Where's the DI's (research) beef?

So the key takeaway is..........Axe, Gauger et al have produced too little research of the caliber we have seen so far.

Agreed.

Maybe I've missed something, but from what I've seen the "research" they fund gets published in their own, in-house journal. It's little more than another blog. Have they ever done anything that shows up in any recognized journal?

I wonder how much funding they feel is justified, to support a couple of "scientists" who prove beyond reasonable doubt that evolution does not do something anyone has ever said it does anyway. It might consume a LOT of their budget to prove definitively that sheep do not give birth to wolves.

This looks like slightly more than a $3 million dollar per year operation with $220,000 going “research” at the Biologic Institute and $19,785 going to “research” at Grove City College (See Page 2 where comparisons can be made with developing a transportation system)

Most of the money seems to go into propaganda. And we don’t know what they are getting for that “research” money other than what the Biologic Institute publishes in its own journal, which in not subject to peer review.

But I guess we already knew that.

What "research" has any creationist ever done? For two hundred thousand dollars you could get an automated DNA sequencer and sequence one thousand samples. Has any creationist ever published any sequence data of their own? All I can remember is "reanalysis" of data from other people. Why do they need any funds if they have no labs, perform no experiments, produce no data?

SteveP. said: So the key takeaway is..........Axe, Gauger et al have produced too little research of the caliber we have seen so far.

In my field we could pay two postdocs from the sum (just salaries and consumables). So what is the money actually spent for?
If it would have been used for consumables only $200,000 is quite a lot given that Axe and Gauger just do some low grade biochemistry, some basic E.coli microbiology and some computational work.
However, it would be a completely different number if the sum contains salaries and the running expenses one has to spend to keep a lab working (rent, electricity, water, maintenance of equipment, deprecations, cleaning) which is actually the case as PZ reported last year.

I wonder if part of that $220k goes to Behe's university to pay for all the things he doesn't do there.

Or is Behe under 'fellowships'?

The Discoveroid president, Bruce Chapman, was paid $159,731 plus $4,951 “other” compensation. For the three prior years he was paid $148K, so he’s had a raise. Stephen Meyer, vice-president, was paid $150K plus $16,168 “other,” He too has had a raise. He was paid only $125K in 2009, $140K in 2008, and $102,500 back in 2007. John West’s salary isn’t shown, but he was paid $120K in 2009.

Paul Burnett said:

SteveP. said: So the key takeaway is..........Axe, Gauger et al have produced too little research of the caliber we have seen so far.

It's the "et al" that tickles me. What "research" has Casey Luskin ever produced?

https://me.yahoo.com/a/8p6wgP06i_bTbvWRVbZOJNdIiLnHLxQC#c45c2 said: Wow:

The Discoveroid president, Bruce Chapman, was paid $159,731 plus $4,951 “other” compensation. For the three prior years he was paid $148K, so he’s had a raise. Stephen Meyer, vice-president, was paid $150K plus $16,168 “other,” He too has had a raise. He was paid only $125K in 2009, $140K in 2008, and $102,500 back in 2007. John West’s salary isn’t shown, but he was paid $120K in 2009.

Not only are these guys peddling nonsense, but they're getting six-figure salaries to do it.

Hi Steve P!

You'd think that for fat six-figure salaries the research done by "Axe, Gauger et al" would provide us with a way to measure the 'complexity' of an organism. Maybe they have, and we just missed it -- can you demonstrate the method to us? Explain how the math works, teach everyone here how to do the measurements and calculations -- walk us through some examples, step by step.

Note that this is a very low bar to jump -- 'Complex Specified Information' is supposed to be inherent and measurable in every object, designed or not. The method for comparing two organisms is a very small subset of the problem space; although what it might actually be measuring is a bit of a mystery to me -- it isn't Kolmogorov information, or Shannon information, nor is it (say Steve 'Complexity lies elsewhere' P.) in the DNA. Since the DI finds such a method so obvious, and Steve P. is so completely convinced by it, surely such a demonstration should be trivially easy.

Or is it just a case of 'complexity lies elsewhere', but Steve P. lies everywhere?

SensuousCurmudgeon said: Maybe I've missed something, but from what I've seen the "research" they fund gets published in their own, in-house journal. It's little more than another blog. Have they ever done anything that shows up in any recognized journal?

Unlike real scientists these people are entitled to a hardship allowance to compensate for the ridicule they get here at PT.

So the key takeaway is.….…..Axe, Gauger et al have produced too little research of the caliber we have seen so far.

You've never been to a restaurant with both bad food and small portions?

https://me.yahoo.com/a/8p6wgP06i_bTbvWRVbZOJNdIiLnHLxQC#c45c2 said: Wow:

The Discoveroid president, Bruce Chapman, was paid $159,731 plus $4,951 “other” compensation. For the three prior years he was paid $148K, so he’s had a raise. Stephen Meyer, vice-president, was paid $150K plus $16,168 “other,” He too has had a raise. He was paid only $125K in 2009, $140K in 2008, and $102,500 back in 2007. John West’s salary isn’t shown, but he was paid $120K in 2009.

Not only are these guys peddling nonsense, but they're getting six-figure salaries to do it.

J. L. Brown said: Hi Steve P! You'd think that for fat six-figure salaries the research done by "Axe, Gauger et al" would provide us with a way to measure the 'complexity' of an organism. Maybe they have, and we just missed it -- can you demonstrate the method to us? Explain how the math works, teach everyone here how to do the measurements and calculations -- walk us through some examples, step by step. Note that this is a very low bar to jump -- 'Complex Specified Information' is supposed to be inherent and measurable in every object, designed or not. The method for comparing two organisms is a very small subset of the problem space; although what it might actually be measuring is a bit of a mystery to me -- it isn't Kolmogorov information, or Shannon information, nor is it (say Steve 'Complexity lies elsewhere' P.) in the DNA. Since the DI finds such a method so obvious, and Steve P. is so completely convinced by it, surely such a demonstration should be trivially easy. Or is it just a case of 'complexity lies elsewhere', but Steve P. lies everywhere?

SteveP. said: Snicker away Brown. But to be sure you(pl) definitely won't get the last laugh. You can two-step with Darwin till the stars come out while 'real' (do I hear faint sounds of bagpipes?) scientists move on. Go right ahead and keep on thinking information is 'just' an emergent property of matter. Elzinga will fill you in on all the details.

News flash for Stevie Pee Pee, real scientists moved on one hundred and fifty years ago. Only stubborn reality deniers refuse to accept the evidence. Get a clue dude.

Just like the DI, Stevie has no substance, just bluff and bluster.

Paul Burnett said:

SteveP. said: So the key takeaway is..........Axe, Gauger et al have produced too little research of the caliber we have seen so far.

It's the "et al" that tickles me. What "research" has Casey Luskin ever produced?

SteveP. said: Snicker away Brown. But to be sure you(pl) definitely won't get the last laugh. You can two-step with Darwin till the stars come out while 'real' (do I hear faint sounds of bagpipes?) scientists move on. Go right ahead and keep on thinking information is 'just' an emergent property of matter. Elzinga will fill you in on all the details.

J. L. Brown said: Hi Steve P! You'd think that for fat six-figure salaries the research done by "Axe, Gauger et al" would provide us with a way to measure the 'complexity' of an organism. Maybe they have, and we just missed it -- can you demonstrate the method to us? Explain how the math works, teach everyone here how to do the measurements and calculations -- walk us through some examples, step by step. Note that this is a very low bar to jump -- 'Complex Specified Information' is supposed to be inherent and measurable in every object, designed or not. The method for comparing two organisms is a very small subset of the problem space; although what it might actually be measuring is a bit of a mystery to me -- it isn't Kolmogorov information, or Shannon information, nor is it (say Steve 'Complexity lies elsewhere' P.) in the DNA. Since the DI finds such a method so obvious, and Steve P. is so completely convinced by it, surely such a demonstration should be trivially easy. Or is it just a case of 'complexity lies elsewhere', but Steve P. lies everywhere?

SteveP. said: Snicker away Brown. But to be sure you(pl) definitely won't get the last laugh. You can two-step with Darwin till the stars come out while 'real' (do I hear faint sounds of bagpipes?) scientists move on. Go right ahead and keep on thinking information is 'just' an emergent property of matter. Elzinga will fill you in on all the details.

J. L. Brown said: Hi Steve P! You'd think that for fat six-figure salaries the research done by "Axe, Gauger et al" would provide us with a way to measure the 'complexity' of an organism. Maybe they have, and we just missed it -- can you demonstrate the method to us? Explain how the math works, teach everyone here how to do the measurements and calculations -- walk us through some examples, step by step. Note that this is a very low bar to jump -- 'Complex Specified Information' is supposed to be inherent and measurable in every object, designed or not. The method for comparing two organisms is a very small subset of the problem space; although what it might actually be measuring is a bit of a mystery to me -- it isn't Kolmogorov information, or Shannon information, nor is it (say Steve 'Complexity lies elsewhere' P.) in the DNA. Since the DI finds such a method so obvious, and Steve P. is so completely convinced by it, surely such a demonstration should be trivially easy. Or is it just a case of 'complexity lies elsewhere', but Steve P. lies everywhere?

Over the last 20 years there are only two references in the scientific literature (both skeptical) to "complex specified information." Over the same period there are 1025 references to cold fusion.

phhht said:

SteveP. said: Snicker away Brown. But to be sure you(pl) definitely won't get the last laugh. You can two-step with Darwin till the stars come out while 'real' (do I hear faint sounds of bagpipes?) scientists move on. Go right ahead and keep on thinking information is 'just' an emergent property of matter. Elzinga will fill you in on all the details.

J. L. Brown said: Hi Steve P! You'd think that for fat six-figure salaries the research done by "Axe, Gauger et al" would provide us with a way to measure the 'complexity' of an organism. Maybe they have, and we just missed it -- can you demonstrate the method to us? Explain how the math works, teach everyone here how to do the measurements and calculations -- walk us through some examples, step by step. Note that this is a very low bar to jump -- 'Complex Specified Information' is supposed to be inherent and measurable in every object, designed or not. The method for comparing two organisms is a very small subset of the problem space; although what it might actually be measuring is a bit of a mystery to me -- it isn't Kolmogorov information, or Shannon information, nor is it (say Steve 'Complexity lies elsewhere' P.) in the DNA. Since the DI finds such a method so obvious, and Steve P. is so completely convinced by it, surely such a demonstration should be trivially easy. Or is it just a case of 'complexity lies elsewhere', but Steve P. lies everywhere?

I don't know about J. L. Brown, but I'm not snickering. I'm laughing my ass off. You got nothing, SteveP, nothing. All you got is hot air.

Paul Burnett said:

SteveP. said: So the key takeaway is..........Axe, Gauger et al have produced too little research of the caliber we have seen so far.

It's the "et al" that tickles me. What "research" has Casey Luskin ever produced?

SteveP. said: Yep. Just like you're laughing your ass off that Encode got it all wrong. Life fumbled it's way into the endzone and phhht knows it cuz evolution made all that junk DNA happen. There it is, right there in front of your eyes!! Look at all those useless strings of non-sense DNA!! Let's all ROTFLO. All together now!!! Hahahahahahahahahahahahahah. Joke's on you, kiddo!

eric said:

SteveP. said: Yep. Just like you're laughing your ass off that Encode got it all wrong. Life fumbled it's way into the endzone and phhht knows it cuz evolution made all that junk DNA happen. There it is, right there in front of your eyes!! Look at all those useless strings of non-sense DNA!! Let's all ROTFLO. All together now!!! Hahahahahahahahahahahahahah. Joke's on you, kiddo!

Lately, every single one of your posts appears to be nothing more than a rephrasing of the old movie line, "the professors at the university called me mad, but I'll show them! Muhahahaha!"

SteveP. said: Yep. Just like you're laughing your ass off that Encode got it all wrong. Life fumbled it's way into the endzone and phhht knows it cuz evolution made all that junk DNA happen. There it is, right there in front of your eyes!! Look at all those useless strings of non-sense DNA!! Let's all ROTFLO. All together now!!! Hahahahahahahahahahahahahah. Joke's on you, kiddo!

phhht said:

SteveP. said: Snicker away Brown. But to be sure you(pl) definitely won't get the last laugh. You can two-step with Darwin till the stars come out while 'real' (do I hear faint sounds of bagpipes?) scientists move on. Go right ahead and keep on thinking information is 'just' an emergent property of matter. Elzinga will fill you in on all the details.

J. L. Brown said: Hi Steve P! You'd think that for fat six-figure salaries the research done by "Axe, Gauger et al" would provide us with a way to measure the 'complexity' of an organism. Maybe they have, and we just missed it -- can you demonstrate the method to us? Explain how the math works, teach everyone here how to do the measurements and calculations -- walk us through some examples, step by step. Note that this is a very low bar to jump -- 'Complex Specified Information' is supposed to be inherent and measurable in every object, designed or not. The method for comparing two organisms is a very small subset of the problem space; although what it might actually be measuring is a bit of a mystery to me -- it isn't Kolmogorov information, or Shannon information, nor is it (say Steve 'Complexity lies elsewhere' P.) in the DNA. Since the DI finds such a method so obvious, and Steve P. is so completely convinced by it, surely such a demonstration should be trivially easy. Or is it just a case of 'complexity lies elsewhere', but Steve P. lies everywhere?

I don't know about J. L. Brown, but I'm not snickering. I'm laughing my ass off. You got nothing, SteveP, nothing. All you got is hot air.

Keelyn said: But what does Encode has to do with the Disco Tute doing any actual scientific research? Hmmm, the joke seems to be on you, Stevie! As usual.

SteveP. said: Yep. Just like you're laughing your ass off that Encode got it all wrong. Life fumbled it's way into the endzone and phhht knows it cuz evolution made all that junk DNA happen. There it is, right there in front of your eyes!! Look at all those useless strings of non-sense DNA!! Let's all ROTFLO. All together now!!! Hahahahahahahahahahahahahah. Joke's on you, kiddo!

Bobsie said: what you would NOT expect to find in a genome created directly by a omniscient deity.

SteveP. said: Snicker away Brown. But to be sure you(pl) definitely won't get the last laugh. You can two-step with Darwin till the stars come out while 'real' (do I hear faint sounds of bagpipes?) scientists move on. Go right ahead and keep on thinking information is 'just' an emergent property of matter. Elzinga will fill you in on all the details.

apokryltaros said:

Keelyn said: But what does Encode has to do with the Disco Tute doing any actual scientific research? Hmmm, the joke seems to be on you, Stevie! As usual.

The real joke is that SteveP would sooner kill himself than admit that the Disco Tute, and all other Intelligent Design proponents, have never done, and will never do any scientific research ever.

J. L. Brown said: So... you can't demonstrate any method to measure Complex Specified Information then, nor describe one? Although I am snickering, it is reality itself which always gets the last laugh -- and so far the laugh has always been on you. Feel free to change that at any time by showing us the (bought at great -- six-figure a year salary -- expense) method for measuring CSI. Or even (I'll lower the hurdle again since you seem to be having so much trouble) just detecting it in arbitrary objects.

Just Bob said:

J. L. Brown said: So... you can't demonstrate any method to measure Complex Specified Information then, nor describe one? Although I am snickering, it is reality itself which always gets the last laugh -- and so far the laugh has always been on you. Feel free to change that at any time by showing us the (bought at great -- six-figure a year salary -- expense) method for measuring CSI. Or even (I'll lower the hurdle again since you seem to be having so much trouble) just detecting it in arbitrary objects.

I asked Steve some time back of what possible USE recognizing or acknowledging Intelligent Design could be. He ignored it. Guess he couldn't come up with any practical or even theoretical application for ID "theory".

Kevin B said:

Paul Burnett said:

SteveP. said: So the key takeaway is..........Axe, Gauger et al have produced too little research of the caliber we have seen so far.

It's the "et al" that tickles me. What "research" has Casey Luskin ever produced?

I thought that Axe, Gauger et Al was a music hall act, a bit like Wilson, Keppel and Betty, only not so funny. Also, in American English can "takeaway" have the meaning of "fast food" that it has in British English? If so, SteveP might be suggesting that the DI's beef is prime McDonalds......

SteveP. said: Sure, just like you hear the faint sound of "Amino and the Acids" doing a rendition of The Doors "Break on Through" (to the other side).

Bobsie said:

SteveP. said: Yep. Just like you're laughing your ass off that Encode got it all wrong. Life fumbled it's way into the endzone and phhht knows it cuz evolution made all that junk DNA happen. There it is, right there in front of your eyes!! Look at all those useless strings of non-sense DNA!! Let's all ROTFLO. All together now!!! Hahahahahahahahahahahahahah. Joke's on you, kiddo!

Are you so sure about that. If you actually read and understood the science that ENCODE reports; the newly minted 80% number of detected chemical signatures ... that doesn't represent additional complexity, it mostly represents a huge, noisy, inefficent mess. Which is exactly what you'd expect to find in a system developed by blind, groping natural selection, and exactly what you would NOT expect to find in a genome created directly by a omniscient deity. Huh... what do you know.

SteveP. said: This is your (pl) most coveted talking point. It looks like a noisy mess, therefore unguided purposeless evolution. But its only looks a mess because we haven't understood what its all about. 21st century technology is changing all that. We are now beginning to understand the sheer elegence of life's sophisticated design with every layer uncovered. It it this understanding of the genome's design that will power future innovation in AI. Why in the world would you still want to hold on to outdated ideas?

Bobsie said:

SteveP. said: Yep. Just like you're laughing your ass off that Encode got it all wrong. Life fumbled it's way into the endzone and phhht knows it cuz evolution made all that junk DNA happen. There it is, right there in front of your eyes!! Look at all those useless strings of non-sense DNA!! Let's all ROTFLO. All together now!!! Hahahahahahahahahahahahahah. Joke's on you, kiddo!

Are you so sure about that. If you actually read and understood the science that ENCODE reports; the newly minted 80% number of detected chemical signatures ... that doesn't represent additional complexity, it mostly represents a huge, noisy, inefficent mess. Which is exactly what you'd expect to find in a system developed by blind, groping natural selection, and exactly what you would NOT expect to find in a genome created directly by a omniscient deity. Huh... what do you know.

SteveP. should have said: But it only looks a mess because you haven't understood what its all about. 21st century technology is changing all that. I am now beginning to understand the sheer elegence of life's sophisticated design with every layer uncovered.

This is your (sin) most coveted talking point. It looks like a noisy mess, therefore you are too stupid to understand it, therefore design. Bullshit. You have no idea what is understood. You offer no alternatives and no explanations of your own. All you offer is blind faith that someday you will be proven right, but in the meantime you are willing to ignore all that is actually known and do absolutely nothing to increase understanding.

What we have discovered with modern technology, if you had ever bothered to learn anything, is the genome is a junkyard full of plagarized errors, unnecessary copies, ancient relics of random events and lots and lots of evidence for common descent. There is not the slightest indication of any intelligence, forethought or design. The genome is exactly what one would expect from random mutation subjected to natural selection. Deal with it.

See Stevie, until you can explain the evidence that actually exists, such as the nested hierarchy of SINE insertions, (which is completely inconsistent with any intelligent design scenario and completely consistent with descent with modification), you can piss and moan about how stupid scientists are all you want, it ain't a gonna get ya nowheres no how. What ya gotta do is show how much smarter you are and start to splainin. Why did god copy the mistakes Stevie, was she the stupid one.

Might this be relevant? (Anyway very interesting.)

DS said: (which is completely inconsistent with any intelligent design scenario and completely consistent with descent with modification)

TomS said:

DS said: (which is completely inconsistent with any intelligent design scenario and completely consistent with descent with modification)

Allow me to quibble. There is no "intelligent design scenario". For example, what is there about the intelligent designer(s) that would lead them to this particular design for life, rather than something else? What goals does it serve to have the human body like that of other primates? How did humans end up with eyes like those of other vertebrates, rather than like those of insects, or of octopuses, or of mantis shrimps? When and where did the design take place and when did it stop? Is there anything that is less likely (or "inconsistent") as a result of "intelligent design"? As far as I know, nobody has even speculated about any scenario not involving descent with modification to account for the nested hierarchy of the tree of life.

One of the most striking properties of genetics is the lack of structure in the design of genomes.

Whereas by comparsion the much simpler task of design in our digital world would not have been possible without structured programming.

Rolf said: One of the most striking properties of genetics is the lack of structure in the design of genomes. Whereas by comparsion the much simpler task of design in our digital world would not have been possible without structured programming.

Henry J said:

Rolf said: One of the most striking properties of genetics is the lack of structure in the design of genomes. Whereas by comparsion the much simpler task of design in our digital world would not have been possible without structured programming.

Yeah, human engineers have to be economical about what actually gets built. Nature doesn't seem to have that requirement.

For a research institute, $220k is peanuts. That figure can't be for just consumables, and it means that they can't be doing much real lab or field work. Even a small research group would burn through $220k in a hurry.

Actually, Nature has numerous constraints, too, both “economically” and biologically, in that it can only work by building on what was previously there, and only in a way that doesn’t prevent the organisms from dying before getting a chance to produce viable offspring.

Henry J said:

Actually, Nature has numerous constraints, too, both “economically” and biologically, in that it can only work by building on what was previously there, and only in a way that doesn’t prevent the organisms from dying before getting a chance to produce viable offspring.

Constraints, sure, but nature still uses an enormous amount of resources for each little change. For an engineer on a budget, that wouldn't work.

It's not the individual chemical reactions that use lots of resources, it's the number of individuals that make up the species. With successful species that number can be huge.

Henry J said: It's not the individual chemical reactions that use lots of resources, it's the number of individuals that make up the species. With successful species that number can be huge.

I'm referring to the total population of each species.

Producing that many individuals uses a lot of resources.

Scientists in a lab typically don't have access to that much material.

I thought that was perfectly clear to start with, and I don't know how to make it clearer.

Henry J said: [Vince: Henry J: Please explain to me just how a substitution of one DNA base for another, or any other change at the genetic level, uses “an enormous amount of energy”.] It's not the individual chemical reactions that use lots of resources, it's the number of individuals that make up the species. With successful species that number can be huge.

Well, I wasn't talking about the energy cost to the individual.

Henry J said: I'm referring to the total population of each species. Producing that many individuals uses a lot of resources. Scientists in a lab typically don't have access to that much material. I thought that was perfectly clear to start with, and I don't know how to make it clearer.

I was referring to the resources used by the entire species over enough time for evolution to produce successful changes.

You were focusing on the resources used by individuals within the species, which is not the same question.

Henry J said: I was referring to the resources used by the entire species over enough time for evolution to produce successful changes. You were focusing on the resources used by individuals within the species, which is not the same question.

Vince,

This is getting annoying. I don't know what argument it is that you think I've made here.

If some of my replies seem snide to you, that is because that's how your replies seem to me, especially that last one.

Somewhere in the exchange, I pointed out that over a large number of generations, a species with a large population uses a lot of resources. This doesn't strike me as controversial.

For a simple mutation, the change in the amount of energy used per individual would probably not be all that much (unless it causes a large change in body size or something). I take it that's what you're saying, and may be what you think I was disagreeing with.

Henry

Speaking of real research, for those in the New York City area, American Museum of Natural History (AMNH) Provost of Science and vertebrate paleontologist Michael Novacek kicks off the new season of monthly AMNH SciCafe talks with "The Whole-Life Catalog: Why and How We Should Map and Understand the Biosphere"

The cost is free but you need to RSVP.

For more information, look here:

http://www.amnh.org/learn-teach/adults/scicafe/the-whole-life-catalog-why-and-how-we-should-map-and-understand-the-biosphere?utm_medium=Email&utm_source=ExactTarget&utm_campaign=

Henry J said: Vince, This is getting annoying. I don't know what argument it is that you think I've made here. If some of my replies seem snide to you, that is because that's how your replies seem to me, especially that last one. Somewhere in the exchange, I pointed out that over a large number of generations, a species with a large population uses a lot of resources. This doesn't strike me as controversial. For a simple mutation, the change in the amount of energy used per individual would probably not be all that much (unless it causes a large change in body size or something). I take it that's what you're saying, and may be what you think I was disagreeing with. Henry