding product of some even larger increase in entropy somewhere else.

TomS said: They don't want to be related to monkeys, and then try to claim that human relationship with monkeys is somehow inconsistent with the Bible.

mrg said: This is all 100% true, but the immediate rejoinder is that the A/C is an "intelligently designed" system and so it demonstrates that life has to be intelligently designed.

TomS said: It is true that airplanes are intelligently designed, but the real explanation for why airplanes can fly involves how they are designed, what materials they are made of, ...

mrg said:

TomS said: It is true that airplanes are intelligently designed, but the real explanation for why airplanes can fly involves how they are designed, what materials they are made of, ...

Man can intelligently design a fling machine that does not violates the SLOT. We can thus deduce that airplanes are SLOT machines. And I emphasize that the construction of that airplane does not imply a violation of the SLOT. It cannot, because as far as we've seen, the SLOT cannot be violated, even by our "intelligent design".

terenzioiltroll said: Man can intelligently design a fling machine that does not violates the SLOT. We can thus deduce that airplanes are SLOT machines.

TomS said:

xubist said: Anti-evolution argumentation isn't a species of scientific discussion; rather, it's a species of Christian apologetics.

I would go further than you, and suggest that the Christian apologetics is itself a cover for the unpleasant feelings that some people have for being related to the rest of the world of life. They don't want to be related to monkeys, and then try to claim that human relationship with monkeys is somehow inconsistent with the Bible.

The Jumbuck said: Yes, evolutionists are perfectly comfortable with the idea of being related to monkeys becuase of the sort of relationiships they often have with monkeys. (It's an open secret; you all know what I mean!)

The Jumbuck said:

TomS said:

xubist said: Anti-evolution argumentation isn't a species of scientific discussion; rather, it's a species of Christian apologetics.

I would go further than you, and suggest that the Christian apologetics is itself a cover for the unpleasant feelings that some people have for being related to the rest of the world of life. They don't want to be related to monkeys, and then try to claim that human relationship with monkeys is somehow inconsistent with the Bible.

Yes, evolutionists are perfectly comfortable with the idea of being related to monkeys becuase of the sort of relationiships they often have with monkeys. (It's an open secret; you all know what I mean!) Heck, one of the key doctrines of the evolutionary religion is that there is no distinction between man and beast, just ask that home-grown Australian evolutionist Peter Singer! In addition, here is a great game about the principles of evolutionary morality.

AMP, you're too easily excited. He's just having you on, trying to provoke a reaction.

mrg said: AMP, you're too easily excited. He's just having you on, trying to provoke a reaction.

Individual organisms don't violate the SLoT. Death sees to that.

Life does however, violate the SLoT by its very existence and persistence. I'm beginning to think logic is a special characteristic particular to ID.

Methinks you all need a serious dose of RTF. Sit back, TFG on the rocks in hand, and....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QG8uivJ9O6c&feature=related

....and in flew the woo-woo bird.

Steve P. said: Individual organisms don't violate the SLoT. Death sees to that. Life does however, violate the SLoT by its very existence and persistence.

I'm beginning to think logic is a special characteristic particular to ID.

I suspect, and maybe Mike Elzinga can confirm, that the only way we could observe that life violates the SLOT is if it operated as a perpetual motion machine. Which of course it doesn't -- cut off energy inputs and an organism dies. Speaking of which, I'm hungry ... got to eat some breakfast.

It's interesting that creationists tend to be bizarre in different ways. Steve P's just making it up as he goes along, he knows perfectly well nobody's ever going to buy a word of it; there being nothing there to buy.
So obviously he's doing this as a mooning exercise. Where it gets puzzling is that he seems to honestly believe his own tosh even though he's just grabbing it out of thin air and isn't even really concealing that he's doing so. What makes it even more puzzling is that there's no strong evidence he's a fundy -- but why a secularist would want to buy creationism, a doctrine logically in the same ballpark as believing babies are delivered by the stork, is very hard to understand.

mrg said: I suspect, and maybe Mike Elzinga can confirm, that the only way we could observe that life violates the SLOT is if it operated as a perpetual motion machine. Which of course it doesn't -- cut off energy inputs and an organism dies. Speaking of which, I'm hungry ... got to eat some breakfast. It's interesting that creationists tend to be bizarre in different ways. Steve P's just making it up as he goes along, he knows perfectly well nobody's ever going to buy a word of it; there being nothing there to buy. So obviously he's doing this as a mooning exercise. Where it gets puzzling is that he seems to honestly believe his own tosh even though he's just grabbing it out of thin air and isn't even really concealing that he's doing so. What makes it even more puzzling is that there's no strong evidence he's a fundy -- but why a secularist would want to buy creationism, a doctrine logically in the same ballpark as believing babies are delivered by the stork, is very hard to understand.

Steve P. the delusional Taiwan-based textile merchant IDiot barfed: I'm beginning to think logic is a special characteristic particular to ID.

mrg said: I suspect, and maybe Mike Elzinga can confirm, that the only way we could observe that life violates the SLOT is if it operated as a perpetual motion machine. Which of course it doesn't -- cut off energy inputs and an organism dies. Speaking of which, I'm hungry ... got to eat some breakfast.

Mike Elzinga said: It’s a bit hard to tell what he believes because he is so bad at articulating anything coherently. As you say, he appears to be just mooning.

Oh, dang, did I get Steve P mixed up with Wrong-Way Joe? Steve P, whatever his limitations, is not in that league, I'll give him that much.

Steve P. said: Individual organisms don't violate the SLoT. Death sees to that. Life does however, violate the SLoT by its very existence and persistence.

mrg said: I was just considering that the only way I could think of myself for life to actually violate the SLOT is for organisms to obtain energy off ambient heat or the like -- second-order perpetual-motion machines. Not being a physicist I'm not all that imaginative in the matter, but I am hard-pressed to think of any other behavior that would suggest a violation of the SLOT.

BTW, on entropy of mixing: on thinking that over again, I would conclude that there is no entropy of mixing of, say, two gases, if the two gases are indistinguishable from a energetic point of view. If, however, the molecules of the two gases don't interact with each other the same way they interact with themselves, there is a change in entropy.

Related question: is there a change in entropy with a gas expanding into a vacuum? Just YES or NO will be fine, these are matters on which my inclination would be to say: "I'll take your word for it."

Mike Elzinga said: One of the formulations of the second law says there has to be a temperature difference between which a thermodynamic engine works. You cannot just extract energy from an ambient reservoir at a single temperature.

mrg said:

Mike Elzinga said: One of the formulations of the second law says there has to be a temperature difference between which a thermodynamic engine works. You cannot just extract energy from an ambient reservoir at a single temperature.

Yah, that's what I was getting at. If organisms could act like Maxwell's Demon, they would be in obvious violation of the SLOT.

The puzzle is: what other behavior would indicate a violation of the SLOT? I can't think of any that would be categorically different.

Mike Elzinga said: I suppose a creature that extracted energy from a low temperature reservoir, dumped energy to a high temperature reservoir and did work on its external environment at the same time.

mrg said:

Mike Elzinga said: I suppose a creature that extracted energy from a low temperature reservoir, dumped energy to a high temperature reservoir and did work on its external environment at the same time.

Yeah, but that process would be driven by a Maxell's Demon: "In with the hot particles! Out with the cold ones! Now let's do something with the hot particles we've collected."

Hmm ... now that I think of it, what do think the odds are of me getting a grant from the DI for a four-cylinder Maxwell's Demon engine? Just think of the sales pitch: "Along with destroying evolution, the DI will go down in history for solving the energy crisis!" The beauty of it would be that they'd probably believe me.

mrg said: Hmm ... now that I think of it, what do think the odds are of me getting a grant from the DI for a four-cylinder Maxwell's Demon engine? Just think of the sales pitch: "Along with destroying evolution, the DI will go down in history for solving the energy crisis!" The beauty of it would be that they'd probably believe me.

mrg said: Hmm ... now that I think of it, what do think the odds are of me getting a grant from the DI for a four-cylinder Maxwell's Demon engine? Just think of the sales pitch: "Along with destroying evolution, the DI will go down in history for solving the energy crisis!" The beauty of it would be that they'd probably believe me.

apokryltaros said: You think they'd be interested in acquiring some Nevada beachfront property, then?

Mike Elzinga said: With all the hot air coming from that building, it might be hard to remove any skepticism that there isn’t a hidden high-temperature reservoir somewhere providing the source of the energy.

Following on the Maxwell's Demon motor I could sell them an "IDG (Information Decay Generator)", circulating an electronic copy of the ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA in flash memory and deriving motive power from the gradual corruption of the text.

mrg said: Following on the Maxwell's Demon motor I could sell them an "IDG (Information Decay Generator)", circulating an electronic copy of the ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA in flash memory and deriving motive power from the gradual corruption of the text.

Mike Elzinga said: So if one circulates an electronic copy of the Bible – which doesn’t corrupt (wink, wink) – one has a perpetual motion machine of the first kind.

mrg said:

Mike Elzinga said: So if one circulates an electronic copy of the Bible – which doesn’t corrupt (wink, wink) – one has a perpetual motion machine of the first kind.

I think we could devise a system in which the gods automatically download the scriptures. But nobody would fund it ... the scriptures might not be theirs.

On thinking it over, I'm getting fonder of the idea of pitching my MD motor to the DI. Maxwell's Demon has so much in common with an Intelligent Designer: nobody's ever seen him, no evidence shows he exists, but he sure would be handy if he did. Obviously the DI would love the idea.

mrg said: On thinking it over, I'm getting fonder of the idea of pitching my MD motor to the DI. Maxwell's Demon has so much in common with an Intelligent Designer: nobody's ever seen him, no evidence shows he exists, but he sure would be handy if he did. Obviously the DI would love the idea.