Montana Creationism Bill: dead in committee(?)

Posted 6 February 2013 by Richard B. Hoppe

As Matt noted above, one of the creationist so-called "academic freedom" bills was filed in the Montana state legislature. Now the Sensuous Curmudgeon reports that the bill has been tabled in committee, whatever that means. In that post SC also has a video of some of the testimony at the committee hearing on the bill, noting that the proposer, Representative Clayton Fiscus, was the only speaker in support while a couple of dozen professors, teachers, and citizens testified in opposition. It's worth watching both for the testimony in opposition and for the almost sad ignorance and confusion of Representative Fiscus. I genuinely wonder how he navigates through life given his evident inability to think coherently. if he's the best the Disco Tute can come up with to sponsor their bills, they're in deeper trouble than I thought. That video is edited from the full hearing, and another set of excerpts consisting mostly of speakers' identifications is on NCSE's YouTube channel. It does not include Representative Fiscus' remarks. I wouldn't be surprised if video of the full hearing including all testimony is somewhere, but I haven't looked for it.

508 Comments

dregstudios · 6 February 2013

Here in TN, they have taken steps though new legislation to allow creationism back into the classroom. This law turns the clock back nearly 100 years here in the seemingly unprogressive South and is simply embarrassing. There is no argument against the Theory of Evolution other than that of religious doctrine. The Monkey Law only opens the door for fanatic Christianity to creep its way back into our classrooms. You can see my visual response as a Tennessean to this absurd law on my artist’s blog at http://dregstudiosart.blogspot.com/2012/04/pulpit-in-classroom-biblical-agenda-in.html with some evolutionary art and a little bit of simple logic.

Richard B. Hoppe · 6 February 2013

To whet your appetite, here's a direct quote from Representative Fiscus:

House bll 83 simply states we would teach what we don't know along with what we don't know. It s not a threat to intelligence in any way. It encourages intelligence. (ca 2:05)

phhht · 6 February 2013

Clayton Fiscus. Painful to see. He reminds me of Ronald Reagan.

Mike Elzinga · 6 February 2013

“We should teach what we don’t know along with what we don’t know.”

I watched Fiscus on that YouTube video. Wow; poor fellow. I wonder if this is why Casey Luskin didn’t show up to testify. Perhaps even a Discovery Institute clown can recognize gradations in the “quality” of its rubes.

Karen S. · 6 February 2013

We should teach what we don’t know along with what we don’t know.

Teach what Fiscus doesn't know? Where would you start? It was great that a theologian showed up to vote against him.

eric · 7 February 2013

Mike Elzinga said: Perhaps even a Discovery Institute clown can recognize gradations in the “quality” of its rubes.

With every legislator or board or litigant they've ever supported, the DI has always removed themselves from the scene before the critical moment. :)

Frank J · 7 February 2013

My usual 2c on all anti-evolution activism in general, not just this issue:

The minute you let these scam artists frame it as "either 'Darwinists' advocate censorship or they don't," you have lost. Even if you convince the majority that "Darwinists" do not advocate censorship. The only way to begin to turn the tide on this scam is to get the majority to see which side is truly going out of their way to censor, or at least attempt to censor, information.

I know that it's fun to watch these clowns put their feet in their mouths. But these people, and the voters that are so compartmentalized that they will not admit evolution under any circumstances, with or without these clowns, are maybe 1/4 of the voters. But probably another 1/2 says things like "I hear the jury's still out on evolution," "I guess something like evolution is true, but it's fair to teach both sides" or "What's the harm, let them believe." They're the ones we need to reach. Whining about "lying for Jesus" is more likely to chase them into the arms of the scam artists than impress them.

Paul Burnett · 7 February 2013

eric said: With every legislator or board or litigant they've ever supported, the DI has always removed themselves from the scene before the critical moment. :)

The "useful idiots" that the Dishonesty Institute uses and then discards are sometimes so appallingly ignorant that they can serve a useful purpose: To scare away other useful idiots who have enough self-awareness to realize what's happening. (Which explains why Casey Luskin is still around, come to think of it...)

harold · 7 February 2013

Frank J said: My usual 2c on all anti-evolution activism in general, not just this issue: The minute you let these scam artists frame it as "either 'Darwinists' advocate censorship or they don't," you have lost. Even if you convince the majority that "Darwinists" do not advocate censorship. The only way to begin to turn the tide on this scam is to get the majority to see which side is truly going out of their way to censor, or at least attempt to censor, information. I know that it's fun to watch these clowns put their feet in their mouths. But these people, and the voters that are so compartmentalized that they will not admit evolution under any circumstances, with or without these clowns, are maybe 1/4 of the voters. But probably another 1/2 says things like "I hear the jury's still out on evolution," "I guess something like evolution is true, but it's fair to teach both sides" or "What's the harm, let them believe." They're the ones we need to reach. Whining about "lying for Jesus" is more likely to chase them into the arms of the scam artists than impress them.

I more or less agree. What happened in Montana is what should happen. As I noted on another thread, although maybe the message didn't get through, fight the bills by addressing what is in the bills. The bills are about the local high school curriculum. They don't make direct mention of "ID" or "creationism", so launching into a diatribe about ID won't be relevant, unless you explain why that is relevant first. The approach I, as an interested amateur, recommend, is... The bills are designed to encourage or permit ideological science denial, including evolution denial, in public high school science class. This is likely to make bad things happen. 1) In the past this type of thing has always led to teachers inserting their particular science-denying religious beliefs, and subsequent expensive and losing lawsuits. Another few points...2) Local bad science education might discourage employers who need at least some technically or scientifically skilled employees, from locating in the state, 2) Local bad science education puts local students at a significant competitive disadvantage when applying for college or good jobs, 3) Local bad science education could hurt the ability of local universities to recruit the best science faculty. I recommend focusing on what is in the bills and why it is bad for Montana (or whatever state the bill is being pushed in).

Frank J · 7 February 2013

2 more c:

I hope everyone realizes that by "scam artists" I mean mainly the DI, and a few politicians who are in on the scam. Even ICR, which transformed creationism from "misguided but mostly innocent belief" to full-blown pseudoscience a half century ago, is at best a "useful idiot" these days. And like AiG and WorldNetDaily, may even be a bit of a hindrance to the DI's agenda. IOW they could be our useful idiots - if we avoid the foot-shooting.

The irony is that very few people have heard of the DI, yet their sound bites have "trickled down" enough that they have trained the majority to (1) believe that the "debate" is about "weaknesses" of evolution, and (2) remain oblivious to the fact that no one dates to try to support a testable alternate "theory," let alone encourage students to critically analyze it. Even ICR and AiG, which makes testable claims of "what happened when" (easily refuted - sometimes by other creationists) know better than to advocate critical analysis of them. If anything, they seem to be doing their own retreat, from "scientific" creationism to a weak Omphalism.

Frank J · 7 February 2013

The bills are designed to encourage or permit ideological science denial, including evolution denial, in public high school science class.
— harold

And prevent or discourage non-denial, and real critical analysis. That's the part that I object to most. By the time most students enter high school they have already been exposed to some encouragment or pressure to deny evolution. With much more to come after high school along with the misleading caricarure of evolution that usually replaces whatever they did learn. These bills add little or nothing to that. But they subtract a lot of what has earned the right to be taught. Both from a standpoint of informing students about science and of "thou shalt not bear false witness."

SensuousCurmudgeon · 7 February 2013

Laugh all you want, but I like Clayton Fiscus -- I like his name and I like his style. He's the ideal model for a creationist legislator. I'm thinking of describing legislators in other states who sponsor such bills as the "Clayton Fiscus of [name of state]."

Always remember, just because someone is unbelievably ignorant doesn't mean he can't be useful -- not only to the Discovery Institute but also to us.

DS · 7 February 2013

SensuousCurmudgeon said: Laugh all you want, but I like Clayton Fiscus -- I like his name and I like his style. He's the ideal model for a creationist legislator. I'm thinking of describing legislators in other states who sponsor such bills as the "Clayton Fiscus of [name of state]." Always remember, just because someone is unbelievably ignorant doesn't mean he can't be useful -- not only to the Discovery Institute but also to us.

I agree. In fact, our motto could be: "Don't let them Fiscus again".

apokryltaros · 7 February 2013

Frank J said: ...These bills add little or nothing to that. But they subtract a lot of what has earned the right to be taught. Both from a standpoint of informing students about science and of "thou shalt not bear false witness."

One problem is that these students are often taught, if not forcibly encouraged to bend, break or flout rules For Jesus, including those mentioned in the Bible.

CJColucci · 7 February 2013

There's a lot to be said for teaching what we don't know. It should be done vigorously, across the curriculum. Done right, it might induce a sensible intellectual humility. It might keep us from screaming at each other over our differing perspectives on the unknown and unknowable. And it might inspire some youngsters to get to wotk on what we don't know and find answers so we do know.
Somehow, though, I don't think this is what Clayton Fiscus had in mind.

harold · 7 February 2013

CJColucci said: There's a lot to be said for teaching what we don't know. It should be done vigorously, across the curriculum. Done right, it might induce a sensible intellectual humility. It might keep us from screaming at each other over our differing perspectives on the unknown and unknowable. And it might inspire some youngsters to get to wotk on what we don't know and find answers so we do know. Somehow, though, I don't think this is what Clayton Fiscus had in mind.

I can't speak for high school, because for a variety of reasons I had a disprupted high school education, but my science classes at university, especially above the freshman level, often included discussions of current problems. Same with medical school. I never encountered the slightest implication that everything is already known in scientific circles. As I have noted before, the only people who think or claim that everything is already known are creationists themselves. The very idea of accusing research scientists of claiming that everything is already known is absurd - why would they be doing reseach if everything were already known? It's not that people who respect science want to say that nothing is unknown, it's that creationists want to deny that what is known is known.

apokryltaros · 7 February 2013

harold said: It's not that people who respect science want to say that nothing is unknown, it's that creationists want to deny that what is known is known.

Some creationists justify this by insisting that, because the world is sin, trying to investigate it is therefore sin, in addition to being a colossal waste of time that could be better spent doing nothing but praying and preparing for Kingdom Come.

Robert Byers · 7 February 2013

So what if one spoke for it and a bunch against?
What if it was the other way around?!
It all comes down to whether the people will decide these things or not the people but a few people.
If its to be democratic then let the games commence.

It is about overturning censorship by democratic means.
The year has just begun and theres more and more to come agitation to bring the search and teaching of truth to subjects currently under state censorship in public institutions.
If its about democracy then creationism's goals for freedom will prevail.
i understand 70% support both sides being taught in science class.

You guys just show you are not confident your side can make the better case before the kids!
Thats part of your passion and not just giving up ground.

It really would add interest to sciency subjects if the contention was given its due.
anyways its the moral and intellectual right and duty for America to demand a end to this censorship that also smacks of anti-Christian motivations.

Seems that way from Canada here.

Keelyn · 8 February 2013

Is it safe to assume that that will be the one and only poop stain tolerated from the ridiculous Byers troll on this thread?

harold · 8 February 2013

This particular Byers comment is worth responding to...

So what if one spoke for it and a bunch against? What if it was the other way around?! It all comes down to whether the people will decide these things or not the people but a few people. If its to be democratic then let the games commence.

Although it does not make sense for public majorities to decide the details of public high school education, and does make sense for the public to delegate that task mainly to experts, creationism in schools has, so far, always lost at that ballot box when directly challenged. Kansas school board creationists were voted out. Dover school board creationists were voted out as well as losing in court. Montana representatives just effectively tabled this bill. The few "academic freedom" bills on state books have not been used to teach creationism yet, and have a good chance of being repealed.

It is about overturning censorship by democratic means. The year has just begun and theres more and more to come agitation to bring the search and teaching of truth to subjects currently under state censorship in public institutions. If its about democracy then creationism’s goals for freedom will prevail. i understand 70% support both sides being taught in science class.

Any vague, non-specific poll question will always trick many people into choosing what superficially seems to be the reasonable answer. Faced with actual creationism in their local high school science classes, though, people have shown a strong tendency to vote against those responsible. Censorship, to a reasonable person, means suppression of an idea for arbitrary reasons, or to serve an authoritarian agenda. Therefore, it is not censorship to keep narrow sectarian anti-science dogma out of public schools, it would be censorship to include it. Government favoritism of a narrow sectarian viewpoint is equivalent to government censorship of all other viewpoints. (Note: In a trivial sense, science classes, and all other high school classes, are "censored" - a vast amount of extraneous material is implicitly excluded. But to define "staying on topic" as "censorship" is absurd. However, discriminating against some viewpoints by excluding them, while including other sectarian dogam as "science", which would represent implicit but severe official censorship against all other religions and viewpoints.)

You guys just show you are not confident your side can make the better case before the kids! Thats part of your passion and not just giving up ground.

Although it is my experience that all "kids" who have no been brainwashed, and a decent proportion of those who have, can see that science makes more sense than science denial, it is outrageous for you to think that your sect should be allowed to use public school time for recruitment, but that the local mosque, Hindu temple, Mormon temple, and Wiccan coven should not. That is not the function of public school. There is absolutely no restriction on private religious proselytizing. If creationism makes more sense than science, it should be easy to make the case.

It really would add interest to sciency subjects if the contention was given its due.

It might actually add some interest to science class if creationist ideas were brought up and refuted, but that would be unfair. We don't have time to spend science class showing that all creation myths are unscientific, and it would be discrimination to do this only to the creation stories of your sect. Therefore, since I support your rights and don't want you to be discriminated against, I would oppose this.

anyways its the moral and intellectual right and duty for America to demand a end to this censorship that also smacks of anti-Christian motivations. Seems that way from Canada here.

1) Actually, some supporters of "Biblical" creationism (in open or coded form) as "science" in public school are anti-Christian - for example, some radical Muslims, some some ultra-Orthodox Jews (although even some members of these groups support the teaching of science). And although many non-religious people are vocal on the internet, it has been Christian majorities who have voted out creationist school boards. 2) Again, it is favoritism of some sects over others in science class which would represent a form of censorship.

Frank J · 8 February 2013

You guys just show you are not confident your side can make the better case before the kids! Thats part of your passion and not just giving up ground.
— Robert Byers

Nice try. As you know, and pretend not to, the kids already hear the scam artists' side, and we 100% encourage that they do. All we want is that they also hear what the scam artists make 100% clear that they will omit and/or misrepresent - IOW censor in taxpayer-funded classes. Surely you do not believe that 70% of the people supporting an idea makes it morally right. Or do you? Those 70% (except for the small % that are scam artists intent on misleading) are simply misinformed. And I was one of them years ago. In fact I still want students to learn "both sides." But those who have earned the right to teach it need do determine how and where "both sides" are taught. The scam artists and their trained parrots have made it 100% clear that they not only have not earned that right, but that they refuse to do so. Now why in God's name would anyone miss such a fabulous opportunity to develop their alternate "theory"? Don't even think of repeating that lie that they are "shut out." I alone have requested R&D proposals for 6 years and have not received one. I would be their greatest backer if they just submitted one. I don't care if it's old earth, young earth, with or without common descent. It just needs to be testable, and have what Pope John Paul II called "convergence, neither sought nor fabricated." Once the theory gets some "traction" - it doesn't need to be nearly as well supported as evolution - it will be taught.

Frank J · 8 February 2013

apokryltaros said:
Frank J said: ...These bills add little or nothing to that. But they subtract a lot of what has earned the right to be taught. Both from a standpoint of informing students about science and of "thou shalt not bear false witness."
One problem is that these students are often taught, if not forcibly encouraged to bend, break or flout rules For Jesus, including those mentioned in the Bible.

The intent may be mostly "for Jesus" given the demographics of the scam artists and their trained parrots. But ironically, the outcome would me more "for Muhammad." Harold also notes that above. Islam embraces that pseudoscience much more than Christianity or Judaism.

SLC · 8 February 2013

Let's take booby seriously. I demand that the stork theory of reproduction, the flat earth theory, the geocentric theory of the Solar System, etc. be taught. Not to do so is censorship. End snark.

Robert Byers said: So what if one spoke for it and a bunch against? What if it was the other way around?! It all comes down to whether the people will decide these things or not the people but a few people. If its to be democratic then let the games commence. It is about overturning censorship by democratic means. The year has just begun and theres more and more to come agitation to bring the search and teaching of truth to subjects currently under state censorship in public institutions. If its about democracy then creationism's goals for freedom will prevail. i understand 70% support both sides being taught in science class. You guys just show you are not confident your side can make the better case before the kids! Thats part of your passion and not just giving up ground. It really would add interest to sciency subjects if the contention was given its due. anyways its the moral and intellectual right and duty for America to demand a end to this censorship that also smacks of anti-Christian motivations. Seems that way from Canada here.

DS · 8 February 2013

Hoser.

TomS · 8 February 2013

SLC said: Let's take booby seriously. I demand that the stork theory of reproduction, the flat earth theory, the geocentric theory of the Solar System, etc. be taught. Not to do so is censorship. End snark.

Let's hear what the alternative is to evolutionary biology. Let's hear what happened and when. Let's hear what it is about the intelligent designer(s) that leads them to make humans to be so much like chimps and other apes. Let's hear what sort of thing is not likely to happen when intelligent design does whatever it does - even just a hypothetical example of something that might not result. Let's hear something substantive and positive, rather than just being negative about it: "whatever happened, it wasn't evolution". And I'm not being snarky about this. When I'm being snarky, I suggest that they present the alternatives to the arbitrary rules of basketball or football (why not say that the fewest points wins, like in golf?). Why censor Calvin Ball?

Henry J · 8 February 2013

SLC said: Let's take booby seriously. I demand that the stork theory of reproduction, the flat earth theory, the geocentric theory of the Solar System, etc. be taught. Not to do so is censorship. End snark.

Don't forget phlogiston, steady state, and "Pluto is so too a planet"!

Gary_Hurd · 8 February 2013

The URL for the hearing start to finish is available from:

http://leg.mt.gov/css/Video-and-Audio/avsearch.asp?vbill=HB183

apokryltaros · 8 February 2013

Frank J said:
apokryltaros said:
Frank J said: ...These bills add little or nothing to that. But they subtract a lot of what has earned the right to be taught. Both from a standpoint of informing students about science and of "thou shalt not bear false witness."
One problem is that these students are often taught, if not forcibly encouraged to bend, break or flout rules For Jesus, including those mentioned in the Bible.
The intent may be mostly "for Jesus" given the demographics of the scam artists and their trained parrots. But ironically, the outcome would me more "for ~~Muhammad~~ Allah." Harold also notes that above. Islam embraces that pseudoscience much more than Christianity or Judaism.

Which is painfully ironic if one remembers how the great Umayyad and Abbasid caliphates did so much to preserve and foster so much scholarship.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 8 February 2013

Robert Byers said: So what if one spoke for it and a bunch against? What if it was the other way around?! It all comes down to whether the people will decide these things or not the people but a few people. If its to be democratic then let the games commence. It is about overturning censorship by democratic means. The year has just begun and theres more and more to come agitation to bring the search and teaching of truth to subjects currently under state censorship in public institutions. If its about democracy then creationism's goals for freedom will prevail. i understand 70% support both sides being taught in science class. You guys just show you are not confident your side can make the better case before the kids! Thats part of your passion and not just giving up ground. It really would add interest to sciency subjects if the contention was given its due. anyways its the moral and intellectual right and duty for America to demand a end to this censorship that also smacks of anti-Christian motivations. Seems that way from Canada here.

Robert Byers, for teaching what isn't either known or sensible. Faithful practitioner of what isn't known or sensible, as well. Glen Davidson

apokryltaros · 8 February 2013

Moron For Jesus babbled: So what if one spoke for it and a bunch against? What if it was the other way around?! It all comes down to whether the people will decide these things or not the people but a few people. If its to be democratic then let the games commence.

You don't understand how democracy or science or education works.

It is about overturning censorship by democratic means. The year has just begun and theres more and more to come agitation to bring the search and teaching of truth to subjects currently under state censorship in public institutions. If its about democracy then creationism's goals for freedom will prevail. i understand 70% support both sides being taught in science class.

No, moron. It's about keeping a bunch of religious fundamentalists and their political cronies from destroying science education in order to brainwash children into becoming Science-Hating Idiot Zombies For Jesus.

You guys just show you are not confident your side can make the better case before the kids! Thats part of your passion and not just giving up ground.

So says the Hypocrite For Jesus who always runs away from explaining why Creationism and not Science should be taught in science classes.

It really would add interest to sciency subjects if the contention was given its due. anyways its the moral and intellectual right and duty for America to demand a end to this censorship that also smacks of anti-Christian motivations.

Not wanting science education to be replaced with religiously motivated anti-science propaganda is not anti-Christian, unless you specifically define Christianity as being nothing but anti-science propaganda.

Seems that way from Canada here.

No, you do not speak on behalf of Canada, you are merely an idiot who parrots Lies For Jesus.

harold · 8 February 2013

Frank J said -

The intent may be mostly “for Jesus” given the demographics of the scam artists and their trained parrots. But ironically, the outcome would me more “for Muhammad.” Harold also notes that above. Islam embraces that pseudoscience much more than Christianity or Judaism.

Clarification - while it is true that most contemporary authoritarian religious theocracy states are Muslim, and while it is of course true that Islam, Judaism, and Christianity all include science deniers, I did not actually make an effort to declare one broadly defined religion overall more hostile to science than other broadly defined religions. I'm not at all sure that Islam, broadly and historically defined, embraces pseudoscience "much more" than Christianity. It may, but I don't feel comfortable in stating that as a fact. There are many types of Muslims, and many types of Christians, and there is much embrace of pseudoscience in Christianity. Although at least one technologically advanced Islamic nation, Turkey, does have the phenomenon of anti-science movements among people who depend on science and technology, the bizarre phenomenon of people who enjoy all the benefits of modern science and technology, yet attack and deny it, seems to be mainly a Christian thing (of course that may be an artifact of the distribution of science and technology). It's one thing for a self-sustaining nomad who lives without modern technology in some place like Sudan to deny science, with which he would be unfamiliar. The trend of sitting in an air-conditioned room, at a computer, kept alive by modern medicine, and yet denying science is, to me, more disturbing. However, thank you for agreeing with my original point. To repeat, since this is a valuable point, it is NOT the case that "all Christians" support creationist science denial, and all "enemies of Christianity" support science. Some rivals of Chritianity support creationist science denial, and many (almost certainly most) Christians in the US support sound science education.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 8 February 2013

Fiscus seems like a genial enough bozo, in fact, but is about as ignorant of these matters as Booby Byers is. He says things like "original life" when clearly it should be "origin of life," and he tells of how we thought the world was flat about 700 years ago.

And he's trying to get in new knowledge, like DNA discoveries, etc. Yeah, ficus plant, who do you think made these discoveries, IDiots, or scientists? More importantly, who's trying to keep such discoveries out, save the IDiots, who want to just mention them, ignore the massive evidence of evolutionary derivation, and blither about how it's so complex it couldn't evolve, never mind that it has all of the evidence expected from evolution?

What I'm really saying is that Fiscus does seem to have bought the dishonest line from the Dishonesty Institute, the supposed idea that they're presenting new evidence that "points to intelligent design," implying that somehow this "evidence for intelligent design" is being somehow suppressed in education.

That is a bit of propaganda that the IDiots seem to have some success with. The people bamboozled by Stephen Meyer's book show up on the web, impressed by all of this evidence of "information technology" in life. Sure, you have to be about as knowledgeable as Fiscus to suck up that BS, yet there are a whole lot of people about that knowledgeable.

Back to Fiscus' ignorant claim that we thought the earth was flat 700 years ago or so (yes, a lot of ignorant Byers-types probably did, so what?), he does then move on to the end of geocentrism, a tad late in the shift, but not so very wrong as the flat earth claim. More importantly, he uses it to say that things change, which somehow is supposed to support his bill, when quite clearly it's a counterexample to continuing to teach old rot as, say, geocentrism becomes untenable. His bill would presumably require that the "geocentrism controversy" would have to be taught if the "principles" were enforced across the board, not just the teaching of the fact that new knowledge supports heliocentrism (of our solar system, as we now understand it) and not geocentrism. You really can't pretend that increasing, improving knowledge supports teaching the "controversy" over old superstitions rather than the new knowledge.

But Fiscus doesn't see it that way, mainly, it would seem, because he believes the program of misrepresentation by the DI, which suggests to him that something is being suppressed.

Glen Davidson

Gary_Hurd · 8 February 2013

Now having watched the entire hearing, I was impressed that Rep. Clayton Fiscus is a very ignorant, and not particularly intelligent man. This raised the question of how did he get elected? I have no answer for that.

Gary_Hurd · 8 February 2013

Interesting last opponent testimony from the theologian Prof. Beth Haile. She thinks there there should be a barrier between theology and science studies, and at the same time a "collaboration." A bit confused. It smacks of Gould's "non-overlapping magisteria" which I think is an error.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 8 February 2013

I can't complain about Fiscus' "teach what we don't know" statement, though. He's just saying in that instance that we should admit that we don't know in science, which is true (and I think not much of a problem, until IDiots try to fit Jesus into that), and which has virtually nothing to do with his bill.

Glen Davidson

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 8 February 2013

Should have been:

...that we should admit what we don’t know in science...

Glen Davidson

Robin · 8 February 2013

Gary_Hurd said: Now having watched the entire hearing, I was impressed that Rep. Clayton Fiscus is a very ignorant, and not particularly intelligent man. This raised the question of how did he get elected? I have no answer for that.

I can come up with a few. He's likely smart in his way and his smarts likely cover his constituents' areas of concern. That is, he likely knows the issues facing the Montanians he represents. He's likely "one of them" and they know it and like it, because unlike those "educated outsiders", Fiscus relates to them. He's not complicated. He's easy to understand. And I bet he's an empathetic listener. The fact that he's a little befuddled is probably seen as a positive quality - a mix of innocence and humbleness and good old fashioned simple humanity.

DS · 8 February 2013

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said: I can't complain about Fiscus' "teach what we don't know" statement, though. He's just saying in that instance that we should admit that we don't know in science, which is true (and I think not much of a problem, until IDiots try to fit Jesus into that), and which has virtually nothing to do with his bill. Glen Davidson

I agree. It's very important when teaching science to admit that we don't have all the answers. But you first have to learn what we do know before you can even begin to understand what we don't know. Even if his omission was unintentional, I'm sure he has no idea what is actually known about modern biology. He really is more concerned with denigrating science and concentrating on what we don't know, as if that were somehow an inditement of what we do know. In fact, there is a famous professor who teaches a course on scientific ignorance and it's importance. After all, we need to know what we don't know in order to study what we don't know and learn more. I can't recall the guys name right now, but he teaches at a major university. The only problem he has is getting guest lecturers from other science departments. When he calls them up and tells them that he wants a lecture on ignorance and they are the most qualified pepole he know, they usually don't take it the right way.

SensuousCurmudgeon · 8 February 2013

Gary_Hurd said: It smacks of Gould's "non-overlapping magisteria" which I think is an error.

Agreed. There certainly is overlap, and it conflicts, but I think it's of trivial significance. It's like an astronomy paper a few years old that refers to nine planets -- implying that Pluto is a planet. Assuming that Pluto's status is irrelevant to the central points of the paper, then that superseded reference doesn't discredit the paper or its author.

Henry J · 8 February 2013

What we don't know in science? Dark matter. Dark energy. What's inside a black hole. What are quarks and leptons, aside from simply how they interact with each other. Is space continuous below the Planck length or is it discrete at some scale below that. Are there dimensions aside from the four familiar ones. Is string theory realistic. Has E.T phoned home yet.

Yeah, I can think of a few areas that as far as I know scientists haven't gotten there yet.

DS · 8 February 2013

Henry J said: What we don't know in science? Dark matter. Dark energy. What's inside a black hole. What are quarks and leptons, aside from simply how they interact with each other. Is space continuous below the Planck length or is it discrete at some scale below that. Are there dimensions aside from the four familiar ones. Is string theory realistic. Has E.T phoned home yet. Yeah, I can think of a few areas that as far as I know scientists haven't gotten there yet.

For gods sake man, teach the controversy! How are the fifth graders supposed to learn about science if we never admit that we don't know these things? That would be like lying to them! First you have to teach them what we don't know, then if there is any time left, you can go on to teach them what we do know. Too bad for them if they don't understand the things we don't know or why they are important. They'll get it eventually, maybe off the bathroom wall.

DS · 8 February 2013

DS said: I agree. It's very important when teaching science to admit that we don't have all the answers. But you first have to learn what we do know before you can even begin to understand what we don't know. Even if his omission was unintentional, I'm sure he has no idea what is actually known about modern biology. He really is more concerned with denigrating science and concentrating on what we don't know, as if that were somehow an inditement of what we do know. In fact, there is a famous professor who teaches a course on scientific ignorance and it's importance. After all, we need to know what we don't know in order to study what we don't know and learn more. I can't recall the guys name right now, but he teaches at a major university. The only problem he has is getting guest lecturers from other science departments. When he calls them up and tells them that he wants a lecture on ignorance and they are the most qualified pepole he know, they usually don't take it the right way.

Found it. The guy is named Firestein and the book is about how ignorance drives science. Here is the amazon limk: http://www.amazon.com/Ignorance-Drives-Science-Stuart-Firestein/dp/0199828075

Richard B. Hoppe · 8 February 2013

That's Byers' one and only permitted comment in this thread. If I see more they're off to the BW when I am near a computer rather than this phone.

MichaelJ · 8 February 2013

Robert Byers said: So what if one spoke for it and a bunch against? What if it was the other way around?! It all comes down to whether the people will decide these things or not the people but a few people. If its to be democratic then let the games commence. It is about overturning censorship by democratic means. The year has just begun and theres more and more to come agitation to bring the search and teaching of truth to subjects currently under state censorship in public institutions. If its about democracy then creationism's goals for freedom will prevail. i understand 70% support both sides being taught in science class. You guys just show you are not confident your side can make the better case before the kids! Thats part of your passion and not just giving up ground. It really would add interest to sciency subjects if the contention was given its due. anyways its the moral and intellectual right and duty for America to demand a end to this censorship that also smacks of anti-Christian motivations. Seems that way from Canada here.

Byers The majority of Americans support Gay marriage and global warming. The majority of Americans accept that the world is more than 10000 years old. So by your logic, I assume that you now agree with these sentiments.

Richard B. Hoppe · 8 February 2013

Byers is not permitted to comment on this thread.

twoapplestobees · 8 February 2013

I’ve just started reading blogs here on panda’s thumb and I’m dumbfounded by the lack of knowledge that many of the concerned Evolutionists know about the actual SCIENCE behind this debate. You suggest that these “clowns” are morons. Well, you may be correct. I don’t know them. But you seriously harm the integrity of the Darwinists/Evolutionists when you react to this controversy as if there is no controversy. Sorry boys and girls. The science is as clear as John McCain’s dandruff and yes, the jury is still out on this one. There are many many many points of disagreement between scientists on where all of the data is pointing. Don’t you guys know that the findings of Ambulocetus natans and Rodhocetus kasrani, which Stephan Jay Gould called, “the sweetest series of transitional fossils an evolutionist could ever hope to find” actually have been shown NOT to prove an accessorial relationship? Those finds studied from a molecular level show that they have much less in common with the whale than Gould had thought. In fact the Hippo has more in common with the whale. Also, contrary to what you may have thought, skulls aren’t good evidence to support Evolution. It’s too easy to cherry pick evidence. For example, the collection of therapsid fossils often show more mammal-like examples occurring earlier in the fossil record and more reptile-like examples occurring later. This is backwards if you hope that the therapsids fossil record will show a progression of reptiles to mammals—one that Gould heralded as the best thing since slice bread and jolly ranchers for Darwinists. Also there are some very significant geographical issues. Some fossils that are supposedly next to each other in the evolutionary progression are vastly spread apart around the globe. Now I won’t say that this proves Evolution completely wrong, but seriously—you act as if these clowns are making up stuff. Sorry friends. This is real. Either you do know this controversy exists and you just ignore it, or you don’t know and you show yourselves to be perfectly ignorant. Either option doesn’t say much for your group. It would be more commendable if you allowed science to be science—let’s get data and test the implications. Let the schools learn about the debate. THERE IS ONE! Remember the Emperor who had no clothes? Regardless of what he thought, the truth was still plain for many to see.

Frank J said: My usual 2c on all anti-evolution activism in general, not just this issue: The minute you let these scam artists frame it as "either 'Darwinists' advocate censorship or they don't," you have lost. Even if you convince the majority that "Darwinists" do not advocate censorship. The only way to begin to turn the tide on this scam is to get the majority to see which side is truly going out of their way to censor, or at least attempt to censor, information. I know that it's fun to watch these clowns put their feet in their mouths. But these people, and the voters that are so compartmentalized that they will not admit evolution under any circumstances, with or without these clowns, are maybe 1/4 of the voters. But probably another 1/2 says things like "I hear the jury's still out on evolution," "I guess something like evolution is true, but it's fair to teach both sides" or "What's the harm, let them believe." They're the ones we need to reach. Whining about "lying for Jesus" is more likely to chase them into the arms of the scam artists than impress them.

harold · 8 February 2013

Twoapplestobees - I'm willing to listen to your side of things. I hope you will be courteous enough to reply to my comment in a meaningful way.

Don’t you guys know that the findings of Ambulocetus natans and Rodhocetus kasrani, which Stephan Jay Gould called, “the sweetest series of transitional fossils an evolutionist could ever hope to find” actually have been shown NOT to prove an accessorial relationship? Those finds studied from a molecular level show that they have much less in common with the whale than Gould had thought. In fact the Hippo has more in common with the whale.

I believe you are incorrect, but I am willing to listen. Please provide a reference - not a link to a creationist web site, a primary reference - supporting your claim. Also, if this claim is correct, it would not address other evidence in favor of evolution, nor provide positive evidence for ID/creationism, nor provide an explanation as to where whales come from. Can you provide your explanation for how whales emerged, and how these fossils should be interpreted, and a reasonable rationale for your explanation?

Also, contrary to what you may have thought, skulls aren’t good evidence to support Evolution. It’s too easy to cherry pick evidence. For example, the collection of therapsid fossils often show more mammal-like examples occurring earlier in the fossil record and more reptile-like examples occurring later.

Again, the same thing. I believe you are incorrect about this specific subject. Can you provide a primary reference to support your claim? Even if this claim is correct, it would not it would not address other evidence in favor of evolution, nor provide positive evidence for ID/creationism. In addition, we might be able to have a positive dialogue if you would answer the following questions - 1) Could any evidence convince you of the theory of evolution, and if so, what type of evidence is now lacking, that would convince you, if present? 2) The Supreme Court ruled against the direct teaching of Biblical Young Earth Creationism as science in public schools; however, if that ruling were overturned, which would you support more, teaching of ID, or direct teaching of Bible-based YEC? 3) Do you think it is important for opponents of the theory of evolution to fully understand the theory of evolution? If so, can you explain it, and if not, can you explain why not? 4) Who is the designer? How can we test your answer? 5) What did that designer do? How can we test your answer? 6) How did the designer do it? How can we test your answer? 7) When did the designer do it? How can we test your answer? 8) What is an example of something that was not designed by the designer? 9) Some parts of the Bible suggest that pi equals exactly three, and that the earth is flat and has four corners. Do you accept these as facts of 9:08 PM 2/8/2013reality, and if not, why do you deny the theory of evolution on the grounds of Biblical literacy, if it can be symbolic about other scientific issues?

Dave Luckett · 8 February 2013

I'll leave this one mainly to the specialists. But it shows the usual earmarks, the first of which is a misunderstanding (or misrepresentation) of what the theory of evolution says and what the fossil evidence for it can be expected to show.

We have the usual "great chain of being" idea, implied in the assumption that evolution acts in a ladder-like fashion, with one lifeform gradually becoming another. This is not what the theory says or implies. Ambiocetus did not become Rodhocetus. Rather, Ambiocetus is one of a group of species, some of which branched at some point, probably multiple times; and most of these species are unknown. Ambiocetus is on one line, but it need not be on the one that led to Rodhocetus, and probably isn't. There does not have to be an "accessorial" (ancestral?) relationship. The mixture of traits in both are still evidence for transition.

Similarly for transitionals between reptiles and mammals. Evolution does not say that one species of reptiles became a species of mammals. It implies that an entire group of reptile species developed some mammal-like traits. Some of these would result in species with such and such a selection of traits, and other species with a different selection. Some of these were successful, or at least survived environmental change. Others were not, or did not. You would expect from this to see lifeforms with a mosaic of different traits, some more reptilian, some more mammalian, surviving alongside each other, possibly for very long periods. This is what is seen.

Considering the amount of time this takes, and the fact that sedimentary rocks of the appropriate age for each mix of traits exist in widely separated places, it really isn't surprising that the transitionals of a given stage turn up where the rocks of the right age are. This is a non-issue.

Skulls are like all other fossils. They're evidence. It's not surprising that a creationist would want to rule whole classes of fossil evidence out, but that's not going to happen.

There is no debate in science over the demonstrated facts of deep time, natural selection and common ancestry. That's a simple misrepresentation. The controversy is simply an attack from outside science by a group who cannot accept fact, for religious or very odd personal reasons having to do with self- and world-view.

Richard B. Hoppe · 8 February 2013

twoapplestobees wrote

Don’t you guys know that the findings of Ambulocetus natans and Rodhocetus kasrani, which Stephan Jay Gould called, “the sweetest series of transitional fossils an evolutionist could ever hope to find” actually have been shown NOT to prove an accessorial relationship?

Assuming that "accessorial" is "ancestral," as harold noted, citation required. twoapplestobees wrote further

For example, the collection of therapsid fossils often show more mammal-like examples occurring earlier in the fossil record and more reptile-like examples occurring later. This is backwards if you hope that the therapsids fossil record will show a progression of reptiles to mammals—one that Gould heralded as the best thing since slice bread and jolly ranchers for Darwinists.

twoapples apparently thinks that speciation is purely sympatric, and that a parent species must be replaced by its offspring species. Sorry, bunky. That ain't the way it works. twoapplestobees wrote further

Some fossils that are supposedly next to each other in the evolutionary progression are vastly spread apart around the globe.

Again, citation required. Further, because of the vicissitudes of fossilization, the distribution of fossils is only a partial picture of the distribution of the original population.

DS · 8 February 2013

twoapplestobees said: I’ve just started reading blogs here on panda’s thumb and I’m dumbfounded by the lack of knowledge that many of the concerned Evolutionists know about the actual SCIENCE behind this debate. You suggest that these “clowns” are morons. Well, you may be correct. I don’t know them. But you seriously harm the integrity of the Darwinists/Evolutionists when you react to this controversy as if there is no controversy. Sorry boys and girls. The science is as clear as John McCain’s dandruff and yes, the jury is still out on this one. There are many many many points of disagreement between scientists on where all of the data is pointing. Don’t you guys know that the findings of Ambulocetus natans and Rodhocetus kasrani, which Stephan Jay Gould called, “the sweetest series of transitional fossils an evolutionist could ever hope to find” actually have been shown NOT to prove an accessorial relationship? Those finds studied from a molecular level show that they have much less in common with the whale than Gould had thought. In fact the Hippo has more in common with the whale. Also, contrary to what you may have thought, skulls aren’t good evidence to support Evolution. It’s too easy to cherry pick evidence. For example, the collection of therapsid fossils often show more mammal-like examples occurring earlier in the fossil record and more reptile-like examples occurring later. This is backwards if you hope that the therapsids fossil record will show a progression of reptiles to mammals—one that Gould heralded as the best thing since slice bread and jolly ranchers for Darwinists. Also there are some very significant geographical issues. Some fossils that are supposedly next to each other in the evolutionary progression are vastly spread apart around the globe. Now I won’t say that this proves Evolution completely wrong, but seriously—you act as if these clowns are making up stuff. Sorry friends. This is real. Either you do know this controversy exists and you just ignore it, or you don’t know and you show yourselves to be perfectly ignorant. Either option doesn’t say much for your group. It would be more commendable if you allowed science to be science—let’s get data and test the implications. Let the schools learn about the debate. THERE IS ONE! Remember the Emperor who had no clothes? Regardless of what he thought, the truth was still plain for many to see.
Frank J said: My usual 2c on all anti-evolution activism in general, not just this issue: The minute you let these scam artists frame it as "either 'Darwinists' advocate censorship or they don't," you have lost. Even if you convince the majority that "Darwinists" do not advocate censorship. The only way to begin to turn the tide on this scam is to get the majority to see which side is truly going out of their way to censor, or at least attempt to censor, information. I know that it's fun to watch these clowns put their feet in their mouths. But these people, and the voters that are so compartmentalized that they will not admit evolution under any circumstances, with or without these clowns, are maybe 1/4 of the voters. But probably another 1/2 says things like "I hear the jury's still out on evolution," "I guess something like evolution is true, but it's fair to teach both sides" or "What's the harm, let them believe." They're the ones we need to reach. Whining about "lying for Jesus" is more likely to chase them into the arms of the scam artists than impress them.

Sir, you seem to be sadly misinformed. You do know that we have a wealth of molecular genetic evidence for evolution, not just fossils, right? You do know that we don't have any genetic evidence from fifty million year old fossils, right? You do know that all of the molecular genetic data show that cetaceans were descended from terrestrial ancestors, right? You do know that there is no real controversy among the experts as to whether evolution occurred, even though some of the minor details still need to be determined, right? You do know that intermediates in a sequence do not have to have ancestral relationships, right? Have you been listening to those wacky creationists? Have you fallen for all of their misrepresentations and distortions? Have you actually read the primary literature for yourself? Or are you just taking the word of charlatans and liars? Now if you would care to make a comment about the actual topic of this thread, instead of just slinging mud, perhaps you can avoid the ignominious fate of being summarily banished to the bathroom wall.

Karen S. · 8 February 2013

twoapplestobees,

What is your own scenario of what happened, if whales didn't evolve? Did God just kill off the ancient whale ancestors and then drop modern ones in the water one night?

robert van bakel · 8 February 2013

I am glad I am a regular reader of Pandas 'twoapplestobees', because every now and then, a new ill-informed brain dead yahoo, like yourself appears, to be warn down by people whom actually understand the science. Seeing your rant reminded me of the gibbering priests of yore yelling, and frothing at the mouth, at the awed asses infront of them, lolling their heads from side to side, like their brain is a maze and they're trying to get the little metal ball into the slot in the middle of their empty brains.(Is it true? Do you have some standing in your church as a man of science? Do little children in your faith based temple of ignorance whisper, 'there goes "two", he sure does know a thing; or two. And I am sure you do indeed know two things; at the very least)

I trust in the dissapearance, very soon, of you, from here. The reason for this is simple. It is that you of course, are that half educated bozo brain type, and the informed people you try to berate ( i won't credit you as an 'arguer' still much less a 'debater')have a patience (which beguiles me), and will put up with you until....Until they have run out of patience and realise what I already know; you are Robert Byers; mark II?

Robert Byers · 8 February 2013

Richard B. Hoppe said: That's Byers' one and only permitted comment in this thread. If I see more they're off to the BW when I am near a computer rather than this phone.

Why??? This is a discussion forum presented to the public! I strive to be short, responsive, respectful , and on thread. I obey all rules. My ideas represent millions of people's general conclusions from the creationist stance. I want this forum to have thousands of viewers. Why censor this one creationist? Why???

Richard B. Hoppe · 8 February 2013

Robert Byers said:
Richard B. Hoppe said: That's Byers' one and only permitted comment in this thread. If I see more they're off to the BW when I am near a computer rather than this phone.
Why??? This is a discussion forum presented to the public! I strive to be short, responsive, respectful , and on thread. I obey all rules. My ideas represent millions of people's general conclusions from the creationist stance. I want this forum to have thousands of viewers. Why censor this one creationist? Why???

I'll answer this one, and will toss any more to the BW. You generate derailments, post word salad, and so far as I can tell have learned nothing at all from what's been posted in response to your comments. So you are hopeless, useful only as an occasional illustration of the benighted approach of YECs. We have no obligation to provide you with a platform for nonsense; hence the restriction to one comment per (my) thread.

apokryltaros · 8 February 2013

So, twoapplestobees, please explain to us in detail what the fossils of Ambulocetus, and Rodhocetus, and other four-legged whales, and the theraspids represent according to you, if they are not examples of evolution.

apokryltaros · 8 February 2013

Karen S. said: twoapplestobees, What is your own scenario of what happened, if whales didn't evolve? Did God just kill off the ancient whale ancestors and then drop modern ones in the water one night?

Plus, if God did magically poof four-legged whales together with modern whales as twoapplestobees is implying, then why, after killing the four-legged whales, did God magically sort their corpses away from corpses of modern whales (and other modern sea mammals)?

harold · 9 February 2013

Richard B. Hoppe said: twoapplestobees wrote
Don’t you guys know that the findings of Ambulocetus natans and Rodhocetus kasrani, which Stephan Jay Gould called, “the sweetest series of transitional fossils an evolutionist could ever hope to find” actually have been shown NOT to prove an accessorial relationship?
Assuming that "accessorial" is "ancestral," as harold noted, citation required. twoapplestobees wrote further
For example, the collection of therapsid fossils often show more mammal-like examples occurring earlier in the fossil record and more reptile-like examples occurring later. This is backwards if you hope that the therapsids fossil record will show a progression of reptiles to mammals—one that Gould heralded as the best thing since slice bread and jolly ranchers for Darwinists.
twoapples apparently thinks that speciation is purely sympatric, and that a parent species must be replaced by its offspring species. Sorry, bunky. That ain't the way it works. twoapplestobees wrote further
Some fossils that are supposedly next to each other in the evolutionary progression are vastly spread apart around the globe.
Again, citation required. Further, because of the vicissitudes of fossilization, the distribution of fossils is only a partial picture of the distribution of the original population.

Whoops, I missed the fact that 2A2B made a "why are there still monkeys?" error. Thank you for noting that. However, I'll leave my comment as is. I'm shocked, shocked, that he hasn't answered the questions yet.

Karen S. · 9 February 2013

Come one, RoadApples, Answer the questions!

twoapplestobees · 9 February 2013

Thanks for the reply harold. Your response to my post gives an insight into the stereotypes and confusion behind this subject. First, my post was referring to Frank J’s insinuation that the only people who would dare question the scientific reliability of Darwinian Evolution are incompetent “clowns.” That’s a very one-sided, biased opinion. My goal was to show that people who sit in Frank’s camp (you may be included) only accept opinions and research from within your camp. You, harold, played into this stereotype perfectly by asking me to cite sources as long as they were not creationist or ID supported. So what you are essentially saying is as long as I use a source from someone you agree with, then you’ll accept it. Isn’t that categorically impossible? The moment a Darwinian Evolutionists publishes a paper that suggests Darwin’s theory may have some problems considering new evidence; this immediately disqualifies them from being one of your acceptable sources. It’s convoluted. Second, you said that my objection wouldn’t explain where whales came from or speak to any more reasons for or against evolution. I know! Again let me say, I’m not making an argument here about why I think Evolution is right or wrong. I’m saying that, contrary to popular opinion, there is in fact a debate among scientists about whether Darwinian Evolution is still a sufficient explanation for the origin of life. And quite honestly there are “clowns” on both sides. Lastly you mentioned the Bible in question 9. I think you have, as many often do, confused this scientific issue with a religious one. If you look again, I never mentioned the Bible in my post. I don’t think the Bible has anything to do with this. We don’t need to consult the Bible to see that there is clearly a debate within the scientific community on this issue. Personally, I would be opened to the viewpoints of those who speak from a YEC viewpoint if they have good scientific arguments, but as I see it, the data suggests that the earth is in fact much older than YEC’s claim. There is a group of old earth creationists that make some good arguments about creation; however, I’m not as familiar with them. You asked for a non-creationist and non-ID reference… In, Evolution and the Myth of Creationism, biologist Tim Berra attempts to show how similarities within the fossil record are evidence for evolution. He writes, “If you compare a 1953 and a 1954 Corvette, side by side, then a 1954 and a 1955 model, and so on, the descent with modification is overwhelmingly obvious” (117-119). Hopefully you see the major issue here. Corvettes are DESIGNED by Chevrolet! Berra has a great point but not for the Evolutionists—rather for the IDers. He completely undercut his entire argument. You asked me in question 2 what I would support more: the teaching of ID or YEC. I don’t think either should be supported more. I support the discussion of Darwinian Evolution, Theistic Evolution (as purported by Francis Collins), ID, Young Earth, Old Earth and anything else that is supported by good arguments of science. My goal is that Evolutionists would admit that there is a debate and to stop responding to news of schools teaching all sides of the debate as if all of the crazy Bible thumping clowns are trying to pull the wool over everybody’s eyes. That’s simple not the case.

harold said: Twoapplestobees - I'm willing to listen to your side of things. I hope you will be courteous enough to reply to my comment in a meaningful way.
Don’t you guys know that the findings of Ambulocetus natans and Rodhocetus kasrani, which Stephan Jay Gould called, “the sweetest series of transitional fossils an evolutionist could ever hope to find” actually have been shown NOT to prove an accessorial relationship? Those finds studied from a molecular level show that they have much less in common with the whale than Gould had thought. In fact the Hippo has more in common with the whale.
I believe you are incorrect, but I am willing to listen. Please provide a reference - not a link to a creationist web site, a primary reference - supporting your claim. Also, if this claim is correct, it would not address other evidence in favor of evolution, nor provide positive evidence for ID/creationism, nor provide an explanation as to where whales come from. Can you provide your explanation for how whales emerged, and how these fossils should be interpreted, and a reasonable rationale for your explanation?
Also, contrary to what you may have thought, skulls aren’t good evidence to support Evolution. It’s too easy to cherry pick evidence. For example, the collection of therapsid fossils often show more mammal-like examples occurring earlier in the fossil record and more reptile-like examples occurring later.
Again, the same thing. I believe you are incorrect about this specific subject. Can you provide a primary reference to support your claim? Even if this claim is correct, it would not it would not address other evidence in favor of evolution, nor provide positive evidence for ID/creationism. In addition, we might be able to have a positive dialogue if you would answer the following questions - 1) Could any evidence convince you of the theory of evolution, and if so, what type of evidence is now lacking, that would convince you, if present? 2) The Supreme Court ruled against the direct teaching of Biblical Young Earth Creationism as science in public schools; however, if that ruling were overturned, which would you support more, teaching of ID, or direct teaching of Bible-based YEC? 3) Do you think it is important for opponents of the theory of evolution to fully understand the theory of evolution? If so, can you explain it, and if not, can you explain why not? 4) Who is the designer? How can we test your answer? 5) What did that designer do? How can we test your answer? 6) How did the designer do it? How can we test your answer? 7) When did the designer do it? How can we test your answer? 8) What is an example of something that was not designed by the designer? 9) Some parts of the Bible suggest that pi equals exactly three, and that the earth is flat and has four corners. Do you accept these as facts of 9:08 PM 2/8/2013reality, and if not, why do you deny the theory of evolution on the grounds of Biblical literacy, if it can be symbolic about other scientific issues?

phhht · 9 February 2013

What nonsense. There are no "sides" to the question of evolution, any more than there are sides to the question of gravity. Evolution is fact, just like gravity. Your "theory," whatever it may be, begs the question of design, because it has no objective way to detect design. It explains nothing. It predicts nothing. It meshes with nothing already known. It's religiously motivated pseudo-scientific hot air.

twoapplestobees said: First, my post was referring to Frank J’s...

twoapplestobees · 9 February 2013

You guys have created a swell club here. Would it even matter if Darwin himself rose from the dead to pose opposing views? It doesn't sound like you listen to anyone but yourselves. What makes us different is that I admit that I don't know everything. I am eager to see all sides. You come across as though you think that you are a master and that if everyone would just listen to you, the world would be a better place. That's a terrible place to be. You and your panda friends make some good points. What's funny is that I never even said one time that Evolution was wrong or that you were wrong. I merely said that there are reasons to question it. Now I may not be a genius able to cite every single piece of evidence according to your rules, but it wouldn't matter if I did. You can't even let me be a supporter of you and others with the curiosity that there may be more to discover in favor of an opposing camp. This is the problem with those who hold to your system. You've become like the Catholic church of the dark ages. You burn any one who attempts to think outside of your box. I'm not a church person and I don't have little followers. This is a common comeback from you guys though. You guys talk about religion more than any people I know.

robert van bakel said: I am glad I am a regular reader of Pandas 'twoapplestobees', because every now and then, a new ill-informed brain dead yahoo, like yourself appears, to be warn down by people whom actually understand the science. Seeing your rant reminded me of the gibbering priests of yore yelling, and frothing at the mouth, at the awed asses infront of them, lolling their heads from side to side, like their brain is a maze and they're trying to get the little metal ball into the slot in the middle of their empty brains.(Is it true? Do you have some standing in your church as a man of science? Do little children in your faith based temple of ignorance whisper, 'there goes "two", he sure does know a thing; or two. And I am sure you do indeed know two things; at the very least) I trust in the dissapearance, very soon, of you, from here. The reason for this is simple. It is that you of course, are that half educated bozo brain type, and the informed people you try to berate ( i won't credit you as an 'arguer' still much less a 'debater')have a patience (which beguiles me), and will put up with you until....Until they have run out of patience and realise what I already know; you are Robert Byers; mark II?

twoapplestobees · 9 February 2013

Please tell me that not everyone agrees with this. Theory is not like the law of gravity. At least I'm not the only one who seems clueless here.

phhht said: What nonsense. There are no "sides" to the question of evolution, any more than there are sides to the question of gravity. Evolution is fact, just like gravity. Your "theory," whatever it may be, begs the question of design, because it has no objective way to detect design. It explains nothing. It predicts nothing. It meshes with nothing already known. It's religiously motivated pseudo-scientific hot air.
twoapplestobees said: First, my post was referring to Frank J’s...

Karen S. · 9 February 2013

Well, this is odd, and I don't have the book. Did you read the entire book, or just pick up some excerpts from a web site? Perhaps the author is trying to make a point by a not-so-good analogy and you have missed the point, probably deliberately. It's hard to tell since I don't have the book, but you are giving some pretty strong clues. At any rate, you should know that cars don't have babies and pass their traits on to their offspring.

Now, what about the whale question?

phhht · 9 February 2013

Yes, stupid, evolution is as factual as gravity. C'mon, creation boy, tell me how to detect design. Betcha can't do it. I bet you yourself can't even tell when a thing is designed and when it isn't.

twoapplestobees said: Please tell me that not everyone agrees with this. Theory is not like the law of gravity. At least I'm not the only one who seems clueless here.
phhht said: What nonsense. There are no "sides" to the question of evolution, any more than there are sides to the question of gravity. Evolution is fact, just like gravity. Your "theory," whatever it may be, begs the question of design, because it has no objective way to detect design. It explains nothing. It predicts nothing. It meshes with nothing already known. It's religiously motivated pseudo-scientific hot air.
twoapplestobees said: First, my post was referring to Frank J’s...

phhht · 9 February 2013

twoapplestobees said: Theory is not like the law of gravity.

Consider these facts. When living things reproduce, their offspring inherit traits (call them a,b,c,...) from their parents. Inheritance is inexact (sometimes a,b,c,... becomes a,x,c,...). Offspring with one set of traits (say, a,b,c,...) can have more children than those with other traits (say, a,x,c,...). Which of these facts is less factual than gravity?

DS · 9 February 2013

DS said: Sir, you seem to be sadly misinformed. You do know that we have a wealth of molecular genetic evidence for evolution, not just fossils, right? You do know that we don't have any genetic evidence from fifty million year old fossils, right? You do know that all of the molecular genetic data show that cetaceans were descended from terrestrial ancestors, right? You do know that there is no real controversy among the experts as to whether evolution occurred, even though some of the minor details still need to be determined, right? You do know that intermediates in a sequence do not have to have ancestral relationships, right? Have you been listening to those wacky creationists? Have you fallen for all of their misrepresentations and distortions? Have you actually read the primary literature for yourself? Or are you just taking the word of charlatans and liars? Now if you would care to make a comment about the actual topic of this thread, instead of just slinging mud, perhaps you can avoid the ignominious fate of being summarily banished to the bathroom wall.

apokryltaros · 9 February 2013

Pitiable victim of Dunning-Kruger Effect whined: Please tell me that not everyone agrees with this [that there is no more "sides" to the question of evolution]

We could but then we would be deliberately lying to you. The question of whether or not Biological Evolution occurs has already been answered by having observed and studied in detail for over a century and a half, and is easily supported by literal mountains of evidence that are easily found through casual searches in any search engine.

Theory is not like the law of gravity.

A "Theory" is an explanation of "natural laws," i.e., an explanation of how natural phenomena behave. The Theory of Evolution explains both the diversity of living and once living organisms, and the mechanics of how this diversity is achieved. Intelligent Design/Creationism explains absolutely nothing, being nothing more than idiotic reiterations of the nonanswer GODDIDIT. If I'm wrong, please, feel free to educate me if you dare.

At least I'm not the only one who seems clueless here.

Technically speaking, you are not the only clueless person here: the other science-denying trolls hat this are equally clueless and equally stupid as you are. But, if we're to go with your snide implication that we're clueless because we do not agree with your science-denialism, then you are a deliberately blind, lying idiot on top of being a clueless troll.

Doc Bill · 9 February 2013

Here we go again!

Assertion about whale evolution (what a surprise!) Followed up with the "evolution" of automobiles (surprise again!) Then changing the subject to what SOB's we all are (surprise, but guilty as charged) To be followed by 20 pages of jibber-jabber (and no more surprises.)

Creationist Groundhog Day ... again.

Please, what does it take to get a new IDiot around here! Harold, call room service!

Mike Elzinga · 9 February 2013

twoapplestobees said: My goal was to show that people who sit in Frank’s camp (you may be included) only accept opinions and research from within your camp. You, harold, played into this stereotype perfectly by asking me to cite sources as long as they were not creationist or ID supported. So what you are essentially saying is as long as I use a source from someone you agree with, then you’ll accept it. Isn’t that categorically impossible? The moment a Darwinian Evolutionists publishes a paper that suggests Darwin’s theory may have some problems considering new evidence; this immediately disqualifies them from being one of your acceptable sources. It’s convoluted.

The reason harold did this is because many of us have studied the ID/creationist’s “arguments” since Henry Morris started the Institute for Creation Research back in 1970. We know their misconceptions and misrepresentations of science better than they do. ID/creationist concepts about science are dead wrong; and using misconceptions and misrepresentations about science to make it appear that there are “problems” with evolution is not making arguments about science. It is deliberately muddying up science education in order to interfere with or prevent the teaching of evolution. Now, if you actually have some real scientific objections or problems with evolution that are not already being discussed within the science community, let’s hear them. Can you actually put down a list of objections that do not draw from ID/creationist misconceptions and misrepresentations? Put them down right here and show everybody that you are not stealing from the misconceptions and misrepresentations of the ID/creationists. What could possibly be wrong with that? I’m suggesting that you don’t know, nor can you articulate, any evidence against evolution that doesn’t draw from ID/creationist stuff that we already know is wrong.

Chris Lawson · 9 February 2013

Mike Elzinga said: Now, if you actually have some real scientific objections or problems with evolution that are not already being discussed within the science community, let’s hear them.

I'd add that if you have some real scientific problems that are not already being discussed in the evolutionary science community, you should publish them in the scientific literature. You could be famous and respected among scientists! If, however, you go around asserting that evolution is "just a theory" and less established as a science than gravity, complain that a little spirited criticism of your ignorance is the same as being burnt at the stake for heresy, and think that it matters what a hypothetical resurrected Darwin says (you know, this is called the Argument from Authority Fallacy, and you've doubled up on it by making it an Imaginary Argument from Authority That The Authority Never Made In His Lifetime Fallacy)...well then your wish to have your views treated with respect is unlikely to eventuate. If you are seriously interested in understanding where these arguments come from and why many of the regular contributors here are hostile to them, I'd recommend reading through the talk.origins archive. There's a lot of reading there, and nobody would expect you to digest it all in one sitting, but if you can at least start with the FAQ where all the important recurring issues are listed. And you will find in that FAQ a discussion of why "Evolution is just a theory" is wrong, why "Darwin recanted on his deathbed" is both historically wrong and logically irrelevant, just to mention two erroneous arguments you have used in this thread. And when you're reading this FAQ, remember that old-timers like me who were regular talk.origins readers have been seeing these same old fallacies recycled for *decades*. So, yes, we can get a little cranky when we see them recycled *yet again*.

apokryltaros · 10 February 2013

Chris Lawson said: I'd add that if you have some real scientific problems that are not already being discussed in the evolutionary science community, you should publish them in the scientific literature. You could be famous and respected among scientists! If, however, you go around asserting that evolution is "just a theory" and less established as a science than gravity, complain that a little spirited criticism of your ignorance is the same as being burnt at the stake for heresy, and think that it matters what a hypothetical resurrected Darwin says (you know, this is called the Argument from Authority Fallacy, and you've doubled up on it by making it an Imaginary Argument from Authority That The Authority Never Made In His Lifetime Fallacy)...well then your wish to have your views treated with respect is unlikely to eventuate.

The first two paragraphs of Chris Lawson's comment deserve to be quoted for truth.

Dave Luckett · 10 February 2013

It is an example of the political aims of creationists, and their current methods.

Their aim is to have creationism taught in the public schools. They know that they cannot admit that their motivation is religious. Hence twoapplestobees must dissemble. He does so to the extent of not quite denying his religion, but certainly of denying his religious motivation. No, no, he's an enquirer who wants to find the truth.

For one who is interested in knowing the truth, it's odd that he's not prepared to say where his confident assertions come from. He said that there was evidence that no ancestral connection existed between two fossil species, both of them of animals intermediate between land-dwelling and fully aquatic mammals. Nobody here knows of this evidence. Why can't he cite his source?

(As I have pointed out, it would be interesting, but by no means a problem for the theory of evolution, if it were actually established that Ambiocetus was not a direct ancestor of Rodhocetus.)

Twoapplestobees also refuses to say what should be taught as well as the theory of evolution, if he got his way. The obvious question is, "What other explanation for the origin of the species has evidential support?"

The answer is, "none". There is no evidence for any other theory. What twoapplestobees actually wants is for his objections to evolution to be taught. As we have already seen from his refusal to cite his sources, and his misapprehensions about what the theory actually says, it is practically certain that none of his objections is valid.

diogeneslamp0 · 10 February 2013

Twoapplestobees made factual assertions which, according to him, overturn evolutionary theory. That would make them pretty damn Important! Critical! Crucial! Relevant!

We asked Twoapples again and again and again to provide us with citations and references to the scientific literature for Twoapple's Earth-shaking discoveries! Simple question, no? Important question, yes?

But Twoapples cannot provide us with citations! Oh, nooo! Now, his bullshit about "skulls" and unnamed "molecules" and Ambulocetus and Rhodhocetus have suddenly become not important! Critical! Crucial! Relevant! anymore but now they are Trivial! Unimportant! Irrelevant!

I, like everyone here on Panda's Thumb, am shocked, SHOCKED that a creationist would announce his ground-breaking discoveries that overturn evolutionary theory and practically prove the existence of God and all his prophets-- and then, when asked for a simple reference, CHANGE THE FUCKING SUBJECT!

OHH, how SHOCKED I am at that behavior! I've never seen that happen before-- well, not in the last TWELVE HOURS I HAVEN'T!

Jesus Tapdancing Christ, I went a full TWELVE FUCKING HOURS without encountering a creationist on the internet egomaniacally blathering outright lies copied and pasted from Asses Engender Us, who, when challenged as to factual accuracy, changes the fucking subject!

Twoapplestobees error-filled comment shows he is obviously not a scientist, but with great confidence he assert he knows more about what goes on in the scientific community than scientists do.

Do you know how many, how many, egomaniacal creationist assholes we have debated? Do you really think you're saying anything we haven't heard like a million times before?

Here's how this works, every time:

1. Egomaniacal creationist asshole appears at Panda's Thumb. Asserts he knows what REALLY goes on in science labs, which he has NEVER visited, and we real scientists don't know what goes on in our real science labs.

2. Egomaniacal creationist asshole copies outright lies contradicted by easily verifiable scientific facts from creationist websites, like Answers in Genesis.

3. We challenge egomaniacal creationist asshole to present citations to the scientific literature.

4. Egomaniacal creationist asshole does not present citations to the scientific literature, because he has never read a scientific paper in his life and it would kill him if he tried.

5. We cite evidence from the scientific literature proving him wrong.

6. Egomaniacal creationist asshole does not admit he was wrong, and never considers the possibility that his authorities (Asses Engender Us) deceived him.

7. Instead, he dismisses his previous crucial, critical, important, falsehood as trivil, irrelevant, unimportant, and changes the subject to a new, different, outright lie copied from creationist websites like Asses Engender Us. GISH GALLOP.

8. Go to step 3, repeat.

There is no evidence in TwoApple's comment that he has ever met a real scientist in his life, no evidence he ever set foot in a science lab, no evidence that he has ever even read a single scientific paper.

What makes this sort of person so insufferable isn't just the dishonesty, it's the egomania.

Now if you're not going to cite the paper about Ambulocetus and Rhodhocetus, then can we just skip ahead to the part where you say "Hitler was a Darwinist, and you'll go to hell unless you accept Jesus as your savior!" Just save us some damn time!

If you can't cite the scientific literature, then just give us the link to the webpage at Asses Engdender Us! Be a man and cough up your real sources!

SensuousCurmudgeon · 10 February 2013

diogeneslamp0 said: Do you know how many, how many, egomaniacal creationist assholes we have debated? Do you really think you're saying anything we haven't heard like a million times before?

That was entertaining, and now I'm really conflicted. I never allow creationists at my site, yet I do enjoy it when, as here, an ignorant creationist blowhard (sorry for the redundancy) is decisively crushed, pounded into ground, humiliated, etc. I keep telling myself that what makes these things fun isn't sadism, it's my keen appreciation of justice. But I like it best when the inevitable mess on the floor is at someone else's site, not mine. The real problem is that it doesn't stop here. Just as in a cheaply-made zombie movie, the creationist will rise again and continue his attacks, unaware that his limbs are falling off, half his head is gone, etc. And after you've seen one zombie movie you don't need to see any more -- unless you're a big fan of the genre. But I keep looking anyway, and every now and then there's a memorable scene, like the one that just happened.

prongs · 10 February 2013

And who does Twoapples remind you of?

Who has used the Ambiocetus-Rodhocetus schtick before? And the "I'm just a fair neutral sciency person yadda yadda yadda" before?

Who uses long handles? Who hasn't been around for a long time?

We wonders, my Precious, yes we wonders.

Karen S. · 10 February 2013

RoadApples,

Are there 2 sides to germ theory?

harold · 10 February 2013

Twoapplestobees - I will note that you did not reply to my questions.

Thanks for the reply harold. Your response to my post gives an insight into the stereotypes and confusion behind this subject. First, my post was referring to Frank J’s insinuation that the only people who would dare question the scientific reliability of Darwinian Evolution are incompetent “clowns.” That’s a very one-sided, biased opinion.

Of course the language is biased. But his frustration is understandable.

My goal was to show that people who sit in Frank’s camp (you may be included) only accept opinions and research from within your camp. You, harold, played into this stereotype perfectly by asking me to cite sources as long as they were not creationist or ID supported. So what you are essentially saying is as long as I use a source from someone you agree with, then you’ll accept it. Isn’t that categorically impossible? The moment a Darwinian Evolutionists publishes a paper that suggests Darwin’s theory may have some problems considering new evidence; this immediately disqualifies them from being one of your acceptable sources. It’s convoluted.

This is an accidental misrepresentation of what I wrote. It's frustrating to deal with people who misrepresent, even when they do so accidentally. Here is what I originally said -

Please provide a reference - not a link to a creationist web site, a primary reference - supporting your claim

It seems that you don't know what "primary reference" means. It most certainly does not mean that I "agree" with it or am aware of it. It means that it is primary scholarly work that provides some sort of convincing support for a stated claim. Bottom line, you could not or would not provide any.

Second, you said that my objection wouldn’t explain where whales came from or speak to any more reasons for or against evolution. I know! Again let me say, I’m not making an argument here about why I think Evolution is right or wrong. I’m saying that, contrary to popular opinion, there is in fact a debate among scientists about whether Darwinian Evolution is still a sufficient explanation for the origin of life.

Actually, you have demonstrated the opposite of that. There is a mild controversy of public opinion, as your comments show. For there to be a scientific controversy, there would have to be some evidence against biological evolution and some evidence in favor of intelligent design. You have not shown any evidence against the theory of evolution. You have refused to show any evidence for ID.

And quite honestly there are “clowns” on both sides.

You seem to be very upset at the possibility that Frank J considers you a clown. I find that priority misguided.

Lastly you mentioned the Bible in question 9. I think you have, as many often do, confused this scientific issue with a religious one. If you look again, I never mentioned the Bible in my post. I don’t think the Bible has anything to do with this. We don’t need to consult the Bible to see that there is clearly a debate within the scientific community on this issue.

I will generously take this as the single direct answer to any question, and assume that it means that you concede that pi does not equal exactly 3, the earth does not have exactly four corners, and the Bible sometimes uses language that is not "literally" true. Please correct me if I have misinterpreted.

Personally, I would be opened to the viewpoints of those who speak from a YEC viewpoint if they have good scientific arguments, but as I see it, the data suggests that the earth is in fact much older than YEC’s claim. There is a group of old earth creationists that make some good arguments about creation; however, I’m not as familiar with them.

So you are open to data about the age of the earth, but not open to data about the relationship between different forms of life on earth. Why the double standard?

You asked for a non-creationist and non-ID reference… In, Evolution and the Myth of Creationism, biologist Tim Berra attempts to show how similarities within the fossil record are evidence for evolution. He writes, “If you compare a 1953 and a 1954 Corvette, side by side, then a 1954 and a 1955 model, and so on, the descent with modification is overwhelmingly obvious” (117-119). Hopefully you see the major issue here. Corvettes are DESIGNED by Chevrolet! Berra has a great point but not for the Evolutionists—rather for the IDers. He completely undercut his entire argument.

This is neither an argument against evolution, nor, much less, an argument in favor of ID. Everyone already realizes that the objects humans design are designed by humans. Everyone already realizes that a hornets' nest is designed by hornets. We can recognize those facts because we know something about the designers, including their limitations.

You asked me in question 2 what I would support more: the teaching of ID or YEC. I don’t think either should be supported more. I support the discussion of Darwinian Evolution, Theistic Evolution (as purported by Francis Collins),

These are the same thing. Francis Collins does not support teaching religion in science class.

ID, Young Earth, Old Earth and anything else that is supported by good arguments of science.

You admitted above that Young Earth creationism is not supported, now you say it is. I asked you for any positive evidence in favor of ID, and you could not provide any. Incidentally, you also did not provide any evidence for "Old Earth" creationism. Science class is for science. There are an infinite number of wrong ideas. We cannot waste science class time on all of them.

My goal is that Evolutionists would admit that there is a debate and to stop responding to news of schools teaching all sides of the debate as if all of the crazy Bible thumping clowns are trying to pull the wool over everybody’s eyes. That’s simple not the case.

. 1) Your goal is misguided. There is no scientific debate. Your comments illustrate that. You don't provide any evidence for ID, nor any serious argument against biological evolution. 2) Evolution denial in the US, including the current round of bills, is massively associated with evangelical fundamentalists. That is a fact. May I ask what your particular religious views are? Furthermore, you have had the wool pulled over your eyes, and are now trying to do the same thing to others. There is no scientific controversy about the general validity of the theory of evolution, the clear evidence against YEC, nor the vapidness of ID. You think otherwise - probably permanently - because at some crucial stage in your life, someone pulled the wool over your eyes. 3) You do not seem to have a good grasp of the theory of evolution. Learning to understand any science requires overcoming two barriers. One, ignorance, and two, bias. We all start ignorant, but that can be overcome with hard work. Emotional biases, however, may make it impossible to learn. In closing, let me emphasize that I am not arguing against anyone's private religious beliefs here, and support your right to live and believe as you see fit, as long as you respect the rights of others. This thread is about whether or not there should be sectarian dogma science denial in taxpayer funded public school science class. There should not, and if there were, that would not be respecting the rights of others. In a subsequent comment I will repeat my questions.

DS · 10 February 2013

prongs said: And who does Twoapples remind you of? Who has used the Ambiocetus-Rodhocetus schtick before? And the "I'm just a fair neutral sciency person yadda yadda yadda" before? Who uses long handles? Who hasn't been around for a long time? We wonders, my Precious, yes we wonders.

I'm sure someone is already checking the E-mail address and ISP. Some people are incapable of effective subterfuge.

harold · 10 February 2013

SensuousCurmudgeon said:
diogeneslamp0 said: Do you know how many, how many, egomaniacal creationist assholes we have debated? Do you really think you're saying anything we haven't heard like a million times before?
That was entertaining, and now I'm really conflicted. I never allow creationists at my site, yet I do enjoy it when, as here, an ignorant creationist blowhard (sorry for the redundancy) is decisively crushed, pounded into ground, humiliated, etc. I keep telling myself that what makes these things fun isn't sadism, it's my keen appreciation of justice. But I like it best when the inevitable mess on the floor is at someone else's site, not mine. The real problem is that it doesn't stop here. Just as in a cheaply-made zombie movie, the creationist will rise again and continue his attacks, unaware that his limbs are falling off, half his head is gone, etc. And after you've seen one zombie movie you don't need to see any more -- unless you're a big fan of the genre. But I keep looking anyway, and every now and then there's a memorable scene, like the one that just happened.

I'm a very, very part time member of the effort - don't even have my own blog, and if I do set one up, it won't be about creationism - but I have made an effort to respond to political creationism since 1999, when I first became aware of its existence. (I was aware of Chick tracts and so on before that but not of organized political efforts.) Adults with authoritarian personality structures, emotionally committed to the goal of pushing at least some evolution denial in public school science class, by any means necessary, cannot be convinced by verbal reasoning. As I've noted elsewhere, unethical and illegal tactics reminiscent of "A Clockwork Orange" or the kidnapping of Patty Hearst would probably be necessary to cause them to give up their ideology. And even such tactics would probably only make them authoritarians committed to a different authoritarian system, much like seventies "revolutionary communists" who became neo-conservatives. My objective is never to directly convince them. It is always to show third party observers precisely what they claim to want, "both sides". PT needs a lot of moderating, no doubt, but the "multi-tiered" system - with the "bathroom wall" intermediate between the main site and outright banning of accounts - is an excellent innovation. Creationists who have been challenged respond in one of three ways - 1) Running away, by far the most common response, although you don't see them because they have run away. 2) Violent threats and epithets, in which case they need to be banned, and in rare extreme cases, may necessitate the involvement of law enforcement. 3) Obsessive repetitive verbosity, which seems to be driven by intense cognitive dissonance. Number "3)" creates a dilemma, as allowing it means that these particular trolls, and those who tirelessly respond to them, will take over the comments section. The BW represents an outlet for this. A fair number of articulate pro-science commenters seem to have the time and energy to constantly pursue these types on the BW.

DS · 10 February 2013

Twoostupidtoknowbetter wrote:

"I’m saying that, contrary to popular opinion, there is in fact a debate among scientists about whether Darwinian Evolution is still a sufficient explanation for the origin of life."

Wrong. FIrst, if there really were a debate among scientists, it would appear in the scientific literature. That's why you were asked to provide your references. The fact that you cannot do so demonstrates that you are lying about it. The fact that there are creationist webs sites is not evidence for the assertion. And quote mining isn't going to help you here, so don't even bother. Second, evolution is not an explanation for the origin of life. Only a creationist would say such a thing. So, once again, you are shown to disingenuous and dishonest.

Now look, if you want to discuss the genetic evidence that cetaceans are descended form terrestrial ancestors, fine. I can provide you with dozens of references from the scientific literature. If all you want to do is spout lies and creationist nonsense, go away. And if that's you again Joe, no one wants to play your childish games anymore. You are an obsessed psychotic with delusions of competence. Seek professional help.

TomS · 10 February 2013

twoapplestobees said: Would it even matter if Darwin himself rose from the dead to pose opposing views?

It would matter if there were an alternative to evolutionary biology, no matter who proposed it. Evolutionary biology is not based on authority. And "Intelligent Design" is not an alternative to evolutionary biology.

prongs · 10 February 2013

twoapplestobees said: You asked for a non-creationist and non-ID reference… In, Evolution and the Myth of Creationism, biologist Tim Berra attempts to show how similarities within the fossil record are evidence for evolution. He writes, “If you compare a 1953 and a 1954 Corvette, side by side, then a 1954 and a 1955 model, and so on, the descent with modification is overwhelmingly obvious” (117-119). Hopefully you see the major issue here. Corvettes are DESIGNED by Chevrolet! Berra has a great point but not for the Evolutionists—rather for the IDers. He completely undercut his entire argument.

I happen to be a fan of Tim Berra - I HAVE HIS BOOK. And as Paul Harvey used to say, "Here's the rest of the quotation!" On page 117:

"The accelerating pace of hominid fossil discoveries is truly dazzling. In Darwin's time, only a few Neanderthal remains were known, and they were misunderstood. Today we have a whole cast of characters in the drama of human evolution. These fossils are the hard evidence of human evolution. They are not figments of scientific imagination. If the australopithecinces, Homo habilis and H. erectus, were still alive today, and if we could parade them before the world, there could be no doubt of our relatedness to them. It would be like attending an auto show. If you look at a 1953 Corvette and compare it to the latest model, only the most general resemblances are evident, but if you compare a 1953 and a 1954 Corvette, side by side, then a 1954 and a 1955 model, and so on, the descent with modification is overwhelmingly obvious (Figure 41)."

(Italics in the original.) Is this not a perfect example of creationist quotemining? Berra is using Analogy when he says, "It would be like attending an auto show." And as every debater and logician knows, Analogies can only be carried so far before they break down. They are meant to teach, and not meant to be mathematical proofs. Twoapples, you betray yourself with your feigned neutrality and open-mindedness. These are precisely the tactics of ID/creationists attempting to teach their religion in public schools - they have no leg to stand on in the courts of justice nor the courts of science, so they attempt to short-circuit the peer-review process (which the have already failed) and inject their "teach the controversy" into schools, to be taught to little children. How sinister, and evil. You also betray yourself by the use of "Evolutionists". This is a telling buzzword of Creationist, just like "fully-formed". I name you "TwoApplesShort" on the blind scales of Justice and Honesty.

Karen S. · 10 February 2013

Thanks for that, prongs. I had asked RoadApples if he had read the entire book, and to my great shock, he didn't answer. Poor RoadApples! He's not having any luck fooling us, is he?

W. H. Heydt · 10 February 2013

I was mildly taken with the argument that Darwin, were he to suddenly brought to life and objected to some aspect of modern Evolutionary Theory, would be dismissed out of hand. Besides the obvious, and very, very false, assertion contained in the claim--the implication that Evolutionary Theory is driven by authority--there is the problem that it catastrophically misreads Darwin's character as evidenced by the historical record.

If Darwin, after looking at the current state of evidence *for* some point of Evolutionary Theory, decided that it was wrong, he wouldn't just come out and say so. Rather, he would research the point *thoroughly*, quite possibly for many years, and then present a well reasoned, impeccably supported--by actual evidence--treatise on why he was right and others were wrong. He would also go to considerable lengths to be sure that he *fully* understood what he was dealing with *before* making any statements about the topic.

In short, Darwin was a scientist and would do scientific research to back up whatever opinions he had on a scientific topic.

I also rather suspect that he would be mightily impressed by the state of modern Evolutionary Theory, the amount of evidence supporting it, and the diversity of fields that contribute to that evidence. However, he *wouldn't* attempt to assert someone was wrong because they either disagreed with him or had corrected an error he'd made.

apokryltaros · 10 February 2013

TomS said: And "Intelligent Design" is not an alternative to evolutionary biology.

And "Intelligent Design" was never intended to be an alternative to Evolutionary Biology, it is intended to be a "Trojan Horse" to permit Young Earth Creationism to be inserted into science education curricula.

Just Bob · 10 February 2013

And "Intelligent Design" is USELESS. It doesn't, and can't, help us solve ANYTHING.

How about it TATB? What practical results could we expect from applying the principles of ID to scientific research?

twoapplestobees · 10 February 2013

My own words do little to encourage a reasonable and heuristic discussion here so I’ll quote others (all of whom I’m sure you will deem as idiots but here goes nothing): Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr, “Darwin called his great work On the Origin of Species for he was fully conscious of the fact that the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.” Mayr also wrote, “Darwin failed to solve the problem indicated by the title of his work. Although he demonstrated the modification of species in the time dimension, he never seriously attempted a rigorous analysis of the problem of multiplication of species, of the splitting of one species into two. The Growth of Biological Thought (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1982), 403. and Animal Species and Evolution (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1963), 12. Evolutionary biologist Keith Stewart Thomson wrote, “A matter of unfinished business for biologists is the identification of evolution’s smoking gun.” Keith Stewart Thomson, “Natural Selection and Evolution’s Smoking Gun,” American Scientist 85 (1997): 516. University of Bristol bacteriologist Alan Linton wrote, “None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the samples for of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of twenty to thirty minutes, and populations achieved after eighteen hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another… Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to eukaryotic cells, let alone through the whole array of higher multicellular organisms.” “Scant Search for the Maker,” The Times Higher Education Supplement (April 20, 2001), section 29. Evolutionary biologists Lynn Margulis and Dorion Sagan wrote “Speciation, whether in the remote Galapagos, in the laboratory cages of the drosophilosophers, or in the crowed sediments of the paleontologists, still has never been directly traced.” Acquiring Genomes: A Theory of the Origins of Species (New York: Basic Books, 2002), 32. Berkeley geneticist Richard Goldschmidt argues that, “the facts of microevolution do not suffice for an understanding of macroevolution…Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species.” The Material Basis of Evolution (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1940), 8. Biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz and Rudolf Raff wrote in Developmental Biology, “Genetics might be adequate for explaining microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest. The origin of species—Darwin’s problem remains unsolved.” “Resynthesizing Evolutionary and Developmental Biology,” Developmental Biology 173 (1996): 357-372. Biologist Sean B. Carroll, “A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (microevolution) are sufficienet to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life’s history (macroevolution). “The Big Picture,” Nature 409 (2001): 669. Fossil expert Gareth Nelson of the American Museum of Natural History NYC wrote, “The idea that one can go to the fossil record and expect to empirically recover an ancestor-descendant sequence, be it of species, genera, families, or whatever, has been, and continues to be, a pernicious illusion.” From a presentation by Gareth Nelson in 1969 to the American Museum of Natural History, quoted in David M Williams ad Malte C. Ebach, “The Reform of Palaeontology and the Rise of Biogeography—25 Years after ‘Ontogeny, Phylogeny, Palaeontology and the Biogenetic Law’ (Nelson, 1978),” Journal of Biogeography 31 (2004): 709. Henry Gee, science writer for Nature wrote, "No fossil is buried with its birth certificate. That, and the scarcity of fossils, means that it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way…as if the chain of ancestry and descent were a real object for our contemplation, and not what it really is: a completely human invention created after the fact, shaped to accord with human prejudices. To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.” In Search of Deep Time (New York: Free Press, 1999), 23, 32, 116-117. Do any of these scientist have a clue to you? Or are they all morons and trolls too?

Mike Elzinga said:
twoapplestobees said: My goal was to show that people who sit in Frank’s camp (you may be included) only accept opinions and research from within your camp. You, harold, played into this stereotype perfectly by asking me to cite sources as long as they were not creationist or ID supported. So what you are essentially saying is as long as I use a source from someone you agree with, then you’ll accept it. Isn’t that categorically impossible? The moment a Darwinian Evolutionists publishes a paper that suggests Darwin’s theory may have some problems considering new evidence; this immediately disqualifies them from being one of your acceptable sources. It’s convoluted.
The reason harold did this is because many of us have studied the ID/creationist’s “arguments” since Henry Morris started the Institute for Creation Research back in 1970. We know their misconceptions and misrepresentations of science better than they do. ID/creationist concepts about science are dead wrong; and using misconceptions and misrepresentations about science to make it appear that there are “problems” with evolution is not making arguments about science. It is deliberately muddying up science education in order to interfere with or prevent the teaching of evolution. Now, if you actually have some real scientific objections or problems with evolution that are not already being discussed within the science community, let’s hear them. Can you actually put down a list of objections that do not draw from ID/creationist misconceptions and misrepresentations? Put them down right here and show everybody that you are not stealing from the misconceptions and misrepresentations of the ID/creationists. What could possibly be wrong with that? I’m suggesting that you don’t know, nor can you articulate, any evidence against evolution that doesn’t draw from ID/creationist stuff that we already know is wrong.

DS said:
prongs said: And who does Twoapples remind you of? Who has used the Ambiocetus-Rodhocetus schtick before? And the "I'm just a fair neutral sciency person yadda yadda yadda" before? Who uses long handles? Who hasn't been around for a long time? We wonders, my Precious, yes we wonders.
I'm sure someone is already checking the E-mail address and ISP. Some people are incapable of effective subterfuge.

diogeneslamp0 said: Twoapplestobees made factual assertions which, according to him, overturn evolutionary theory. That would make them pretty damn Important! Critical! Crucial! Relevant! We asked Twoapples again and again and again to provide us with citations and references to the scientific literature for Twoapple's Earth-shaking discoveries! Simple question, no? Important question, yes? But Twoapples cannot provide us with citations! Oh, nooo! Now, his bullshit about "skulls" and unnamed "molecules" and Ambulocetus and Rhodhocetus have suddenly become not important! Critical! Crucial! Relevant! anymore but now they are Trivial! Unimportant! Irrelevant! I, like everyone here on Panda's Thumb, am shocked, SHOCKED that a creationist would announce his ground-breaking discoveries that overturn evolutionary theory and practically prove the existence of God and all his prophets-- and then, when asked for a simple reference, CHANGE THE FUCKING SUBJECT! OHH, how SHOCKED I am at that behavior! I've never seen that happen before-- well, not in the last TWELVE HOURS I HAVEN'T! Jesus Tapdancing Christ, I went a full TWELVE FUCKING HOURS without encountering a creationist on the internet egomaniacally blathering outright lies copied and pasted from Asses Engender Us, who, when challenged as to factual accuracy, changes the fucking subject! Twoapplestobees error-filled comment shows he is obviously not a scientist, but with great confidence he assert he knows more about what goes on in the scientific community than scientists do. Do you know how many, how many, egomaniacal creationist assholes we have debated? Do you really think you're saying anything we haven't heard like a million times before? Here's how this works, every time: 1. Egomaniacal creationist asshole appears at Panda's Thumb. Asserts he knows what REALLY goes on in science labs, which he has NEVER visited, and we real scientists don't know what goes on in our real science labs. 2. Egomaniacal creationist asshole copies outright lies contradicted by easily verifiable scientific facts from creationist websites, like Answers in Genesis. 3. We challenge egomaniacal creationist asshole to present citations to the scientific literature. 4. Egomaniacal creationist asshole does not present citations to the scientific literature, because he has never read a scientific paper in his life and it would kill him if he tried. 5. We cite evidence from the scientific literature proving him wrong. 6. Egomaniacal creationist asshole does not admit he was wrong, and never considers the possibility that his authorities (Asses Engender Us) deceived him. 7. Instead, he dismisses his previous crucial, critical, important, falsehood as trivil, irrelevant, unimportant, and changes the subject to a new, different, outright lie copied from creationist websites like Asses Engender Us. GISH GALLOP. 8. Go to step 3, repeat. There is no evidence in TwoApple's comment that he has ever met a real scientist in his life, no evidence he ever set foot in a science lab, no evidence that he has ever even read a single scientific paper. What makes this sort of person so insufferable isn't just the dishonesty, it's the egomania. Now if you're not going to cite the paper about Ambulocetus and Rhodhocetus, then can we just skip ahead to the part where you say "Hitler was a Darwinist, and you'll go to hell unless you accept Jesus as your savior!" Just save us some damn time! If you can't cite the scientific literature, then just give us the link to the webpage at Asses Engdender Us! Be a man and cough up your real sources!

phhht · 10 February 2013

twoapplestobees said: My own words do little ...

That's because you won't say them. Consider these facts. When living things reproduce, their offspring inherit traits (call them a,b,c,…) from their parents. Inheritance is inexact (sometimes a,b,c,… becomes a,x,c,…). Offspring with one set of traits (say, a,b,c,…) can have more children than those with other traits (say, a,x,c,…). Which of these facts is less factual than gravity?

phhht · 10 February 2013

twoapplestobees said: My own words...

Your own words say that you are an ID proponent, a religiously motivated loony. You can't say how to tell whether a thing is designed or not. Hell, you yourself can't tell design from non-design, despite any claims to the contrary. Why don't you shut my insulting mouth for me, creation boy? Why don't you answer that question?

twoapplestobees · 10 February 2013

Mixing up genes and passing on different traits to offspring is not Evolution. You can maybe call it micro evolution, but that's still barely the same thing as a monkey evolving from a mollusk. Yes it is true that two brown eyed people can have a blue eyed child. But that's not evolution. Even with the famous Galapagos finches, the beak sizes changed and then changed back in a genetic cycle. The same thing happens WITHIN many species. The genes within the species express themselves differently over a long period of time. But NO NEW genes are introduced. No one, not any one can PROVE that a single cell, millions upon millions of years ago mutated and became a person. I'm not saying GOD did it. I've never mentioned God. I'm saying that you cannot prove it. I just cited sources above from some Journals that you all read that support this. Gravity is different because we can test it and prove it today. We can't do that with something that took place before humans existed. Is this not elementary? Prove me wrong. Or if all else fails, call me more names. At least most of your vocabularies are impressive.

phhht said:
twoapplestobees said: My own words do little ...
That's because you won't say them. Consider these facts. When living things reproduce, their offspring inherit traits (call them a,b,c,…) from their parents. Inheritance is inexact (sometimes a,b,c,… becomes a,x,c,…). Offspring with one set of traits (say, a,b,c,…) can have more children than those with other traits (say, a,x,c,…). Which of these facts is less factual than gravity?

prongs · 10 February 2013

TwoApplesShort quotes a litany of specially selected passages from various reputable sources.

Nevermind his quotemine example I exploded earlier, TwoApplesShort doesn't answer but just gives a laundry list of new quotemined quotes.

It reads like the webpage of a creationist website. I wonder why?

TwoApplesShort is not genuinely neutral, not truly concerned about being 'fair', TwoApplesShort is just trying to tear down well established, well founded, evolutionary theory just like the Creationist he is. He comes here to throw stones at the Devil.

Just who is TwoApplesShort? John Woodmorappe, Sarfati, Lisle, Purdon, IBIG? Inquiring minds want to know.

twoapplestobees · 10 February 2013

My name is Henry and I just laughed out loud that you accused me of "not being neutral." Do you consider yourself neutral? I'll pause to let you think up a way why your rules don't apply to yourself.

prongs said: TwoApplesShort quotes a litany of specially selected passages from various reputable sources. Nevermind his quotemine example I exploded earlier, TwoApplesShort doesn't answer but just gives a laundry list of new quotemined quotes. It reads like the webpage of a creationist website. I wonder why? TwoApplesShort is not genuinely neutral, not truly concerned about being 'fair', TwoApplesShort is just trying to tear down well established, well founded, evolutionary theory just like the Creationist he is. He comes here to throw stones at the Devil. Just who is TwoApplesShort? John Woodmorappe, Sarfati, Lisle, Purdon, IBIG? Inquiring minds want to know.

phhht · 10 February 2013

Nonsense. You don't know what you're talking about. Your arguments need stilts to reach the bottom of specious. You didn't take our advice and read talk.origins, obviously. They list many observed speciation events. I don't have to prove common ancestry, or evolution. They are as well-supported as gravity. Your denial of this fact is one of the ways we recognize that you are a loony. The three-step algorithm I cited, that is evolution. Each of the steps is as factual as the fact that a dropped object falls to the ground. And you cannot deny any of them, unless you are a loony. New genes are introduced every time there is a mutation. But I don't expect you to grasp such hyper-scientific details: they're obviously too tough for you. And speaking of tough, how's that desperate search for some way to tell the designed from the non-designed? Still nothing, huh creation boy. Show me that and you can shut my filthy name-calling mouth for me, loony.

twoapplestobees said: Mixing up genes and passing on different traits to offspring is not Evolution. You can maybe call it micro evolution, but that's still barely the same thing as a monkey evolving from a mollusk. Yes it is true that two brown eyed people can have a blue eyed child. But that's not evolution. Even with the famous Galapagos finches, the beak sizes changed and then changed back in a genetic cycle. The same thing happens WITHIN many species. The genes within the species express themselves differently over a long period of time. But NO NEW genes are introduced. No one, not any one can PROVE that a single cell, millions upon millions of years ago mutated and became a person. I'm not saying GOD did it. I've never mentioned God. I'm saying that you cannot prove it. I just cited sources above from some Journals that you all read that support this. Gravity is different because we can test it and prove it today. We can't do that with something that took place before humans existed. Is this not elementary? Prove me wrong. Or if all else fails, call me more names. At least most of your vocabularies are impressive.
phhht said:
twoapplestobees said: My own words do little ...
That's because you won't say them. Consider these facts. When living things reproduce, their offspring inherit traits (call them a,b,c,…) from their parents. Inheritance is inexact (sometimes a,b,c,… becomes a,x,c,…). Offspring with one set of traits (say, a,b,c,…) can have more children than those with other traits (say, a,x,c,…). Which of these facts is less factual than gravity?

Scott F · 10 February 2013

twoapplestobees said: Mixing up genes and passing on different traits to offspring is not Evolution.

phhht said: The definition of "Evolution" is, "The change in allele frequencies over time". That is exactly the scientific term for "mixing up genes and passing on different traits to offspring". Add time, and you get speciation. Look up "ring species" for evolutionary speciation in action, observable today.

You can maybe call it micro evolution, but that’s still barely the same thing as a monkey evolving from a mollusk. ... No one, not any one can PROVE that a single cell, millions upon millions of years ago mutated and became a person

Oh my. I'm afraid you've given away the store with those two. No one but a YEC uses the term "micro evolution". You were the one who brought it up, not anyone else. The only difference between "micro evolution" and "macro evolution" is time. And monkeys from mollusks? Humans from goo? Who said anything of the sort? Another straw man. Both modern man, modern monkeys, and modern mollusks are equally evolved from the ancestral form(s), whatever that was. (And yes, I'm setting myself up for a quote mine here, intentionally. Prediction: TwoApples (if he responds at all) will ignore everything else in this comment and focus on this shaky generalization. :-) Clearly you have no idea what a scientific theory is. No one, not a single scientist has ever said anything about "proof". Science deals with "evidence", and tentative "conclusions" based on that "evidence". If new evidence is discovered, then the tentative conclusions change to accommodate it. It's only the religiously motivated YEC that demands "PROOF(tm)" beyond a shadow of a doubt. Yet, the YEC believes without said "proof" or evidence of any kind, that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, and that Yahweh created all living things in one unique act of special creation.

Scott F · 10 February 2013

Apologies to "phhht". My blockquoting was incorrect.

phhht · 10 February 2013

a monkey evolving from a mollusk

(m,o,n,k,e,y) -> (m,o,l,k,e,y) -> (m,o,l,l,e,y) -> (m,o,l,l,u,y) -> (m,o,l,l,u,s) -> (m,o,l,l,u,s,k) See, Pithpoor? It works kind of like that.

phhht · 10 February 2013

Scott F said: Apologies to "phhht". My blockquoting was incorrect.

I'd be happy to say what you did.

apokryltaros · 10 February 2013

So why is it a bad thing to be biased towards science, and biased against spreading lies and misinformation? Why should anyone take your opinions seriously when you do nothing but recycle blatant Creationist lies, and antagonize us for not bowing down and worshiping your opinion as unimpeachable holy law?

science-hating idiot blithered: My name is Henry and I just laughed out loud that you accused me of "not being neutral." Do you consider yourself neutral? I'll pause to let you think up a way why your rules don't apply to yourself.
prongs said: TwoApplesShort quotes a litany of specially selected passages from various reputable sources. Nevermind his quotemine example I exploded earlier, TwoApplesShort doesn't answer but just gives a laundry list of new quotemined quotes. It reads like the webpage of a creationist website. I wonder why? TwoApplesShort is not genuinely neutral, not truly concerned about being 'fair', TwoApplesShort is just trying to tear down well established, well founded, evolutionary theory just like the Creationist he is. He comes here to throw stones at the Devil. Just who is TwoApplesShort? John Woodmorappe, Sarfati, Lisle, Purdon, IBIG? Inquiring minds want to know.

apokryltaros · 10 February 2013

liar taunted: *blatant quotemining snipped* Do any of these scientist have a clue to you? Or are they all morons and trolls too?

No, because it is blatantly obvious that all of those scientists have been deliberately misquoted so as to dishonestly sound like they were refuting evolution. Copy and pasted them from some creationist website no doubt, too.

DS · 10 February 2013

Henry (AKA Joe),

I have posted my questions twice now. You have ignored them. If you choose to answer the questions please do so on the bathroom wall. If you don't you will continue to be ignored by me. You have already been shown to be ignorant, dishonest and disingenuous, so I don't see why anyone would choose to respond to you either. And if you turn out to really be Joe, you will get what you deserve.

apokryltaros · 10 February 2013

DS said: Henry (AKA Joe), I have posted my questions twice now. You have ignored them. If you choose to answer the questions please do so on the bathroom wall. If you don't you will continue to be ignored by me. You have already been shown to be ignorant, dishonest and disingenuous, so I don't see why anyone would choose to respond to you either. And if you turn out to really be Joe, you will get what you deserve.

Given as how twoapplestobees has already outed himself as a blatant troll who's uninterested in doing anything but Lying For Jesus and antagonizing us for not bowing down to worship its Lies For Jesus, it should be banished either way.

Scott F · 10 February 2013

twoapplestobees said: Now I may not be a genius able to cite every single piece of evidence according to your rules, but it wouldn't matter if I did.

Okay. I'm no genius either. I'm not a biologist, nor any kind of "scientist" as the folks here would admit of. I just write software for a living, and stayed at a Holiday Inn last night. My quality of "quoting" and "evidence" is to link to Wikipedia pages. I've never read a "real" scientific paper (though I've read many abstracts, and lots of reviews). (Well, okay, I've read a few articles in Science and Nature, but I suspect those were written more for the layman like myself.) So let me, a non-scientist, ask you (twoapples) an easier question: provide wiki-level citations for your evidence against evolution. No quote mines, no "doubts" from scientists out of context. Just some "positive" evidence that Evolution can't explain. I showed you my favorite Wiki article, demonstrating speciation in action that we can see today with our own eyes (if we could cruise around the Arctic and watch the sea gulls for long enough). Link to all the creationist web sites you want. I don't mind. They're fun to read for a laugh. Then I (a not-a-biologist) will go to talk.origins and see if I can find the article that refutes your "evidence". I always enjoy learning something new. So how about it? Show me your evidence? Game on?

Scott F · 10 February 2013

If the management doesn't mind, that is. We are tangentially on topic so far; Creationism Bill and all that.

Chris Lawson · 10 February 2013

Oh for goodness sake,

Your first reference is a deliberate misquote of Mayr -- he was describing speciation as the central problem of evolutionary theory, not questioning the capacity for the theory to deal with it. The second quote is Mayr explaining one of the mistakes Darwin made *seventy years* prior to Mayr's book. It is not at all saying that there is genuine debate in scientific circles about evolution itself. So your first 2 quotes are lies.

Tell me why I should look at any more of your deceptive quotemining.

Henry J · 10 February 2013

Monkey evolving from mollusk?

According to the phylogeny chart that I've looked at (tolweb.org), the ancestors of mollusks and chordates split quite a while before becoming either one specifically.

Taking "snapshots" over time, some of the steps were earlier members of the groups in the following list, with some descriptive information.

-------------------------------------------

Archaea (resemble bacteria)

Eukaryotes (typically contain mitochondria of some sort)

opisthokonts (split from green plants)

Animals (multicelled forms, catch and eat other organisms; split from fungi)

Bilateria (left-right symmetry, three germ layers)

Deuterostomia (split from mollusks and arthropods)

Chordata (spinal chord; split from starfish)

Craniata (skull)

Vertebrata (spine)

Gnathostomata (jaws)

Teleostomi (split from sharks and rays)

Osteichthyes

Sarcopterygii (lobe-finned fish)

Terrestrial Vertebrates (have limbs with digits)

Tetrapoda

Anthracosauria (split from amphibians)

Amniota

Synapsida (split from reptiles)

Eupelycosauria

Sphenacodontia

Sphenacodontoidea

Therapsida

Theriodontia

Cynodontia

Mammalia (give milk to young)

Eutheria (split from monotremes)

Placental Mammals (split from marsupials)

(split from rodents)

Primates (includes lemus, monkeys, apes)

Catarrhini (includes apes, old world monkeys)

Hominidae (great apes, including humans)

-------------------------------------------

So saying "mollusk to monkey" is at best silly and misleading, for at least two reason.

One, both vertebrates and mollusks evolved from early Bilaterians, which would not have possessed the features that we use to distinguish those groups from each other today.

Two, the huge number of intermediate steps between their separation and something resembling what we today would recognize as a monkey.

Tracing it from the split to some recent type of mollusk would produce a similarly long list.

(Even if some items in my list are out of date that wouldn't invalidate the point being made here.)

twoapplestobees · 10 February 2013

Why don't you show me evidence of your side. Somebody show me some good citations from scientific literature that PROVE Darwinian Evolutionary Theory is fact. I'm open to seeing it, cited correctly. So far no one but my self has cited anything real. You can say I've misquoted if you like. I retyped these from the journals/books myself. Is this what you do in your real lives--bully people who have objections or questions? Good grief! You may have convinced me of joining your cause if you all hadn't been hostile and insufferable. So please wow me. As far as I can see you ask all the questions, demand all the answers, and make all of the degrading insults. Where is your evidence that proves evolution is the same as fact or the law of gravity?

DS said: Henry (AKA Joe), I have posted my questions twice now. You have ignored them. If you choose to answer the questions please do so on the bathroom wall. If you don't you will continue to be ignored by me. You have already been shown to be ignorant, dishonest and disingenuous, so I don't see why anyone would choose to respond to you either. And if you turn out to really be Joe, you will get what you deserve.

twoapplestobees · 10 February 2013

So this is my point Henry. You can not prove this. I'm not saying that this didn't happen. I'm just saying that you can't prove it. NO scientist that has published anything ever has said that they can. And if I am wrong, SHOW ME THE ARTICLE. You guys are killing me with your group thinking arrogance. My first comment to the original post was to assert that there was a debate, not to try and prove evolution wrong. One hundred plus comments later I've heard a ton of arguing about ID clowns, YEC and OEC trolls and anybody in between who doesn't agree with your ideas of Evolution. It looks to me like I've proven my point. THERE IS A DEBATE.

Henry J said: Monkey evolving from mollusk? According to the phylogeny chart that I've looked at (tolweb.org), the ancestors of mollusks and chordates split quite a while before becoming either one specifically. Taking "snapshots" over time, some of the steps were earlier members of the groups in the following list, with some descriptive information. ------------------------------------------- Archaea (resemble bacteria) Eukaryotes (typically contain mitochondria of some sort) opisthokonts (split from green plants) Animals (multicelled forms, catch and eat other organisms; split from fungi) Bilateria (left-right symmetry, three germ layers) Deuterostomia (split from mollusks and arthropods) Chordata (spinal chord; split from starfish) Craniata (skull) Vertebrata (spine) Gnathostomata (jaws) Teleostomi (split from sharks and rays) Osteichthyes Sarcopterygii (lobe-finned fish) Terrestrial Vertebrates (have limbs with digits) Tetrapoda Anthracosauria (split from amphibians) Amniota Synapsida (split from reptiles) Eupelycosauria Sphenacodontia Sphenacodontoidea Therapsida Theriodontia Cynodontia Mammalia (give milk to young) Eutheria (split from monotremes) Placental Mammals (split from marsupials) (split from rodents) Primates (includes lemus, monkeys, apes) Catarrhini (includes apes, old world monkeys) Hominidae (great apes, including humans) ------------------------------------------- So saying "mollusk to monkey" is at best silly and misleading, for at least two reason. One, both vertebrates and mollusks evolved from early Bilaterians, which would not have possessed the features that we use to distinguish those groups from each other today. Two, the huge number of intermediate steps between their separation and something resembling what we today would recognize as a monkey. Tracing it from the split to some recent type of mollusk would produce a similarly long list. (Even if some items in my list are out of date that wouldn't invalidate the point being made here.)

twoapplestobees · 10 February 2013

A list of probable descent is not proof. How was this tested empirically? Which scientist lived millions of years ago to document this transformation process?

twoapplestobees said: So this is my point Henry. You can not prove this. I'm not saying that this didn't happen. I'm just saying that you can't prove it. NO scientist that has published anything ever has said that they can. And if I am wrong, SHOW ME THE ARTICLE. You guys are killing me with your group thinking arrogance. My first comment to the original post was to assert that there was a debate, not to try and prove evolution wrong. One hundred plus comments later I've heard a ton of arguing about ID clowns, YEC and OEC trolls and anybody in between who doesn't agree with your ideas of Evolution. It looks to me like I've proven my point. THERE IS A DEBATE.
Henry J said: Monkey evolving from mollusk? According to the phylogeny chart that I've looked at (tolweb.org), the ancestors of mollusks and chordates split quite a while before becoming either one specifically. Taking "snapshots" over time, some of the steps were earlier members of the groups in the following list, with some descriptive information. ------------------------------------------- Archaea (resemble bacteria) Eukaryotes (typically contain mitochondria of some sort) opisthokonts (split from green plants) Animals (multicelled forms, catch and eat other organisms; split from fungi) Bilateria (left-right symmetry, three germ layers) Deuterostomia (split from mollusks and arthropods) Chordata (spinal chord; split from starfish) Craniata (skull) Vertebrata (spine) Gnathostomata (jaws) Teleostomi (split from sharks and rays) Osteichthyes Sarcopterygii (lobe-finned fish) Terrestrial Vertebrates (have limbs with digits) Tetrapoda Anthracosauria (split from amphibians) Amniota Synapsida (split from reptiles) Eupelycosauria Sphenacodontia Sphenacodontoidea Therapsida Theriodontia Cynodontia Mammalia (give milk to young) Eutheria (split from monotremes) Placental Mammals (split from marsupials) (split from rodents) Primates (includes lemus, monkeys, apes) Catarrhini (includes apes, old world monkeys) Hominidae (great apes, including humans) ------------------------------------------- So saying "mollusk to monkey" is at best silly and misleading, for at least two reason. One, both vertebrates and mollusks evolved from early Bilaterians, which would not have possessed the features that we use to distinguish those groups from each other today. Two, the huge number of intermediate steps between their separation and something resembling what we today would recognize as a monkey. Tracing it from the split to some recent type of mollusk would produce a similarly long list. (Even if some items in my list are out of date that wouldn't invalidate the point being made here.)

DS · 10 February 2013

twoapplestobees said: Why don't you show me evidence of your side. Somebody show me some good citations from scientific literature that PROVE Darwinian Evolutionary Theory is fact. I'm open to seeing it, cited correctly. So far no one but my self has cited anything real. You can say I've misquoted if you like. I retyped these from the journals/books myself. Is this what you do in your real lives--bully people who have objections or questions? Good grief! You may have convinced me of joining your cause if you all hadn't been hostile and insufferable. So please wow me. As far as I can see you ask all the questions, demand all the answers, and make all of the degrading insults. Where is your evidence that proves evolution is the same as fact or the law of gravity?
DS said: Henry (AKA Joe), I have posted my questions twice now. You have ignored them. If you choose to answer the questions please do so on the bathroom wall. If you don't you will continue to be ignored by me. You have already been shown to be ignorant, dishonest and disingenuous, so I don't see why anyone would choose to respond to you either. And if you turn out to really be Joe, you will get what you deserve.

So that would be a no. You have no intention of ever answering any of my questions. As for evidence, I suggest you read the journal Evolution. Say the last fifty years, That should do nicely. In the meantime, here is a direct quote from Ken Ham that proves that evolution is true: "Evolution ... is ... true". So there you go. Any further responses to you by me will be on the bathroom wall. Unless of course you are shown to be Joe. In which case you will just have to imagine what I would tell you to do to yourself.

phhht · 10 February 2013

twoapplestobees said: Where is your evidence that proves evolution is the same as fact or the law of gravity?

Which of the three statements of fact do you reject? When living things reproduce, their offspring inherit traits (call them a,b,c,…) from their parents. Inheritance is inexact (sometimes a,b,c,… becomes a,x,c,…). Offspring with one set of traits (say, a,b,c,…) can have more children than those with other traits (say, a,x,c,…). Which of these facts is less factual than gravity?

Scott F · 10 February 2013

You want to teach about scientific "controversies"? How about Plate Tectonics? How about Theia?

From what I read, Plate Tectonics was a controversial theory in the 1950's, yet was on pretty firm footing by the 1960's, as new discoveries and evidence for it mounted. Even so, it wasn't taught in my high school science classes as late as the mid 1970's. Mountain ranges formed and then eroded, but there was no explanation of "why" or "how". Yet, there was no public outcry, clamoring to "Teach the Controversy(tm)" about Plate Tectonics. No one claimed that there was a vast world wide conspiracy of scientists to suppress "The Truth(tm)", to keep the knowledge of moving continents from high school science students. The theory of Plate Tectonics simply wasn't mature enough to teach the basics to kids. Sure, there was a scientific controversy, but until scientists had nailed down the basics, there weren't any basics to teach.

Same for "Theia". I vaguely recall reading in the day about some "crack pot" notion that some wandering planet had plowed into the early Earth, carving the Moon out of the Pacific basin. (I was into science fiction, and picked up on such things.) That was a real scientific controversy. But again, there was no clamor to "Teach the Controversy(tm)" about "Theia". Until the scientists had nailed down the basics, there was nothing to teach kids. Later, with the benefit of the Apollo space program, and modern computer simulations, science has shown that "Theia" probably existed. It could have formed the Moon, and we can now explain how. Now we can teach it to the kids.

What about YEC? Or ID? First, neither is a "theory" in the scientific sense. Heck, they don't even qualify as a hypothesis. Much less so than a giant impactor was in it's day. At least the "giant impactor" and plate tectonic hypotheses could actually explain stuff that did not yet have an explanation. Second, Evolution is not some "crack pot" notion. There is no scientific "controversy" about Evolution. Science has known the basics for over 100 years now, and we're learning more all the time.

There simply is no "controversy" to teach.

But let's assume that you're correct. Let's assume for the moment that Evolution is a theory in crisis. Name any single other "scientific controversy" that was taught to high school kids before Science had figured out which "hypothesis" explained all the evidence better. Name any other single scientific "theory" where people agreed that high school kids were better able to figure out, to judge "The Truth(tm)" of evidential claims than scientists trained in the field. Name one. Any one. It's good ole' Dr. McLeroy's quote, "Well someone has to stand up to experts." Really? We need high school kids to stand up to the experts and tell them that they're wrong, before they even know how to conduct a scientific experiment? Is that what you think is the right way to teach science?

So, either you are wrong, and there is no "controversy" about Evolution to teach to young kids. Or, you are right and there is a "scientific" controversy, in which case it is inappropriate to teach the controversy until it has been resolved, and we should instead continue to teach the science that we are certain of, and leave it to scientists to resolve the "controversy".

Henry J · 10 February 2013

Demanding that somebody on a blog reproduce a century of research is not a valid counter-argument against a well established theory, when its basics are common knowledge among people familiar with even the rudiments of the subject.

A debate about a currently accepted theory (or hypothesis) has to address the reasons why scientists accept that theory and continue to use it in their work, e.g., nested hierarchies, species distribution, ring species, lack of distinct boundaries between close relatives, presence of many features that any sensible engineer would have rewritten, etc.

apokryltaros · 10 February 2013

science-hating moron said: A list of probable descent is not proof. How was this tested empirically?

Through anatomy and genetic testing.

Which scientist lived millions of years ago to document this transformation process?

Should we also assume that you do not believe in plate tectonics or geology because no scientist has lived long enough to actually see continents move around or mountains rise and erode away? That, and why should we not correctly assume that you are a science-hating idiot who would refuse to know what science is even if it laid eggs inside your empty head?

Henry J · 10 February 2013

Same for “Theia”. I vaguely recall reading in the day about some “crack pot” notion that some wandering planet had plowed into the early Earth, carving the Moon out of the Pacific basin.

Really? What with the continental plates having moved all over the place over the last 4 1/2 billion years, I wouldn't have thought that a basin carved 4 point something billion years ago would have lasted that long.

apokryltaros · 10 February 2013

Henry J said: Demanding that somebody on a blog reproduce a century of research is not a valid counter-argument against a well established theory, when its basics are common knowledge among people familiar with even the rudiments of the subject.

That, and then there is the sad fact that twoapplestobees/Atheistoclast makes it stone-apparent that he refuses to accept literally anything that is not blind agreement with his recycled Creationist anti-science propaganda.

Doc Bill · 10 February 2013

twoapplestobees said: Why don't you show me evidence of your side. [No, look it up yourself you lazy twit.] Somebody show me some good citations from scientific literature that PROVE Darwinian Evolutionary Theory is fact. [No, theories aren't facts you ignorant bucket of spit.] I'm open to seeing it [That's a lie, you moron.] , cited correctly. [No, you don't care you duplicitous dunderhead.] So far no one but my self has cited anything real. [No, another lie, you lugubrious laggard.] You can say I've misquoted if you like. [Don't have to say it, you already did it, cretin.] I retyped these from the journals/books myself. [In the words of Professor Frankfurt: Bullshit] Is this what you do in your real lives--bully people who have objections or questions? [Nope, only you. You're the first, Floyd. Nice to see you again.] Good grief! [Sorry, not Floyd - Charlie Brown.] You may have convinced me of joining your cause [lie] if you all hadn't been hostile [lie] and insufferable. [another lie. I am insufferable AND intolerant.] So please wow me.[wow] As far as I can see you ask all the questions, demand all the answers, and make all of the degrading insults. [We're very talented.] Where is your evidence that proves evolution is the same as fact or the law of gravity? [In your sockpuppet drawer. Ha, made you look!]

Please, the tard is strong in this one. I vote him off the Island and to the Bathroom Wall where Byers can be his mentor.

twoapplestobees · 10 February 2013

I think we should should follow scientific evidence for Directed Panspermia as proposed by Francis Crick that LGM (little green men) were the ones responsible for this. Since Crick was neither a believer in God, YEC, nor in the evolution. Would you guys be cool with this theory? Seems like somebody smart enough to discover DNA would know the FACT the evolution was the cause of the formation of the double helix. Yet he didn't accept this. What would you tell him? What tongue lashing could he expect from you. Certainly you can't call him a Christian bigot or YEC clown. What then?

apokryltaros said:
Henry J said: Demanding that somebody on a blog reproduce a century of research is not a valid counter-argument against a well established theory, when its basics are common knowledge among people familiar with even the rudiments of the subject.
That, and then there is the sad fact that twoapplestobees/Atheistoclast makes it stone-apparent that he refuses to accept literally anything that is not blind agreement with his recycled Creationist anti-science propaganda.

Scott F · 10 February 2013

Doc Bill said: Please, the tard is strong in this one. I vote him off the Island and to the Bathroom Wall where Byers can be his mentor.

The pretense of the "open minded" agnostic seeking to "Teach the Controversy" didn't last more than two pages.

Scott F · 10 February 2013

twoapplestobees said: Which scientist lived millions of years ago to document this transformation process?

Ah, the good ol' Ken Ham school of, "Were you there?" Tsk, tsk. And here I thought you "believed" in science. I guess you also believe that O. J. Simpson didn't kill his wife. No amount of evidence could possibly convince you otherwise. "Which scientist lived a few years ago to document this transformation process?" (ie "transformation" as in transformed from animate young lady to bleeding bag o' bits) I'm guessing you never watched an episode of CSI. Or Doctor "G".

Malcolm · 10 February 2013

phhht said: I don't have to prove common ancestry, or evolution. They are as well-supported as gravity.

I'm sorry, but this insult can not stand. phhht, I agree with most things you post here, but this is a step too far. There is no way that gravity is anywhere near as well-supported as evolution.

Scott F · 10 February 2013

twoapplestobees said: Why don't you show me evidence of your side. Somebody show me some good citations from scientific literature that PROVE Darwinian Evolutionary Theory is fact.

Again, with the "PROVE". There is no "PROVE", only "evidence". Poo on your stupid ol' scientific literature. I can do better than "scientific literature". I can cite Wiki. Here is your proof: Ring Species Human Chromosome 2

Dave Luckett · 11 February 2013

All right. Panspermia. The idea that the Earth was "seeded" with life - of some sort, but one that used DNA - by an alien intelligence. (And that the species, present and past, evolved from that.)

There is no evidence for this proposition for the origin of DNA, and hence of life on Earth. None at all. It's a conjecture which assumes, probably wrongly, that there is no chemical pathway in nature that leads to DNA.

Further, panspermia does not actually deny evolution as the cause for the origin of the species, nor does it deny deep time and common descent. In fact it affirms those.

Evidence for evolution: Speciation, at least a dozen known examples. Perfect nesting of characters in living species. Demonstrated natural selection of favourable characters. Preservation of chromosonal changes in commonly descended species. Fossil record, with many transitional forms now known, including the whale series that apples dislikes, but also including detail fossil series, specifically among shellfish in lake varves, that demonstrate fine graduations and record new species arising over time. Demonstration of reproductive divergence in ring and line species.

Much else, from molecular biology and biochemistry. Much of it I don't understand, but it exists, and it cannot be dismissed by willing it away.

But this much I do understand, and the logic is insuperable:

Living things reproduce with variation, but tend to pass their traits to offspring;

Some of these variations more successfully exploit the resources available than others;

All species can and do reproduce faster than the resources they need are renewed;

Therefore, in all species, differential success in this exploitation will necessarily confer a differential survival rate and reproduction rate;

Therefore, successful traits will tend to be reproduced and preserved; unsuccessful ones will be culled;

But environments, and hence the resources available in them, change over time, although not necessarily uniformly or as a whole. Therefore, changes in one part of an environment (defined geographically, climatographically, or by food source, or in any other way) will lead to differential success in a given population. Since a different mix of traits is being differentially selected, that population must, over time, preserve different traits and hence diverge.

Limits to this divergence exist, but are very difficult to state and demonstrate, and in terms of the Earth's environments, are very wide. The necessary inference is that life is commonly descended.

This understanding has now been demonstrated and evidential for over a hundred and fifty years. It is not under any form of evidential challenge. If it is to be challenged, opposing evidence - that is, evidence that one or more of its main heads is incorrect - must be brought against it. No such evidence has ever been brought.

W. H. Heydt · 11 February 2013

twoapplestobees said: I think we should should follow scientific evidence for Directed Panspermia as proposed by Francis Crick that LGM (little green men) were the ones responsible for this. Since Crick was neither a believer in God, YEC, nor in the evolution. Would you guys be cool with this theory? Seems like somebody smart enough to discover DNA would know the FACT the evolution was the cause of the formation of the double helix. Yet he didn't accept this. What would you tell him? What tongue lashing could he expect from you. Certainly you can't call him a Christian bigot or YEC clown. What then?

I am not a scientist..I'm an old used programmer. I *have* read at least one scientific paper (and very interesting it was...being Alvarez, Alvarez, Assaro and Michels in Science formally presenting their impact theory for the KT boundary event). 1. Panspermia is inconsistent with evolution. It is, however, inconsistent with other proposals for abiogenesis...maybe. After all, where did whatever was distributed by panspermia originate and how? All proposing panspermia does is move the whole process back a step or two. 2. Crick did NOT discover DNA. DNA was quite well known prior to Crick's work on it. What he helped discover is it's structure, which lead the the realization that it permits "coding" for amino acids and can act as the central mechanism in mammals (at least) and carries the genetic coding from one generation to the next. Which also provides chemical level support for mutational processes. Prior to that work, DNA was thought not to be the carrier of genetic coding.

Scott F · 11 February 2013

Scott F said:
twoapplestobees said: Why don't you show me evidence of your side. Somebody show me some good citations from scientific literature that PROVE Darwinian Evolutionary Theory is fact.
Again, with the "PROVE". There is no "PROVE", only "evidence". Poo on your stupid ol' scientific literature. I can do better than "scientific literature". I can cite Wiki. Here is your proof: Ring Species Human Chromosome 2

If Human Chromosome 2 is not "proof" that Humans share a recent common ancestor with Chimpanzees, then the word "proof" (or "prove") has no meaning. The only known proposed alternative explanation would be, "~~God~~ The Unknown Designer" just did it that way. Okay. If that's your alternative, then "PROVE" that God did it that way. If that isn't your alternative, then state one, and "PROVE" that your alternative is "correct", or (in a scientific sense) fits the evidence better. Specifically, (by your own criteria), your alternative must conclusively "PROVE" why Human Chromosome 2 looks like a fusion of two Chimpanzee chromosomes, *and* must prove why Evolution is *not* the best explanation. If the current evolutionary explanation is not correct, you must show why it is wrong. Evolution provides a detailed explanation of how and why. Please provide (or cite a web site that provides) at least that level of explanation. If that doesn't sound "fair" to you, just remember that it is the same level of "proof" that Evolution was required to produce. And Evolution passed the test. Einstein had to "prove" that Newton's geometry only looked like it explained the physical world. Further, he had to show both how and why Newton was "wrong". Only then (and after his proposed experiments were born out) did the scientific community accept Relativity. It only takes one person to be "right". You could be that person. (Or, maybe not.) But just because hundreds of thousands of people are wrong, doesn't "disprove" Evolution. You demand "PROOF"? You insist that we "PROVE" something before we can teach it in high school science class? Then put up, or shut up. State your alternative to Human Chromosome 2 (as described in the referenced Wiki), and "PROVE" that your alternative is a better explanation.

Malcolm · 11 February 2013

Scott F said: If Human Chromosome 2 is not "proof" that Humans share a recent common ancestor with Chimpanzees, then the word "proof" (or "prove") has no meaning.

If our newest clown wants "proof", he may also want to look up endogenous retroviruses. No creotard has ever been able to come up with a rational explanation for the pattern of ERV's in the primate lineage.

Mike Elzinga · 11 February 2013

twoapplestobees said: My own words do little to encourage a reasonable and heuristic discussion here so I’ll quote others (all of whom I’m sure you will deem as idiots but here goes nothing): ... Do any of these scientist have a clue to you? Or are they all morons and trolls too?

Well, here is what we now know about you. (1) You either selected your quote mines of scientists from ID/creationist websites or you are practiced at quote mining. I suspect it is the former. (2) You do not have a knowledge of science that meets the requirements of a high school education. In fact, you would struggle with middle school science concepts. This is the reason your “own words do little to encourage reasonable and heuristic discussion.” You are unable to articulate any scientific concepts; and it shows. (3) It never occurred to you to ask yourself if any of those scientists and science writers – i.e., all those that ID/creationists like to quote mine - therefore reject the fact that evolution is still taking place on this planet. (4) In never occurred to you to provide the larger context in which those quote-mined comments were made. That is an old hackneyed ID/creationist tactic; and it exposes you as being dishonest. So I will ask you more directly; do you think those whom you quote mined reject the facts of evolution? If not, then why do you think they are making the kinds of statements you quote mined? Look at the larger context. Do you really believe those quote mines are evidence that evolution doesn’t occur? Since it is obvious that you have never encountered any of the massive amounts of data from multiple lines of evidence that evolution has occurred and is still ongoing, why would you want to clutter up the science curriculum with objections from people who, like yourself, have never learned any science of any kind? You spend too much time on pseudo-science websites like Answers in Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research. If you really want to learn about the evidence for evolution, take some real science courses. You will very likely have to start at the beginning in middle school and high school. You certainly aren’t doing a very good job at getting an education on the internet. You don’t know now to go about it.

Chris Lawson · 11 February 2013

twoapplestobees said: Why don't you show me evidence of your side. Somebody show me some good citations from scientific literature that PROVE Darwinian Evolutionary Theory is fact. I'm open to seeing it, cited correctly.

I already did. I referred you to the talk.origins archive which is written for laypeople but has every scientific statement fully referenced.

So far no one but my self has cited anything real. You can say I’ve misquoted if you like. I retyped these from the journals/books myself.

You see, now you've proven yourself a liar because the books you claim to have quoted directly contain all the evidence you would need. Mayr, for instance, was one of the key figures in evolutionary theory and if you had actually read his books you would have already come across hundreds of properly cited papers supporting evolutionary theory. The first Mayr book you quoted (The Growth of Biological Thought) has 58 pages of references! You're a damned liar, and a bad one at that.

Gary_Hurd · 11 February 2013

What I have found both fascinating and distressing about creationists, "twoapplestobees" being the current specimen, is that they cannot find conclusive evidence against their religious dogmas on their own. Plus, they are unable to recognize when that evidence is presented to them by others. Freakish. There is no point in trying to reason with "twoapplestobees" or the many twits like him. That has bee an amusement of many of use for many years. But I think we need to put away that amusement.

The difficult part is how do we manage a society that needs competent citizens to enact policies to deal with impending natural disasters? We cannot hope to educated "twoapplestobees" or the assholes like him. We must act without hope that the creationists can be brought to reason. I have written them of as part of the rational citizens. But we must act.

How?

Malcolm · 11 February 2013

Why are scientists always the last to know that there is a controversy in science?

Chris Lawson · 11 February 2013

But, Malcolm, as you know the best way to prove that scientists are unaware of a controversy in science is to quote numerous scientists talking about controversies in science!

harold · 11 February 2013

Twoappletwobees -

Back at the beginning, I asked you some questions.

You evaded them. You evaded them because you aren't honest with yourself. I won't say "liar" because that implies a conscious, deliberate attempt to deceive, in the context of awareness of the actual truth. You are trying to deceive yourself.

Nevertheless, evasion is a serious form of dishonesty. I asked those questions for a reason. Let's look at them again. Now I'll fill some answers that you have made clear.

Not one of your comments here has any relevant critique of evolution, or defense of ID/creationism. They are literally all just quote mines from scientists who supported evolution, and the fallacy of argument from (strained) incredulity.

1) Could any evidence convince you of the theory of evolution, and if so, what type of evidence is now lacking, that would convince you, if present?

Clearly, the reason you evaded this question is because the answer is "no possible evidence could ever convince me to stop denying evolution".

2) The Supreme Court ruled against the direct teaching of Biblical Young Earth Creationism as science in public schools; however, if that ruling were overturned, which would you support more, teaching of ID, or direct teaching of Bible-based YEC?

I think we all know what the answer is here.

3) Do you think it is important for opponents of the theory of evolution to fully understand the theory of evolution? If so, can you explain it, and if not, can you explain why not?

You've clearly shown that your answers here are "no" and "no".

READ THIS CAREFULLY - YOU CAN'T UNDERSTAND THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION, YOU HAVE NO RELEVANT CRITIQUES OF EVOLUTION, AND YOU HAVE OFFERED NO SUPPORT FOR ID/CREATIONISM.

I'LL LEAVE THE REST OF THE QUESTIONS, AS A DEMONSTRATION OF YOUR EVASIVE DISHONESTY.

4) Who is the designer? How can we test your answer?

5) What did that designer do? How can we test your answer?

6) How did the designer do it? How can we test your answer?

7) When did the designer do it? How can we test your answer?

8) What is an example of something that was not designed by the designer?

9) Some parts of the Bible suggest that pi equals exactly three, and that the earth is flat and has four corners. Do you accept these as facts of 9:08 PM 2/8/2013reality, and if not, why do you deny the theory of evolution on the grounds of Biblical literacy, if it can be symbolic about other scientific issues?

harold · 11 February 2013

Scott F -

The nice thing about a good Wikipedia article is that, if it is a good article, it will have relevant scholarly citations at the end.

Those citations can lead to other citations. You can also search Google Scholar to see who has subsequently cited those citations.

So a good Wikipedia article kills two birds with one stone. It will likely be a good summary for lay people, but if there are good citations, you can take it further and delve into the technical literature, if you want.

TomS · 11 February 2013

twoapplestobees said: Which scientist lived millions of years ago to document this transformation process?

So, we see that twoapplestobees is in the category of the "How do you know, were you there?" creationists. There is not much point in arguing with someone who is so desperate as to cling to such an extreme denial of reality. For it amounts to a recognition that the evidence for evolutionary biology is so overwhelming that one must be willing to deny vast amounts of knowledge in order to deny evolution. After all, the really interesting and important parts of science are what it tells us about things which are not immediately accessible to observation: things which are too far in space and time, too fast, too slow, too big, too small, or invisible and intangible. Things like electrons, the center of the Earth, ... and, ironically, the fact that there were no scientists living millions of years ago. And I'll also call attention to the remark made by others that, like all evolution-deniers, he remains stuck in negativism, and does not have even a description of a possible alternative: What happened and when; An example of a difference between things which are and are not "designed"; What there is about the "design" process - what constraints, what raw materials, what purposes - that leads to the world of life. No, all we get is that we cannot "prove" things up to his impossible standards. Standards which he cannot himself meet, much less justify, or indeed show to be self-consistent. Standards? He can't even describe what he's talking about, that's how elementary the standards that he can't meet, while he is demanding irrational standards of others. See, for example, the 1852 essay of Herbert Spencer, The Development Hypothesis

DS · 11 February 2013

The asshole actually claimed that Crick discovered DNA! Even if this isn't Joe, time for dump to the bathroom wall. If it is Joe, time for legal action.

Robin · 11 February 2013

twoapplestobees said: So this is my point Henry. You can not prove this. I'm not saying that this didn't happen. I'm just saying that you can't prove it. NO scientist that has published anything ever has said that they can. And if I am wrong, SHOW ME THE ARTICLE. You guys are killing me with your group thinking arrogance. My first comment to the original post was to assert that there was a debate, not to try and prove evolution wrong. One hundred plus comments later I've heard a ton of arguing about ID clowns, YEC and OEC trolls and anybody in between who doesn't agree with your ideas of Evolution. It looks to me like I've proven my point. THERE IS A DEBATE.

The problem with your complaint, Henry, is that you are asking of evolutionary science something you do not expect of any other field of science. Nobody has proven how gravity works or that the Theory of Gravity is factual (here's a link for the ToG "issues" in case you're curious: http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/p67.htm and here's the theory: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory+of+gravity) or whether the theory of light is factual either, but I don't see you beefing about those. Why? Because just about everyone recognizes that "gravity" and "light" as a concepts make some sense, and while our knowledge of the mechanics of them may not be perfect, the theories are good enough to allow us to make reasonably accurate predictions. That and they don't conflict with some strict interpretation of some mythological divine sky-fairy story. The point is, you can't "prove" any of these kinds of concepts for a theory - that's the entire basis of science! But if they are useful enough to allow folks to make reasonably accurate predictions about the world around us, then they are accepted as valid theories until someone comes along with something better. And right now, there is nothing else. ID isn't science. Neither is God. Sorry, but that's how the apple falls.

Robin · 11 February 2013

twoapplestobees said: I think we should should follow scientific evidence for Directed Panspermia as proposed by Francis Crick that LGM (little green men) were the ones responsible for this. Since Crick was neither a believer in God, YEC, nor in the evolution. Would you guys be cool with this theory?

Well, since neither panspermia nor LGM rise to the level of Theories, I don't see them as anything to consider right now. Currently they are discarded hypotheses that were discarded because they don't seem to have any supporting evidence. Now, that might change, and if it does and suddenly there's a flood of evidence to support such concepts and a bunch of phenomenon to study that can be explained by LGM and/or panspermia, I'll be happy to start taking them seriously.

Seems like somebody smart enough to discover DNA would know the FACT the evolution was the cause of the formation of the double helix. Yet he didn't accept this.

BZZZZZZZ! That's the bozo alarm sounding. See, just because someone is "smart enough" to understand something doesn't mean that a) said concept is within the person's field of expertise and b) that said person has studied the subject and that c) that person has been exposed to sufficient evidence to make a valid analysis. So Crick's opinion on evolution is rather meaningless, particularly in light of the research that has gone on since his time.

What would you tell him? What tongue lashing could he expect from you. Certainly you can't call him a Christian bigot or YEC clown. What then?

Depends. If you mean what would I tell him now (assuming I could bring him to this time), I'd just point him to the current research and more detailed evidence. Pretty simple. If you mean in his time I would not tell him anything since his concepts would ultimately be rejected in favor of evolution. That's how science works. BTW, the reason we are giving you a tongue lashing is because your first post here relied on the standard creationist distortions, double standards, and tired quotemines that have been going on since the 70s. In other words, you didn't post here in good faith from the get go and you've continued to demonstrate you are not interested in actual science or learning. Crick did not behave that way and I have every reason to believe he'd be interested in a rational discussion. Thus, he would not require a tongue lashing. You? You have demonstrated thus far that you don't really understand anything else.

twoapplestobees · 11 February 2013

I have read a large amount of scientific literature from all sides of this debate. I get that you and your supporting friends disagree with the ID, YEC, OEC camps. But like it or not, the views that you all scoff at and call asinine are posed by scholars that I am sure have at least equal to, if not more credentials than you. These are ph.d's who have tenure at renowned universities all over the world! Who are you to just dismiss their evidences?! It's so funny that none of you have given me proof of anything. I understand Evolution to mean that we all descended from a common ancestor. Over millions of years, highly improbable mutations occurred that led to the formation of new species and eventually humans. The means by which these mutations survived and promoted life was by natural selection. That's a basic definition that works. The problem is that there are unaccounted for problems (some are those that I cited earlier that apparently were no good because allegedly i misquoted). If the problems with Evolution have been resolved, then why has no one ever won a Nobel prize for this? And what about the skepticism of Thomas Nagel? With degrees from Cornell, Oxford and Harvard, is he a credible mind? If the facts are so overwhelming why would Nagel be unsure?

harold said: Twoappletwobees - Back at the beginning, I asked you some questions. You evaded them. You evaded them because you aren't honest with yourself. I won't say "liar" because that implies a conscious, deliberate attempt to deceive, in the context of awareness of the actual truth. You are trying to deceive yourself. Nevertheless, evasion is a serious form of dishonesty. I asked those questions for a reason. Let's look at them again. Now I'll fill some answers that you have made clear. Not one of your comments here has any relevant critique of evolution, or defense of ID/creationism. They are literally all just quote mines from scientists who supported evolution, and the fallacy of argument from (strained) incredulity. 1) Could any evidence convince you of the theory of evolution, and if so, what type of evidence is now lacking, that would convince you, if present? Clearly, the reason you evaded this question is because the answer is "no possible evidence could ever convince me to stop denying evolution". 2) The Supreme Court ruled against the direct teaching of Biblical Young Earth Creationism as science in public schools; however, if that ruling were overturned, which would you support more, teaching of ID, or direct teaching of Bible-based YEC? I think we all know what the answer is here. 3) Do you think it is important for opponents of the theory of evolution to fully understand the theory of evolution? If so, can you explain it, and if not, can you explain why not? You've clearly shown that your answers here are "no" and "no". READ THIS CAREFULLY - YOU CAN'T UNDERSTAND THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION, YOU HAVE NO RELEVANT CRITIQUES OF EVOLUTION, AND YOU HAVE OFFERED NO SUPPORT FOR ID/CREATIONISM. I'LL LEAVE THE REST OF THE QUESTIONS, AS A DEMONSTRATION OF YOUR EVASIVE DISHONESTY. 4) Who is the designer? How can we test your answer? 5) What did that designer do? How can we test your answer? 6) How did the designer do it? How can we test your answer? 7) When did the designer do it? How can we test your answer? 8) What is an example of something that was not designed by the designer? 9) Some parts of the Bible suggest that pi equals exactly three, and that the earth is flat and has four corners. Do you accept these as facts of 9:08 PM 2/8/2013reality, and if not, why do you deny the theory of evolution on the grounds of Biblical literacy, if it can be symbolic about other scientific issues?

Karen S. · 11 February 2013

Who are you to just dismiss their evidences?!

Evidences plural? A sure sign of fundamentalist religion. But why don't you just answer the questions?

DS · 11 February 2013

Administrators,

Please check the E-mail address and ISP of the latest troll. You will most likely find that this is once again Joe. I recommend taking immediate legal action to prevent him from posting here again.

Robin · 11 February 2013

twoapplestobees said: I have read a large amount of scientific literature from all sides of this debate.

It sure doesn't seem like it.

I get that you and your supporting friends disagree with the ID, YEC, OEC camps. But like it or not, the views that you all scoff at and call asinine are posed by scholars that I am sure have at least equal to, if not more credentials than you. These are ph.d's who have tenure at renowned universities all over the world! Who are you to just dismiss their evidences?!

They may well be the smartest people on the planet, Henry, but unless and until they do actual science their concepts will never be considered alongside, or as an alternative to, evolution. I'm sorry Henry, but their credentials don't make their arguments valid. So I can just "dismiss their evidences" (sic) because their claims and complaints are not scientific. It's that simple.

It's so funny that none of you have given me proof of anything.

See above. Science can't prove to you how a hurricane works, Henry. We can only show you a model of how we think it works and tell you your house is about to be blown away. That's how science works. It's up to you to decide to learn the math the model is based on and determine if it's accurate or not.

I understand Evolution to mean that we all descended from a common ancestor. Over millions of years, highly improbable mutations occurred that led to the formation of new species and eventually humans.

Not bad, but what do you mean by "highly improbable mutations"? How were these mutations determined to be improbable and improbable compared to what?

The means by which these mutations survived and promoted life was by natural selection. That's a basic definition that works. The problem is that there are unaccounted for problems (some are those that I cited earlier that apparently were no good because allegedly i misquoted).

See my post above. There are going to be problems and holes and questions in all scientific theories. It's the way science works. There are all sorts of problems with the Theory of Gravity too. Why aren't you whining about them?

If the problems with Evolution have been resolved, then why has no one ever won a Nobel prize for this?

Some folks have: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_McClintock, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Baltimore

And what about the skepticism of Thomas Nagel? With degrees from Cornell, Oxford and Harvard, is he a credible mind? If the facts are so overwhelming why would Nagel be unsure?

See above regarding science. Thomas Nagel is clearly a bright guy, but his claims are not science.

Henry J · 11 February 2013

I vote him off the Island and to the Bathroom Wall where Byers can be his mentor.

Talk about cruel and unusual punishment!

Dave Lovell · 11 February 2013

twoapplestobees said: It's so funny that none of you have given me proof of anything.

As several posters have told you that Science does not do "proof", and you have refused to respond to the requests of others to elaborate on what you would accept as "proof", why the hell do you find it "funny"? What do you expect?

and also said: If the problems with Evolution have been resolved, then why has no one ever won a Nobel prize for this?

If ALL the problems with evolution and been solved, there would be no such job as Evolutionary Biologist. Aside from the fact that as far as I recall, Nobels are awarded for Physics, Chemistry and Medicine, they are awarded for significant breakthroughs in understanding. You should be asking why they are not being showered on ID proponents and Creation Scientists, or do you think the Nobel committee is a conspiracy of Evilutionists?.

apokryltaros · 11 February 2013

twoapplestobees/Atheistoclast, why don't you tell us what scientific literature you have read for Creationism and Intelligent Design?

As far as anyone, especially for the Creationists and the Intelligent Design proponents, pro-Creationism/pro-Intelligent Design "scientific literature" does not exist.

Or are we to assume that you're just here to insult us for not worshiping your recycled Creationist propaganda?

W. H. Heydt · 11 February 2013

twoapplestobees said:These are ph.d's who have tenure at renowned universities all over the world! Who are you to just dismiss their evidences?!

You mean like Michael Behe whose own department has, for all intents and purposes, disowned him?

I understand Evolution to mean that we all descended from a common ancestor. Over millions of years, highly improbable mutations occurred that led to the formation of new species and eventually humans.

Does the term "contingency" mean anything to you? Evolution doesn't predict *what* will evolve, only that *something* will evolve. Once evolved, however, what did happen...happened.

prongs · 11 February 2013

DS said: Administrators, Please check the E-mail address and ISP of the latest troll. You will most likely find that this is once again Joe. I recommend taking immediate legal action to prevent him from posting here again.

My money's with you DS on this one. TwoApplesShort sounds more like Atheistoclast (aka Joseph Esfandiar Hannon Bozorgmehr) than anyone else - nothing of substance, just taunts, pontificating, and chest-beating. Let's ask him how many papers he's published in the scientific literature.

harold · 11 February 2013

Henry said -

I have read a large amount of scientific literature from all sides of this debate.

1) Yet you can't provide a single citation that shows positive evidence for ID, YEC, or OEC. 2) You don't come across as someone who's competent to read scientific literature. May I ask what level of basic science education you have?

I get that you and your supporting friends disagree with the ID, YEC, OEC camps. But like it or not, the views that you all scoff at and call asinine are posed by scholars that I am sure have at least equal to, if not more credentials than you. These are ph.d’s who have tenure at renowned universities all over the world! Who are you to just dismiss their evidences?!

1) If you think that PhD degrees and faculty positions at renowned universities are valid signs of expertise, than who are you to dismiss the views of the vast majority of people with PhD's in relevant subjects and relevant faculty positions? 2) Your argument here would be a logically fallacious appeal to authority, if you were appealing to some kind of authority unique to creationists. For example, if you said "the professors at Liberty University all agree with me", that would be an argument from authority, but a coherent one. It makes no sense whatsoever, however, to praise the PhD degrees held by a few scattered creationists, while not acknowledging that the vast majority of people with the same credentials you praise do not agree with you.

It’s so funny that none of you have given me proof of anything.

What's funny is that I have asked you repeatedly what evidence you would like to see, and you have repeatedly refused to answer.

I understand Evolution to mean that we all descended from a common ancestor. Over millions of years, highly improbable mutations occurred that led to the formation of new species and eventually humans. The means by which these mutations survived and promoted life was by natural selection. That’s a basic definition that works. The problem is that there are unaccounted for problems (some are those that I cited earlier that apparently were no good because allegedly i misquoted).

Take away the sneering tone, and this oversimplified view might be adequate for someone with no real interest in the subject. However, to deny a major scientific theory, you should first fully understand that theory, understand all the evidence for it, and then offer a reasonable alternate explanation for the evidence.

If the problems with Evolution have been resolved, then why has no one ever won a Nobel prize for this?

Many people have. Most of the discoveries that have generated Nobel prizes in Physiology or Medicine have in some way clarified and advanced our understanding of evolution. The fact that you don't understand the work is irrelevant.

And what about the skepticism of Thomas Nagel? With degrees from Cornell, Oxford and Harvard, is he a credible mind? If the facts are so overwhelming why would Nagel be unsure?

1) He's a controversial philosopher who teaches at a law school, not a scientist. He is not exactly a creationist, either. 2) What about the people with degrees from Cornell, Oxford, and Harvard who don't deny evolution? You evaded every single one of my questions again. Moderators, by now, the point has been made. I suggest the BW for all his future comments from this account.

harold · 11 February 2013

prongs said:
DS said: Administrators, Please check the E-mail address and ISP of the latest troll. You will most likely find that this is once again Joe. I recommend taking immediate legal action to prevent him from posting here again.
My money's with you DS on this one. TwoApplesShort sounds more like Atheistoclast (aka Joseph Esfandiar Hannon Bozorgmehr) than anyone else - nothing of substance, just taunts, pontificating, and chest-beating. Let's ask him how many papers he's published in the scientific literature.

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that it may not be. Those traits are not specific to any one individual creationist.

DS · 11 February 2013

prongs said:
DS said: Administrators, Please check the E-mail address and ISP of the latest troll. You will most likely find that this is once again Joe. I recommend taking immediate legal action to prevent him from posting here again.
My money's with you DS on this one. TwoApplesShort sounds more like Atheistoclast (aka Joseph Esfandiar Hannon Bozorgmehr) than anyone else - nothing of substance, just taunts, pontificating, and chest-beating. Let's ask him how many papers he's published in the scientific literature.

Actually, phhht called it first this time. However, the preponderance of the evidence is starting to indicate that he was indeed correct. Either way, the guy is a worthless, lying sack of shit. (twoneuronstorubtogether not phhht).

DS · 11 February 2013

harold said:
prongs said:
DS said: Administrators, Please check the E-mail address and ISP of the latest troll. You will most likely find that this is once again Joe. I recommend taking immediate legal action to prevent him from posting here again.
My money's with you DS on this one. TwoApplesShort sounds more like Atheistoclast (aka Joseph Esfandiar Hannon Bozorgmehr) than anyone else - nothing of substance, just taunts, pontificating, and chest-beating. Let's ask him how many papers he's published in the scientific literature.
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that it may not be. Those traits are not specific to any one individual creationist.

Easy to tell. The perfidious schmuck usually put some part of his name in his E-mail address. Either he is too stupid or too arrogant to realize that that will get him busted. And he always posts form the same country. Now that he might have more trouble faking. If it does turn out to be Joe, he should be reminded that he quote mined Sean Carroll in order to try to prove that scientists doubt evolution! He should be sued for that alone.

mahsihmo · 11 February 2013

...having read the bill, I am absolutely elated at its being "tabled", in hopes that "critical thinking" becomes normative in this, and ALL educational systems.

"A BILL FOR AN ACT ENTITLED: "AN ACT ENCOURAGING THE BOARD OF PUBLIC EDUCATION TO EMPHASIZE CRITICAL THINKING IN INSTRUCTION RELATED TO CONTROVERSIAL SCIENTIFIC THEORIES ON THE ORIGIN OF LIFE; CLARIFYING THE DUTY OF THE BOARD OF PUBLIC EDUCATION
TO INCLUDE THE BASIC INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM IN THE BOARD'S STANDARDS OF ACCREDITATION; ENCOURAGING TEACHERS TO FOSTER CRITICAL THINKING; PROTECTING TEACHERS WHO PRESENT ALTERNATIVE VIEWPOINTS REGARDING CONTROVERSIAL SCIENTIFIC THEORIES; AMENDING SECTIONS 20-2-121 AND 20-7-111, MCA; AND PROVIDING AN IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVE DATE."

To deny our students an opportunity to learn, explore, and research EVERY conceivable facet of subject matter is tantamount to isolationist brainwashing. Which leads me to wonder...what are the "though police" afraid of???

I say, let the dialogue continue...!

mahsihmo · 11 February 2013

...I meant "thought police"

Robin · 11 February 2013

mahsihmo said: ...having read the bill, I am absolutely elated at its being "tabled", in hopes that "critical thinking" becomes normative in this, and ALL educational systems. "A BILL FOR AN ACT ENTITLED: "AN ACT ENCOURAGING THE BOARD OF PUBLIC EDUCATION TO EMPHASIZE CRITICAL THINKING IN INSTRUCTION RELATED TO CONTROVERSIAL SCIENTIFIC THEORIES ON THE ORIGIN OF LIFE; CLARIFYING THE DUTY OF THE BOARD OF PUBLIC EDUCATION TO INCLUDE THE BASIC INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM IN THE BOARD'S STANDARDS OF ACCREDITATION; ENCOURAGING TEACHERS TO FOSTER CRITICAL THINKING; PROTECTING TEACHERS WHO PRESENT ALTERNATIVE VIEWPOINTS REGARDING CONTROVERSIAL SCIENTIFIC THEORIES; AMENDING SECTIONS 20-2-121 AND 20-7-111, MCA; AND PROVIDING AN IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVE DATE." To deny our students an opportunity to learn, explore, and research EVERY conceivable facet of subject matter is tantamount to isolationist brainwashing. Which leads me to wonder...what are the "though police" afraid of???

We're afraid that children and parents who fall for the above Bill will end up idiots and non-competitive in a world rapidly adopting good science practices.

I say, let the dialogue continue...!

So long as it continues in forums like this, your church, or your home, have at it. But it can't continue in a public science class because - now repeat after me - religion isn't science. There are no "alternative viewpoints regarding controversial scientific theories". So right now, there's nothing for this Bill to do and nothing for students to be concerned with.

j. biggs · 11 February 2013

twoapplestobees said: I have read a large amount of scientific literature from all sides of this debate.

The evidence suggests otherwise

I get that you and your supporting friends disagree with the ID, YEC, OEC camps. But like it or not, the views that you all scoff at and call asinine are posed by scholars that I am sure have at least equal to, if not more credentials than you. These are ph.d's who have tenure at renowned universities all over the world! Who are you to just dismiss their evidences?!

Ok, I'll admit there are ID/creationist with impressive credentials. Some of them even have credentials in fields relevant to Biology. The problem here is that these ID/creationists are a small minority of scientists. The vast majority of scientists in relevant fields agree that evolution is a fact. It seems silly to me to dismiss the majority of relevant scientists "with impressive credentials and tenure at renowned universities" in favor of this minority, many of whom don't have credentials in relevant fields. What is even more asinine is to take the minority view in light of what "these credentialed scientists" have produced in realm of publishable original research, which is to say nothing much at all.

It's so funny that none of you have given me proof of anything.

Are we talking mathematics here or science? Evidence doesn't equal proof. You are welcome to disagree with the tentative conclusions of science, but unless you have evidence for your claims, you won't be taken seriously.

I understand Evolution to mean that we all descended from a common ancestor.

This is a crude description of common descent which is one facet of evolution theory. It also happens to have an overwhelming amount of evidence in its support.

Over millions of years, highly improbable mutations occurred that led to the formation of new species and eventually humans.

Huh? Come again? Mutations are improbable? You probably mean "beneficial mutations" are so improbable as to be impossible, which is standard creationist fare. It also happens that this claim is not even remotely true.

The means by which these mutations survived and promoted life was by natural selection. That's a basic definition that works.

You forgot to add a whole litany of evolutionary concepts into your definition, but so be it.

The problem is that there are unaccounted for problems (some are those that I cited earlier that apparently were no good because allegedly i misquoted).

Science addresses "unaccounted for problems" as it can. And yes if we go by your definition which leaves out a considerable amount about what is known out, there would appear to be a lot of problems. But your definition doesn't encompass all known evolutionary mechanisms within biology.

And what about the skepticism of Thomas Nagel? With degrees from Cornell, Oxford and Harvard, is he a credible mind? If the facts are so overwhelming why would Nagel be unsure?

You mean this Thomas Nagel. If Nagel is who you are relying on as an example of a "credentialed scientist tenured at a renowned university", then I would point out he is not a scientist but a philosophy and law professor not credentialed in any field relevant to evolutionary biology. Nagel has done no original research in biology in general or evolution in particular so I would say his skepticism is unwarranted as far as biological evolution is concerned. Would you not agree that it is somewhat ridiculous to take the incredulity of a philosopher who has done no actual research in a relevant biological field over the word of thousands of scientists who have? Nagel is quoted as saying, "the standard neo-Darwinian view flies in the face of common sense." I would argue that many scientific concepts fly in the face of common sense, none the less, those concepts are more correct than what common sense had previously dictated(flat earth, heliocentrism anyone?). In the end Nagel's statement just amounts to an argument from incredulity. This amounts to rather poor form for a "credentialed philosopher". I would, however, agree with Nagel that trying to apply evolution to other fields such as psychology is a stretch. But then again, I also think trying to apply the 2nd law of thermodynamics or the law of conservation of energy to "information" is a stretch.

twoapplestobees · 11 February 2013

harold said: Henry said -
I have read a large amount of scientific literature from all sides of this debate.
1) Yet you can't provide a single citation that shows positive evidence for ID, YEC, or OEC. 2) You don't come across as someone who's competent to read scientific literature. May I ask what level of basic science education you have?
I get that you and your supporting friends disagree with the ID, YEC, OEC camps. But like it or not, the views that you all scoff at and call asinine are posed by scholars that I am sure have at least equal to, if not more credentials than you. These are ph.d’s who have tenure at renowned universities all over the world! Who are you to just dismiss their evidences?!
1) If you think that PhD degrees and faculty positions at renowned universities are valid signs of expertise, than who are you to dismiss the views of the vast majority of people with PhD's in relevant subjects and relevant faculty positions? 2) Your argument here would be a logically fallacious appeal to authority, if you were appealing to some kind of authority unique to creationists. For example, if you said "the professors at Liberty University all agree with me", that would be an argument from authority, but a coherent one. It makes no sense whatsoever, however, to praise the PhD degrees held by a few scattered creationists, while not acknowledging that the vast majority of people with the same credentials you praise do not agree with you.
It’s so funny that none of you have given me proof of anything.
What's funny is that I have asked you repeatedly what evidence you would like to see, and you have repeatedly refused to answer.
I understand Evolution to mean that we all descended from a common ancestor. Over millions of years, highly improbable mutations occurred that led to the formation of new species and eventually humans. The means by which these mutations survived and promoted life was by natural selection. That’s a basic definition that works. The problem is that there are unaccounted for problems (some are those that I cited earlier that apparently were no good because allegedly i misquoted).
Take away the sneering tone, and this oversimplified view might be adequate for someone with no real interest in the subject. However, to deny a major scientific theory, you should first fully understand that theory, understand all the evidence for it, and then offer a reasonable alternate explanation for the evidence.
If the problems with Evolution have been resolved, then why has no one ever won a Nobel prize for this?
Many people have. Most of the discoveries that have generated Nobel prizes in Physiology or Medicine have in some way clarified and advanced our understanding of evolution. The fact that you don't understand the work is irrelevant.
And what about the skepticism of Thomas Nagel? With degrees from Cornell, Oxford and Harvard, is he a credible mind? If the facts are so overwhelming why would Nagel be unsure?
1) He's a controversial philosopher who teaches at a law school, not a scientist. He is not exactly a creationist, either. 2) What about the people with degrees from Cornell, Oxford, and Harvard who don't deny evolution? You evaded every single one of my questions again. Moderators, by now, the point has been made. I suggest the BW for all his future comments from this account.

There have been no Nobel prizes won for the resolution to gaps, problems, and shortcomings of Evolutionary Theory. If there had been, such people like Thomas Nagel, who has a great thinking mind whether or not he is a scientist, would not pose arguments FROM SCIENCE that contradict your assertions. How can I answer all of your questions when there is such a deep misunderstanding of current events between us and you refuse to hold yourself to your own standards that you hold me to. I haven't evaded your questions. I just disagree with you. You've appealed to ignorance that my views are false because to you they are unprovable even though I have sited atheist (because people who believe in God obviously bother you) scientist and philosophers (not hacks) who see blatant problems with evolution. This all points to my original comment which there is a debate on the origin of life, and I'm glad that young people get to learn about it.

mahsihmo · 11 February 2013

...how INCREDIBLY sad. Teach our children at "home, or church", but NOT in the PUBLIC classroom. Dare I "assume" such a point revolves around the word "public". PLEASE READ THE BILL...!!!

With "exception" for this short blurb (below), WHERE ON EARTH DO YOU DRAW "conclusions" that lead you to believe it's about "religion".

"This section only protects the teaching of scientific information and may not be construed to promote any religious or nonreligious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs or nonbeliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion."

Surely you MUST have overlooked the phrase "may not be construed to promote...discriminate...FOR, or AGAINST".

I'm all for "pointed, INFORMED" discussion and dialogue, NOT emotional, isolationist rants. On a simpler note, try to imagine just how you'd express yourself if someone "gave" you that computer keyboard, BUT restricted your learning to the "qwerty" keys, with a "UNPROVEN" premise (as in evolution) that..."this is just how it is". Don't need prove'n, just beleev'n (smile).

To deny teachers and students the FREEDOM to think, apply, research AND validate, through CRITICAL, all inclusive thinking is CRIMINAL, and akin to Huxley's utopic Brave New World, and its "Epsilons".

j. biggs · 11 February 2013

OK Ibelieveinapplebees, now you are just being redundant by pretending your last comment wasn't eviscerated from several different angles, least of all by Harold. That and your whole first paragraph consists of moving goal-posts and is simultaneously a non sequitur.

diogeneslamp0 · 11 February 2013

@TwoApples - You have made many factually false statements on this website and when challenged, when we demanded citations, you tried to CHANGE THE SUBJECT and you tried to GISH GALLOP us by switching to a discussion of your quote mines of scientists! We should have a ZERO TOLERANCE policy for Gish Gallop! If you lie and make factually false statements, we won't let you change the subject! You have to defend the first set of factually false statements you made, before you try to Gish Gallop us by changing the subject to your second, and third, sets of false statements. NO, I will not let you off the hook for lying about the transitional fossils to whales! You lied about the transitional fossils to whales. DO NOT CHANGE SUBJECT. DO NOT GISH GALLOP. Admit you were lying! Either back up what you said with citations to the literature, or else retract your lies!

Twoapplestobees wrote: Don’t you guys know that the findings of Ambulocetus natans and Rodhocetus kasrani... actually have been shown NOT to prove an accessorial relationship?

YOU LIED. DO NOT CHANGE SUBJECT. DO NOT GISH GALLOP. I assume that by "accessorial" you mean "ancestral" or more technically "anagenic." What evidence where shows that they are not in an anagenic relationship and that this means they are not intermediate between land animals and whales? Where is the evidence they are not intermediate between land animals and whales? DO NOT CHANGE SUBJECT. DO NOT GISH GALLOP.

Twoapplestobees wrote: Those finds

WHAT finds!? WHAT finds!? DO NOT CHANGE SUBJECT. DO NOT GISH GALLOP.

Twoapplestobees wrote: studied from a molecular level

WHAT MOLECULES!? DNA? RNA? Proteins? Keratin? Geochemistry? WHAT MOLECULES!? DO NOT CHANGE SUBJECT. DO NOT GISH GALLOP.

Twoapplestobees wrote: In fact the Hippo has more in common with the whale.

WE KNOW THAT! EVOLUTIONISTS PROVED IT! THAT IS WHY YOU LOSE! That was proved by anatomical and genetic evidence. There is no controversy! For example, recent finds of Rhodhocetus (YOU brought up the subject of Rhodhocetus, not me) show that its ankle bones identify it as an artiodactyl! How does that undermine evolution? It proves you lose. Rhodhocetus has whale-like ear bones, hind legs, AND the ankle bones of an artiodactyl! It even has a blowhole located half-way up its skull! It has pelvic bones articulated with the vertebrae, like a land animal's, BUT its sacral vertebrae are partially unfused, like a whale's! Could anything, ANYTHING imaginable, anything conceivable in the human imagination, possibly be MORE intermediate that THAT!? YOU LOSE! And you're the one who brought it up! As for genetic and molecular analysis, there have been many, many, genetic and molecular analyses of many different molecules showing that whales are close relatives to hippos! The most famous of these (but not the only one by far) is the analysis of SINE retrotransposon DNA. The pattern of SINE retrotransposons is practically identically in whales and in hippos. Can the theory that an Intelligent Designer created both whales and hippos via Behe's magic "puff of smoke" explain the near-identical pattern of SINE retrotransposons in whales and in hippos? Some References, mostly on SINEs and retrotransposons (there are many others): "Molecular evidence from retroposons that whales form a clade within even-toed ungulates". Shimamura, M.; Yasue, H.; Ohshima, K.; Abe, H.; Kato, H.; Kishiro, T.; Goto, M.; Munechika, I. et al. (1997). Nature 388 (6643): 666–670. doi:10.1038/41759. PMID 9262399 "SINE evolution, missing data, and the origin of whales". Shedlock, A. M.; Milinkovitch, M. C.; Okada, N. (2000). Systematic Biology 49 (4): 808–816. doi:10.1080/106351500750049851. "Phylogenetic relationships among cetartiodactyls based on insertions of short and long interpersed elements: Hippopotamuses are the closest extant relatives of whales". Nikaido M, Rooney AP, Okada N (1999). Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 96 (18): 10261–10266. doi:10.1073/pnas.96.18.10261. PMC 17876. PMID 10468596.

diogeneslamp0 · 11 February 2013

Twoapplestobees wrote: Also, contrary to what you may have thought, skulls aren’t good evidence to support Evolution. It’s too easy to cherry pick evidence.

What evidence is there for that in the scientific literature? So for example, the gradual increase in brain size from Australopithecus - Homo habilis - early Homo erectus (Dmanisis) - later Homo erectuss, and the gradual flattening of the face and shortening snout, the changes in teeth-- all those gradual, step by step changes are just, what, coincidence? OK, since it's "too easy to cherry pick evidence" as you claim, then you cherry pick some evidence any way you like, and try to prove that possums (or any other non-ape you like) evolved into humans. "Too easy to cherry pick evidence"!? Prove it, go use standard scientific protocols, to prove a non-sensical hypothesis.

Twoapplestobees wrote: For example, the collection of therapsid fossils often show more mammal-like examples occurring earlier in the fossil record and more reptile-like examples occurring later.

We demanded citations to the scientific literature. Instead we got CHANGE OF SUBJECT AND GISH GALLOP. Where did you get this information-- the kiddie page at Answers in Genesis?

Twoapplestobees wrote: seriously— you act as if these clowns are making up stuff.

YES, BECAUSE WE KNOW you and your creationist authorities ARE making stuff up! We know you're liars. We've shown it again and again. We act as if you and your creationist authorities are making stuff, because we've demonstrated that you are in fact, making stuff up.

j. biggs · 11 February 2013

mahsihmo said: ...how INCREDIBLY sad. Teach our children at "home, or church", but NOT in the PUBLIC classroom. Dare I "assume" such a point revolves around the word "public". PLEASE READ THE BILL...!!! With "exception" for this short blurb (below), WHERE ON EARTH DO YOU DRAW "conclusions" that lead you to believe it's about "religion". "This section only protects the teaching of scientific information and may not be construed to promote any religious or nonreligious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs or nonbeliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion." Surely you MUST have overlooked the phrase "may not be construed to promote...discriminate...FOR, or AGAINST". I'm all for "pointed, INFORMED" discussion and dialogue, NOT emotional, isolationist rants. On a simpler note, try to imagine just how you'd express yourself if someone "gave" you that computer keyboard, BUT restricted your learning to the "qwerty" keys, with a "UNPROVEN" premise (as in evolution) that..."this is just how it is". Don't need prove'n, just beleev'n (smile). To deny teachers and students the FREEDOM to think, apply, research AND validate, through CRITICAL, all inclusive thinking is CRIMINAL, and akin to Huxley's utopic Brave New World, and its "Epsilons".

The language of this bill has a history with a creationist organization called the Discovery Institute. "Academic Freedom", "strengths and weaknesses", "critical analysis", and "scientific information" are all buzz words created by them to sound reasonable to the general public but let sectarians know think they can legally circumvent Edwards vs Aguillard. If you really think that this bill is good for science education, why are the vast majority of universities, scientists and professional science organizations against it. Perhaps they know something about this bill you don't, or maybe you are in on the scam.

TomS · 11 February 2013

j. biggs said: Ok, I'll admit there are ID/creationist with impressive credentials. Some of them even have credentials in fields relevant to Biology. The problem here is that these ID/creationists are a small minority of scientists. The vast majority of scientists in relevant fields agree that evolution is a fact. It seems silly to me to dismiss the majority of relevant scientists "with impressive credentials and tenure at renowned universities" in favor of this minority, many of whom don't have credentials in relevant fields. What is even more asinine is to take the minority view in light of what "these credentialed scientists" have produced in realm of publishable original research, which is to say nothing much at all.

The problem here is not particularly the credentials of the people who are advocating "intelligent design" or whatever. The problem is, as you point out, and as I think must be stressed, that they have produced nothing positive and substantive. Should there ever be produced a description of an alternative to evolutionary biology, then there can be discussion about whether it has potential as an alternative to evolutionary biology. Then there can be an examination of what might count as evidence for or against it. Then we can look for whether that evidence exists. But so far, we are still waiting for that first step: What happened and when? How do the characteristics of the intelligent designer(s) affect the way that the world of life turns out? What sort of thing is not likely to be a result of intelligent design? Why is the human body most similar (among all forms of life today) to chimps and bonobos, and to a somewhat lesser degree, other apes? Why do vertebrates have eyes most similar to other vertebrates (rather than like those of insects or of octopuses)? As long as the evolution-deniers do not even make an attempt to propose an alternative, there is nothing to talk about.

diogeneslamp0 · 11 February 2013

TwoApplestobees wrote: I haven’t evaded your questions.

You lying piece of shit! See my two comments above, listing a few of the many important questions Twoapples evaded. Trying to Gish gallop us when you've been caught lying. We must have a Zero Tolerance policy for Gish gallop. Change the subject like that, and you're banned.

harold · 11 February 2013

mahsihmo said: ...how INCREDIBLY sad. Teach our children at "home, or church", but NOT in the PUBLIC classroom. Dare I "assume" such a point revolves around the word "public". PLEASE READ THE BILL...!!! With "exception" for this short blurb (below), WHERE ON EARTH DO YOU DRAW "conclusions" that lead you to believe it's about "religion". "This section only protects the teaching of scientific information and may not be construed to promote any religious or nonreligious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs or nonbeliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion." Surely you MUST have overlooked the phrase "may not be construed to promote...discriminate...FOR, or AGAINST". I'm all for "pointed, INFORMED" discussion and dialogue, NOT emotional, isolationist rants. On a simpler note, try to imagine just how you'd express yourself if someone "gave" you that computer keyboard, BUT restricted your learning to the "qwerty" keys, with a "UNPROVEN" premise (as in evolution) that..."this is just how it is". Don't need prove'n, just beleev'n (smile). To deny teachers and students the FREEDOM to think, apply, research AND validate, through CRITICAL, all inclusive thinking is CRIMINAL, and akin to Huxley's utopic Brave New World, and its "Epsilons".

Simple question - are there any limits on what the teacher should discuss during class time, in public high school science class? Yes or no.

mahsihmo · 11 February 2013

...within "reason" there must ALWAYS be a left / right limit, else we'd have the promotion of "self taught, self validated" gibberish. So, in that vein, established limits should not preclude expansion of thought, or source.

mahsihmo · 11 February 2013

...as I read through this particular discourse most of what has been posted revolves around hate, ridicule, misunderstanding, and testosterone filled posturing. I see a lot of "you can't tell me anything that I don't already know" going on, but very little "knowledge transfer, or exchange.

harold · 11 February 2013

I haven’t evaded your questions.

Denial of reality does not change reality. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhRUe-gz690

harold · 11 February 2013

mahsihmo said: ...within "reason" there must ALWAYS be a left / right limit, else we'd have the promotion of "self taught, self validated" gibberish. So, in that vein, established limits should not preclude expansion of thought, or source.

Would you agree with these statements, and if not, why not? 1) Because there is a great deal of science to master, high school science class should focus on established science. 2) It violates the United States constitution to teach one type of sectarian dogma as "science".

mahsihmo · 11 February 2013

...indeed (smile). Proof that my expectations for informed, intelligent discourse here in this forum were misplaced.

mahsihmo · 11 February 2013

...how disappointing to hear the "borrowed" theology of Eugenie Scott pawned off as "questions".

apokryltaros · 11 February 2013

mahsihmo said: ...as I read through this particular discourse most of what has been posted revolves around hate, ridicule, misunderstanding, and testosterone filled posturing. I see a lot of "you can't tell me anything that I don't already know" going on, but very little "knowledge transfer, or exchange.

So, tell us why it is necessary to make legislation for "academic freedom" that singles out evolution, climate change, and human cloning, and why should we blindly trust such legislation when they are repeatedly proposed by creationists and their political allies to permit, if not force the teaching of religiously inspired anti-science propaganda in place of actual science in science classrooms. Or, should we assume that you are merely a Concern Troll For Jesus, here to castigate, shame and insult us for not blindly kissing your ass as you requested?

mahsihmo · 11 February 2013

...as I read this "bill I noted that the ONLY thing being "singled out", and RESTRICTED is the freedom to THINK CRITICALLY, as it relates to developing a "full spectrum" of source and resource from which to learn, study and explore.

It seems to have rankled those who have an aversion "religion".

DS · 11 February 2013

mahsihmo said: ...as I read through this particular discourse most of what has been posted revolves around hate, ridicule, misunderstanding, and testosterone filled posturing. I see a lot of "you can't tell me anything that I don't already know" going on, but very little "knowledge transfer, or exchange.

I agree. So stop doing that.

apokryltaros · 11 February 2013

mahsihmo said: ...how disappointing to hear the "borrowed" theology of Eugenie Scott pawned off as "questions".

And yet, why is it necessary to propose and pass legislation for "academic freedom" to permit or force teachers to not teach science, while teaching religiously inspired anti-science lies and propaganda? If there are "alternatives" to Evolution(ary Biology), then how come not a single soul in the scientific community knows of them, and why should we waste time in science classrooms teaching these imaginary alternatives under the lie of "academic freedom"?

apokryltaros · 11 February 2013

DS said:
mahsihmo said: ...as I read through this particular discourse most of what has been posted revolves around hate, ridicule, misunderstanding, and testosterone filled posturing. I see a lot of "you can't tell me anything that I don't already know" going on, but very little "knowledge transfer, or exchange.
I agree. So stop doing that.

But the problem is that our latest Hypocrite For Jesus would sooner commit suicide than stop being a hypocritical concern troll.

DS · 11 February 2013

mahsihmo said: ...as I read this "bill I noted that the ONLY thing being "singled out", and RESTRICTED is the freedom to THINK CRITICALLY, as it relates to developing a "full spectrum" of source and resource from which to learn, study and explore. It seems to have rankled those who have an aversion "religion".

Exactly. That's why it's worthless. The freedom to think critically is in no way restricted, nor can it be. Therefore, requiring that it not be restricted is obviously a ploy and code for something else. Since the people who proposed the legislation and their motives are well known, one need not speculate as to their true motives. Either you are in on the scam or you have been duped. Either way, you should get on the side of truth, justice and the American way, not defend charlatans and liars.

diogeneslamp0 · 11 February 2013

mahsihmo said: To deny teachers and students the FREEDOM to think, apply, research AND validate, through CRITICAL, all inclusive thinking is CRIMINAL

Then all creationists and Anti-Darwinists are CRIMINAL by your defintion, because they all forbid dissent and questioning! Wanna look at the "Statement of Faith" of any creationist organization?

Answers in Genesis requires all its employeers and small children who participate in science fairs to sign their Statement of Faith, which includes: By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information. [AIG Mandatory Statement of Faith]

You can't clean the toilets at the Creation Museum unless you agree to never disagree with Ken Ham. Even little kids who participate in AIG "Science" Fairs have to swear to never question Ken Ham's statements. Is Intelligent Design any more tolerant? Try going over to the ID website Evolution News & Views and criticize their factual falsehoods? Oops, you can't-- they don't take comments! They're CRIMINAL by your definition. How about when CRIMINALS William Dembski and Dave Scot, as moderators of Uncommon Descent, banned everyone who was good at arguing for evolution?

William Dembski wrote: "I’m afraid I’m not entirely happy what you bring to our discussion, so you’re out of here." [Dave Scot's Stalinist Purge of UD]

Remember when William "freedom fighter" Dembski for once made an honest statement and said Noah's Flood could not be global? His boss threatened to fire him. Dembski immediately backed down and said Noah's Flood was global after all! Some freedom fighter! Clearly, Dembski works for a CRIMINAL theological seminary, by your definition of CRIMINAL. How about when CRIMINAL William Dembski tried to get Prof. Pianka arrested by the Department of Homeland Security? How about when Phillip Johnson, CRIMINAL founder of the Discovery Institute, tried to get Nancey Murphy fired? How about the CRIMINAL creationists at La Sierra University, who fired Prof. Greer and three trustees because they weren't creationist enough? How about the CRIMINAL creationists at Shorter University, where 60, that's sixty, faculty left in a purge of gays and evolutionists? How about Prof. Bruce Waltke, who was insta-fired from Reformed Theological Seminary just for being interviewed in a BioLogos (pro-evolution) Institute video? What about when creationist Kent Hovind said that kids and parents should just cut the pages out of public school textbooks if they mention evolution? How about when the Discovery Institute had a class on ID, but wouldn't let anyone in unless they already believed in ID?

“Admission Requirements: You must be currently enrolled in a college or university as a junior, senior, or graduate student. Required application materials include (1) a resume/cv, (2) a copy of your academic transcript, (3) a short statement of your interest in intelligent design and its perceived relationship to your career plans and field of study, and (4) either a letter of recommendation from a professor who knows your work and is friendly toward ID, or a phone interview with the seminar director.” [Source]

As for "Critical Thinking", the pro-creationism Texas Republican Party came out opposing it in schools. That want Creationism YES, Critical Thinking NO.

"We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student's fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority." [Source]

There is much more like this, but that's enough for now.

mahsihmo · 11 February 2013

...my goodness, are we reading the same bit of legislation????? Where is it indicated that teachers SHOULD NOT teach "science", in lieu of religion???? This bill is a measure that seeks to intervene in the brainwashing, and INTERJECT disparate "source and resource". Sadly, it's needed to keep the "lions" from being loosed against ANYONE who would speak "off script". Refusing to tow the "state line".

apokryltaros · 11 February 2013

hypocrite lied: ...my goodness, are we reading the same bit of legislation????? Where is it indicated that teachers SHOULD NOT teach "science", in lieu of religion???? This bill is a measure that seeks to intervene in the brainwashing, and INTERJECT disparate "source and resource". Sadly, it's needed to keep the "lions" from being loosed against ANYONE who would speak "off script". Refusing to tow the "state line".

Spare us your hypocritical incredulity, concern troll. This sort of legislation is routinely proposed by creationists to shoehorn Creationism and other anti-science propaganda at the deliberate expense of actual science.

Robin · 11 February 2013

mahsihmo said: ...how INCREDIBLY sad. Teach our children at "home, or church", but NOT in the PUBLIC classroom. Dare I "assume" such a point revolves around the word "public". PLEASE READ THE BILL...!!!

I did read the Bill. And I'll repeat: "There are no “alternative viewpoints regarding controversial scientific theories”. So right now, there’s nothing for this Bill to do and nothing for students to be concerned with."

With "exception" for this short blurb (below), WHERE ON EARTH DO YOU DRAW "conclusions" that lead you to believe it's about "religion".

The Bill's proponent and proposer, Clayton Fiscus (R-District 46) offered up a very similar Bill back in November 2012 that would "[r]equire public schools to teach intelligent design along with evolution." That phrase was replaced in this new Bill with the words "encourage critical thinking regarding controversial scientific theories." All other words are pretty much the same. Intelligent Design was found in Kitzmiller vs Dover to be a redressing of Creationism - in other words, religion. That's the underhanded intent of this Bill.

"This section only protects the teaching of scientific information and may not be construed to promote any religious or nonreligious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs or nonbeliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion." Surely you MUST have overlooked the phrase "may not be construed to promote...discriminate...FOR, or AGAINST".

No, I didn't overlook the phrase. I am merely familiar with the dishonest tactics of the sponsors of this Bill and its history.

I'm all for "pointed, INFORMED" discussion and dialogue, NOT emotional, isolationist rants.

Me too. So why are you ranting? You know...all caps writing, lots of exclamation points, and so on? More to the point, why would the teaching of any scientific concept need such a Bill when the very foundation of science is the "pointed, informed" discussion and dialogue of such concepts in the first place?

On a simpler note, try to imagine just how you'd express yourself if someone "gave" you that computer keyboard, BUT restricted your learning to the "qwerty" keys, with a "UNPROVEN" premise (as in evolution) that..."this is just how it is". Don't need prove'n, just beleev'n (smile).

Except that Evolutionary Theory does not rely upon an unproven premise, so I'm not sure what you are referring to here. Nor is it "just how it is." In point of fact, the whole point of studying the process of evolution is to more accurately determine just how it is. That would actually be the whole point of studying anything in science actually. And anyone who suggests that some aspect of science requires believing clearly doesn't understand science. Scientific concepts are either understood or they are not; there is no such thing as believing them.

To deny teachers and students the FREEDOM to think, apply, research AND validate, through CRITICAL, all inclusive thinking is CRIMINAL, and akin to Huxley's utopic Brave New World, and its "Epsilons".

Teachers and students are not only free to critically think, apply, research, and validate scientific concepts, they are highly encouraged to do so. It's the whole point of science in the first place. They don't need a Bill protecting such activities. The only purpose of said Bill is to protect the introduction and teaching of non-scientific concepts as alternatives to "controversial" subjects (read: anything that contradicts narrow interpretations of certain religious beliefs).

mahsihmo · 11 February 2013

...so, now it's become "personal" (smile).

My friend (can I call you friend ~ smile), it was C.H. Spurgeon who once said, “Defend the Bible? Would you defend a lion? Loose him; and let him go!”

The same can be said for TRUTH. Your venture into the world of verbal "fisticuffs" speaks volumes, sadly more so to your "lack of confidence" and conviction. You have been led to believe that "shouting" proves your point better than "whispering".

When in doubt, pout, when intellectually overwhelmed, spout...VENOM. Not very convincing.

PA Poland · 11 February 2013

mahsihmo said: ...as I read through this particular discourse most of what has been posted revolves around hate, ridicule, misunderstanding, and testosterone filled posturing.

Because that is pretty much all creationists, IDiots and theoloons have for anyone that doesn't just simply believe them.

I see a lot of "you can't tell me anything that I don't already know" going on, but very little "knowledge transfer, or exchange.

Mainly because the IDiots, creationuts and theoloons HAVE no knowledge to transfer (given that creatorism is ignorance based - "Since *** I *** can't see how this could happen naturally, DESIGNERDIDIT !!11!!!!!!!"), and they refuse to accept any knowledge transferred from the real-world if it does not conform to their comfortable little delusions. What 'alternatives' to evolution would you like see taught ? What scientific EVIDENCE supports those 'alternatives' to evolution ? All anyone has ever seen is incessant braying against evolution, that 'evolution has gaps/shortcomings !!!!' (as if 'A Magical Sky Pixie/Intelligent Designer DIDIT !!!!!' is anything BUT a glorification of intentionally maintained gaps).

diogeneslamp0 · 11 February 2013

I want to add some more to Mahsihmo's statements alleging suppression of freedom of thought by evolutionists. In my previous comment I gave many examples of creationists suppressing freedom of thought. However, there's a major one I didn't bring up. The Islamic creationist Harun Yahya, who runs an anti-Semitic creationist sex cult in Turkey, was taught by American creationists, specifically the Institute for Creation Research, how to twist scientific facts and accuse scientists of atheism, fraud and being in the great conspiracy. The starts of the ICR including David Menton and Duane Gish went off to Turkey to hold "seminars" with Harun Yahya where they taught him to use conspiracy theories to encourage the hatred of scientists. Since then, Harun Yahya has used the Turkish courts to shut down many pro-evolution websites, including Dawkins' and ALL WORDPRESS BLOGS, because some blogs point out the egregious factual errors in his creationist bullshit. But it did not stop there. Yahya's creationist organization, called the BAV, and his other cultists launched numerous legal suits and accused scientists of being Marxists and atheists, and encouraged violence against them. This in an Islamic country. They quite effectively silenced Turkish scientists via a campaign of terror and legal abuse. Now back to America. In 2005, the Kansas State School Board determined to add intelligent design/creationism to to the school curricula. One of the prominent proponents of Intelligent Design was Missouri professor William Harris. When a reporter from a Kansas City paper told creationist Harris of the BAV’s harassment and threats of violence against biologists in Turkey, he replied:

Creationist William Harris said, regarding the violent threats directed ata scientists by creationists: "Great! Congratulations! I mean, that is the point, once people start to see science more objectively.” [The Pitch (Kansas paper)]

Let's be clear that what creationists, with their anti-evolution legislation, consider "Great" and "The Point" is to silence scientists by accusing them of conspiracy, atheism, Marxism, etc. thus encouraging violent threats against them. For creationists, that is very much "The Point" of anti-evolution legislation.

apokryltaros · 11 February 2013

hypocrite brayed: ...so, now it's become "personal" (smile). My friend (can I call you friend ~ smile), it was C.H. Spurgeon who once said, “Defend the Bible? Would you defend a lion? Loose him; and let him go!” The same can be said for TRUTH. Your venture into the world of verbal "fisticuffs" speaks volumes, sadly more so to your "lack of confidence" and conviction. You have been led to believe that "shouting" proves your point better than "whispering". When in doubt, pout, when intellectually overwhelmed, spout...VENOM. Not very convincing.

You're the one doing nothing but braying and spouting venom. Besides, when you're the third troll on this thread to spout the same recycled lies and same recycled fake-concerns, why should anyone bother to treat you or any other troll with any respect or even civility? Especially when you appear compelled to do absolutely nothing to earn any respect or civility.

mahsihmo · 11 February 2013

...well, I'm not really too fond of being "3rd" anything (smile). However, I'm just as un-interested (sic) in verbal jousting, as a test of "whatever". i was looking for INTELLIGENT, INFORMED dialogue and discussion. Something that you may want to consider...if I were "buying", you've failed at making a "sell-able" point.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/HVJnIBo.k9XNMUFdkYB_RBnH84qDk9rLK_k-#51686 · 11 February 2013

DS said: The asshole actually claimed that Crick discovered DNA! Even if this isn't Joe, time for dump to the bathroom wall. If it is Joe, time for legal action.

Agreed. This Atheistoclast person has gone way too far. He should be arrested, tried and punished for subverting the current scientific consensus and order. He is a menace.

diogeneslamp0 · 11 February 2013

mahsihmo said: When in doubt, pout, when intellectually overwhelmed, spout...VENOM. Not very convincing.

Intellectually overwhelmed? You, Mahsihmo, claimed that it was CRIMINAL (your capitalization) to prevent people from seeing all sides. YOU brought up that point. YOU presented it as crucial, critical, relevant, IMPORTANT. I just proved with EVIDENCE (you cited none! no evidence for you!) that your creationist authorities, your Intelligent Design authorities, do everything in their power to suppress freedom of thought. You came here saying that freedom of thought was crucial, critical, relevant, IMPORTANT. When I proved that your creationist authorities suppress freedom of thought, then freedom of thought, which you once claimed was crucial, critical, relevant, IMPORTANT, was now in fact NOT crucial, critical, relevant, important anymore; no, when your creationist authorities suppress freedom of thought, now it becomes unimportant, irrelevant, TRIVIAL. How did suppressing freedom of thought become TRIVIAL just because your creationist heroes do it every goddamn day?

mahsihmo · 11 February 2013

I'm smiling as I recall that I NEVER mentioned "Intelligent Design" (smile). Interesting how your perceptions, and expressions betrayed your "heart"...!

j. biggs · 11 February 2013

Does anyone else sense that there may be some sock-puppetry being performed here? It seems strange that as soon as Iloveapplebees disappears mashedpotatoes appears.

diogeneslamp0 · 11 February 2013

mahsihmo said: I'm smiling as I recall that I NEVER mentioned "Intelligent Design" (smile). Interesting how your perceptions, and expressions betrayed your "heart"...!

Mahsihmo, you said it was CRITICAL CRUCIAL RELEVANT IMPORTANT that free thought should not be suppressed and anyone who did so was CRIMINAL. I showed that your creationist heroes suppress free thought, so they are CRIMINAL by your definition. Now you have decided that subject is UNIMPORTANT IRRELEVANT TRIVIAL. Did it become TRIVIAL the femtosecond that your creationist heroes suppressed free thought? Answer the damn question.

mahsihmo · 11 February 2013

...certainly NOT what I expected (smile). I wonder if Dawkins would ever sink to this level, to PROVE his point.

diogeneslamp0 · 11 February 2013

Mahsihmo, you are exactly what I expected.

Mahsihmo, you said it was CRITICAL CRUCIAL RELEVANT IMPORTANT that free thought should not be suppressed and anyone who did so was CRIMINAL.

I showed that your creationist heroes suppress free thought, so they are CRIMINAL by your definition.

Now you have decided that subject is UNIMPORTANT IRRELEVANT TRIVIAL. Did it become TRIVIAL the femtosecond that your creationist heroes suppressed free thought?

Answer the damn question.

j. biggs · 11 February 2013

mahsihmo said: I'm smiling as I recall that I NEVER mentioned "Intelligent Design" (smile). Interesting how your perceptions, and expressions betrayed your "heart"...!

It's called guilt by association, fool. "Academic Freedom" is about pushing DI approved pseudoscience into science class rooms. It doesn't matter if you mentioned it or not because we all know the back-story on bills that use the Discovery Institute language.

harold · 11 February 2013

Mahsihmo -

Perhaps you could answer these questions. I am not aware of Eugenie Scott making use of them, although she, or anyone else, is welcome to.

1) Could any evidence convince you of the theory of evolution, and if so, what type of evidence is now lacking, that would convince you, if present?

3) Do you think it is important for opponents of the theory of evolution to fully understand the theory of evolution? If so, can you explain it, and if not, can you explain why not?

4) Who is the designer? How can we test your answer?

5) What did that designer do? How can we test your answer?

6) How did the designer do it? How can we test your answer?

7) When did the designer do it? How can we test your answer?

8) What is an example of something that was not designed by the designer?

mahsihmo · 11 February 2013

...you see, I did not come here hoping to validate of disprove any "creationist hero". In fact, I'm looking for "dialogue" regarding EVOLUTION. I am most definitely supportive of FREE THOUGHT, and freedom of speech. I have some "glaring" issues with evolution, and it's "evangelists". Especially with the militancy in which they (YOU) posit any sort of justification for its teachings, or beliefs.

diogeneslamp0 · 11 February 2013

Mahsihmo,

would you like me to copy in some more examples of your creationist heroes suppressing the freedom of thought you said was IMPORTANT, and engaging in acts that you called CRIMINAL?

You used the word CRIMINAL. If you care about this subject, surely you would like to see more examples of your creationist heroes suppressing free thought! It's IMPORTANT to you, you said. You want some more examples? There are many, many, I just have to format the HTML. So go ask, if it's so important to you.

diogeneslamp0 · 11 February 2013

mahsihmo said: ...In fact, I'm looking for "dialogue" regarding EVOLUTION. I am most definitely supportive of FREE THOUGHT, and freedom of speech.

FL · 11 February 2013

“This section only protects the teaching of scientific information and may not be construed to promote any religious or nonreligious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs or nonbeliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion.”

This one paragraph effectively nukes the Kitzmiller court decision. In fact, take a look at the Kitzmiller ruling as it appears today: http://www.atomicarchive.com/Photos/LANL/image19.shtml FL

j. biggs · 11 February 2013

mahsihmo said: ...you see, I did not come here hoping to validate of disprove any "creationist hero". In fact, I'm looking for "dialogue" regarding EVOLUTION. I am most definitely supportive of FREE THOUGHT, and freedom of speech. I have some "glaring" issues with evolution, and it's "evangelists". Especially with the militancy in which they (YOU) posit any sort of justification for its teachings, or beliefs.

Really, I haven't seen you attempt anything resembling civil discourse. All you have thus far done is spew vitriolic rhetoric and effrontery.

mahsihmo · 11 February 2013

NOPE...Not true...! I have not even begun to ask questions yet (smile).

The only thing I did was comment on the proposed legislation HB 183, and all "hell" broke loose. While I was "nuked" for offering "citation" for my THOUGHTS (not facts). I choose not to defend "creationist heroes" (as it was put to me).

Robin · 11 February 2013

mahsihmo said: ...you see, I did not come here hoping to validate of disprove any "creationist hero". In fact, I'm looking for "dialogue" regarding EVOLUTION. I am most definitely supportive of FREE THOUGHT, and freedom of speech.

Hmmm...well, some folks here, including me, provided simple ol' dialogue. Oddly you've ignored it. You can't exactly complain when you aren't making an effort to follow-up on what you claim you want.

I have some "glaring" issues with evolution, and it's "evangelists". Especially with the militancy in which they (YOU) posit any sort of justification for its teachings, or beliefs.

Well, by all means, feel free to air your 'glare'. Just don't expect too many of the folks here to hand you a hanky after pretty much defining the basic creationist perspective. If you aren't going to post in good faith with intellectually honest questions and responses, why exactly would expect anyone here to?

apokryltaros · 11 February 2013

Liar For Jesus Lied:
“This section only protects the teaching of scientific information and may not be construed to promote any religious or nonreligious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs or nonbeliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion.”
This one paragraph effectively nukes the Kitzmiller court decision. In fact, take a look at the Kitzmiller ruling as it appears today: http://www.atomicarchive.com/Photos/LANL/image19.shtml

There would only be three situations where this paragraph would "nuke the Kitzmiller court decision:" 1) If Creationism/Intelligent Design actually was not religiously inspired anti-science propaganda, but actually a viable alternative science to Evolutionary Biology. 2) If ~~Evolutionary Biology~~ was, somehow, magically a religion that magically persecutes and or discriminates against Christianity and other Abrahamic religions. or 3) If FL was not a compulsive liar with delusions of relevance. But, since none of these requirements occur or even have occurred in reality, FL is obviously lying, as usual.

apokryltaros · 11 February 2013

concern troll whined: NOPE...Not true...! I have not even begun to ask questions yet (smile).

All you've done is insult and castigate us for not blindly agreeing with this latest anti-science education legislature. As well as be mean to you, even though you've done nothing but hypocritically spew lies and vitriol everywhere.

mahsihmo · 11 February 2013

???

mahsihmo · 11 February 2013

"concerned troll"...!!! Wow (smile)

Robin · 11 February 2013

FL said:
“This section only protects the teaching of scientific information and may not be construed to promote any religious or nonreligious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs or nonbeliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion.”
This one paragraph effectively nukes the Kitzmiller court decision. FL

Not even remotely. The paragraph actually makes it impossible for such a Bill to be used to teach anything BUT actual science given that the Kitzmiller decision made ID legally synonymous with Creationism. Thus, said paragraph makes the entire Bill superfluous. Just like the LSEA...

JimNorth · 11 February 2013

Looks like some school project is due - rile up the beasts at a Darwinist site and claim victory - I mean, engage in a polite conversation with someone who holds an opposite point of view...

I prefer this definition of evolution --- The OBSERVED changes in the allele frequency of a population over time. ymmv.

apokryltaros · 11 February 2013

So what are you here for, then, if you're not here to shame and insult and gnash your impotent little teeth at us for not blindly accepting this blatantly dishonest legislation meant to deliberately harm science education?

apokryltaros · 11 February 2013

Robin said:
FL said:
“This section only protects the teaching of scientific information and may not be construed to promote any religious or nonreligious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs or nonbeliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion.”
This one paragraph effectively nukes the Kitzmiller court decision. FL
Not even remotely. The paragraph actually makes it impossible for such a Bill to be used to teach anything BUT actual science given that the Kitzmiller decision made ID legally synonymous with Creationism. Thus, said paragraph makes the entire Bill superfluous. Just like the LSEA...

Do remember that FL takes pride in the fact that he has abominable reading comprehension skills, and also takes great pride in the fact that he would sooner die than make a quote in an honest fashion.

mahsihmo · 11 February 2013

Imagine that...!!! The sad reality of being met by sarcasm and skepticism during a search for knowledge. Go figure. As "Jafar" would say..."why am I not surprised"...?

j. biggs · 11 February 2013

From your first post mahsihmo:

To deny our students an opportunity to learn, explore, and research EVERY conceivable facet of subject matter is tantamount to isolationist brainwashing. Which leads me to wonder…what are the “though police” afraid of???

Seems like you started this whole "dialogue" with the vitriolic rhetoric to which I was referring. Now you say it's not true even though it obviously is. BTW, you did ask a question.

With “exception” for this short blurb (below), WHERE ON EARTH DO YOU DRAW “conclusions” that lead you to believe it’s about “religion”.

When you were told that the previous version of the bill written by the same author included a provision for teaching intelligent design and that the language of the bill has a history with the discovery institute you responded with the following effrontery.

…indeed (smile). Proof that my expectations for informed, intelligent discourse here in this forum were misplaced.

and

…how disappointing to hear the “borrowed” theology of Eugenie Scott pawned off as “questions”.

So both charges stand. You aren't interested in dialogue. You are here to taunt because you have nothing but hot air and you know it. And Mahsihmo seem's like a Bozorgmehrism to me if I ever heard one Considering Massimo Pigliucci has been critical of Dawkins for what he calls scientism (although to be fair he is also an outspoken critic of ID/creationism). Seem's like a handle that is right up bozo joe's alley.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 11 February 2013

Just remember, Bozo Joe is also a Holocaust denier. And there's no meaningful question that the troll is Atheistoclast, either, "Professor Wilberforce" showed up almost immediately as the clot-headed moron two road apples was answered, playing the usual Gish Gallop, and basically sounding the same as Toostupid/Liar Joe.

He never learns, never does anything but repeat the same putrid lies that have been refuted all over the web. He knows full well about creationist censorship, since he's been booted from a number of their forums, from UD for Holocaust denial (no, I don't really think he should be kicked out for that, odious as it is, but for his endless lies, evasions, and trolling).

So argue with the evil troll if you wish, but evil is all that he brings to any discussion.

Glen Davidson

https://me.yahoo.com/a/HVJnIBo.k9XNMUFdkYB_RBnH84qDk9rLK_k-#51686 · 11 February 2013

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said: Just remember, Bozo Joe is also a Holocaust denier. And there's no meaningful question that the troll is Atheistoclast, either, "Professor Wilberforce" showed up almost immediately as the clot-headed moron two road apples was answered, playing the usual Gish Gallop, and basically sounding the same as Toostupid/Liar Joe. He never learns, never does anything but repeat the same putrid lies that have been refuted all over the web. He knows full well about creationist censorship, since he's been booted from a number of their forums, from UD for Holocaust denial (no, I don't really think he should be kicked out for that, odious as it is, but for his endless lies, evasions, and trolling). So argue with the evil troll if you wish, but evil is all that he brings to any discussion. Glen Davidson

Why haven't the moderators not banned Bozo Joe for good? I thought they had put a block on his IP address? He is indeed an evil liar and science/history denier. He has no scruples.

harold · 11 February 2013

mahsihmo said: Imagine that...!!! The sad reality of being met by sarcasm and skepticism during a search for knowledge. Go figure. As "Jafar" would say..."why am I not surprised"...?

Can you explain precisely how you would like to change the Montana public high school science curriculum? Not vague generalizations. Precisely what would you like changed?

apokryltaros · 11 February 2013

https://me.yahoo.com/a/HVJnIBo.k9XNMUFdkYB_RBnH84qDk9rLK_k-#51686 said: Why haven't the moderators not banned Bozo Joe for good? I thought they had put a block on his IP address? He is indeed an evil liar and science/history denier. He has no scruples.

Because it is (legally and physically) impossible to ban Joe from using a computer with a different IP address to return to this site in order to flout his banning. Short of appealing to the British judicial system to enforce a restraining order on him, the closest the Panda's Thumb administrators can do is to ban Joe's new IP addresses as they are detected.

prongs · 11 February 2013

I detect a new species evolving in this very thread and claim the right to name them:

Creationists Rapidly Evolving To Increase Non-sense (CRETINs for short).

A virus with a new molecular jacket, but still the same old flu.

Mike Elzinga · 11 February 2013

There is at least one thing that is glaringly obvious with the three(?) ID/creationist trolls currently infesting this thread; namely, not one of them has even a high school understanding of any science whatsoever. They cannot articulate any scientific concepts, and they know nothing about the process of science or the evidence backing up scientific theories.

Yet they pretend to be critics. They are like tone-deaf wrecking crews criticizing a concert pianist for not playing the piano with the broad, vigorous swings of a sledge hammer and an axe.

It is people like this who would obstruct the educations of others in order to keep others as ignorant as they are. That is what these bills are all about; obstructing good science education just so sectarian charlatans can make more money duping a gullible and stupid population.

They take so much pride in their self-inflicted ignorance; and they find great pleasure in using that ignorance to moon smart people.

gnome de net · 11 February 2013

apokryltaros said: ...the closest the Panda's Thumb administrators can do is to ban Joe's new IP addresses as they are detected.

That can quickly become an exercise in futility, and also prevent innocent people from visiting this site if Joe's ISP is anything like mine which assigns addresses in the range mmm.nnn.###.### — that's 256^2 = 65,536 addresses.

mahsihmo · 11 February 2013

This has DEGENERATED to personal attacks and name calling...! Not worth the time or effort. I'm sorry to have stirred up so much FEAR, HATRED, and UGLINESS. I'll look ELSEWHERE for an intelligent discussion.

How sad to see adults act like kids on a playground...!

j. biggs · 11 February 2013

mahsihmo said: This has DEGENERATED to personal attacks and name calling...! Not worth the time or effort. I'm sorry to have stirred up so much FEAR, HATRED, and UGLINESS. I'll look ELSEWHERE for an intelligent discussion. How sad to see adults act like kids on a playground...!

It's hard to have an intelligent discussion with someone like you who has a demonstrable aversion to intelligent discussion. The fault lies with you.

Just Bob · 11 February 2013

mahsihmo said: I'll look ELSEWHERE for an intelligent discussion.

As my sainted grandmother used to say: Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

FL · 11 February 2013

I’m sorry to have stirred up so much FEAR, HATRED, and UGLINESS.

Don't apologize, dude. Ain't nuthin wrong with some goodly stirrin-up's in the ole pot, especially when it's the PANDA POT!!! FL

j. biggs · 11 February 2013

FL said:
I’m sorry to have stirred up so much FEAR, HATRED, and UGLINESS.
Don't apologize, dude. Ain't nuthin wrong with some goodly stirrin-up's in the ole pot, especially when it's the PANDA POT!!! FL

That's right Floyd, encourage Bozo Joe. The guy who promised administrators at this site he wouldn't come back after threatening to physically harm other commenters.

apokryltaros · 11 February 2013

j. biggs said:
FL said:
I’m sorry to have stirred up so much FEAR, HATRED, and UGLINESS.
Don't apologize, dude. Ain't nuthin wrong with some goodly stirrin-up's in the ole pot, especially when it's the PANDA POT!!! FL
That's right Floyd, encourage Bozo Joe. The guy who promised administrators at this site he wouldn't come back after threatening to physically harm other commenters.

That's because, being a science-hating bigot, and professional Asshole For Jesus, FL is quick to suck the genitals of anyone he perceives as a fellow science-hating bigot.

phhht · 11 February 2013

FL said: Don't apologize...

The Cowardly Loon still ducks and dodges my points. If he only had a brain.

harold · 11 February 2013

I said -

Can you explain precisely how you would like to change the Montana public high school science curriculum? Not vague generalizations. Precisely what would you like changed?

Probably-You-Know-Who said, in reply -

This has DEGENERATED to personal attacks and name calling…! Not worth the time or effort. I’m sorry to have stirred up so much FEAR, HATRED, and UGLINESS. I’ll look ELSEWHERE for an intelligent discussion. How sad to see adults act like kids on a playground…!

Translation - "Oh-oh, a straight, honest, relevant, civil question - I must use some silly trick to evade it". Remember, always keep asking them simple, straight questions. If they want ID in schools, ask them the usual questions about ID. If they say they don't want ID, ask them PRECISELY how they want to change the current science curriculum. Precisely what do they want to take out? Precisely what do they want to add? Remember, their goal is to trick people. All creationist school boards and all anti-science bills always try to disguise their intent until the last minute. They try to trick people with weasel words like "equal time", "both sides", and "critical thinking", which sound good but actually don't apply. Direct specific questions always reveal that. That's why they always eventually fail in court, where the questions are direct, specific, and cannot be evaded. However, it is far better for everyone involved if voters can be shown what is going on before things end up in court.

FL · 11 February 2013

Stanton, you seem to have certain activities on your mind far more than I have BBQ Sauce on my mind. Now is that spiritually appropriate?

FL · 11 February 2013

On a more sophisticated note:

If they say they don’t want ID, ask them PRECISELY how they want to change the current science curriculum. Precisely what do they want to take out? Precisely what do they want to add?

Not difficult at all. The non-Darwinist simply responds, "LSEA", and provides the link. Automatic Victory on tap. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/06/text_of_louisiana_science_educ007391.html FL

apokryltaros · 11 February 2013

Asshole For Jesus whined: Stanton, you seem to have certain activities on your mind far more than I have BBQ Sauce on my mind. Now is that spiritually appropriate?

If you don't like it when I point out how you love to taunt us with threats of God raping us in Hell using barbeque sauce as lubricant, or when I point out how you eagerly debase yourself kissing the asses and genitals of other anti-science trolls, then why do you persist in doing so? I would gladly stop pointing out how spiritually inappropriate your own misbehavior is if you stop, but, you repeatedly demonstrate that you would sooner commit murder-suicide than stop acting like a Perverted Asshole For Jesus. Or, am I to assume that you're complaining because you want to hypocritically engage in your Assholery For Jesus without me or others to point out how you're a hypocrite and an asshole?

phhht · 11 February 2013

FL said: On a more sophisticated note...

So, you sniveling Cowardly Loon, you've as good as confessed your incompetence. You don't address my points because you can't. If he only had a brain.

apokryltaros · 11 February 2013

Liar For Jesus lied: On a more sophisticated note:
If they say they don’t want ID, ask them PRECISELY how they want to change the current science curriculum. Precisely what do they want to take out? Precisely what do they want to add?
Not difficult at all. The non-Darwinist simply responds, "LSEA", and provides the link. Automatic Victory on tap. *creationist spam link snipped*

Tell us, FL, why are you so eager to see Creationism and other anti-science propaganda taught in place of science, in science classrooms when there is no scientific or economic applications of Creationism or Intelligent Design?

Mike Elzinga · 11 February 2013

harold said: Remember, always keep asking them simple, straight questions. If they want ID in schools, ask them the usual questions about ID. ... If they say they don't want ID, ask them PRECISELY how they want to change the current science curriculum. Precisely what do they want to take out? Precisely what do they want to add? ...

All instructors, especially those teaching in a high school, are required to develop a course syllabus, a set of course objectives along with a set of teaching materials and exams. In the Advanced Placement courses, students have to cover material that will help them score well on the Advanced Placement exams. This really gets down to specifics; and it directly affects the chances of high school students getting into the colleges and universities of their choice. I would like to see any of these ID/creationist trolls meet that requirement right here on this thread. What would their syllabus look like? What are the course objectives for each week of the year? What teaching materials would they include? How would students be tested on their understanding of the material? What would typical exam questions look like? How would any of their additional material contribute to a student’s ability to pass the AP exams? Here is what we will see from the trolls. Complete avoidance of the questions or vague platitudes at best. But never, ever any specifics.

apokryltaros · 11 February 2013

phhht said:
FL said: On a more sophisticated note...
So, you sniveling Cowardly Loon, you've as good as confessed your incompetence. You don't address my points because you can't. If he only had a brain.

I would settle for rudimentary etiquette skills and some instinct towards honesty, but that would be an even more fantastically impossible wish.

Richard B. Hoppe · 11 February 2013

apokryltaros said:
https://me.yahoo.com/a/HVJnIBo.k9XNMUFdkYB_RBnH84qDk9rLK_k-#51686 said: Why haven't the moderators not banned Bozo Joe for good? I thought they had put a block on his IP address? He is indeed an evil liar and science/history denier. He has no scruples.
Because it is (legally and physically) impossible to ban Joe from using a computer with a different IP address to return to this site in order to flout his banning. Short of appealing to the British judicial system to enforce a restraining order on him, the closest the Panda's Thumb administrators can do is to ban Joe's new IP addresses as they are detected.

None of the IP addresses in this thread match anything used by Atheistoclast in the past. We cannot IP ban whole systems just to catch a minnow or two in the net. And while I'm commenting, I'll note that this thread veers close to snake pit territory. Focus on arguments (or the lack thereof) rather than persons, please.

diogeneslamp0 · 11 February 2013

apokryltaros said: That's because, being a science-hating bigot, and professional Asshole For Jesus, FL is quick to suck the genitals of anyone he perceives as a fellow science-hating bigot.

Apokryltaros, please do not make reference to the alleged sexual preferences of people you are arguing with. I understand it's just a figure of speech, but figures of speech matter. I admit my own writing uses four-letter words, but I have to draw the line at speculating about strangers' sex lives.

diogeneslamp0 · 11 February 2013

mahsihmo said: This has DEGENERATED to personal attacks and name calling...! Not worth the time or effort. I'm sorry to have stirred up so much FEAR, HATRED, and UGLINESS. I'll look ELSEWHERE for an intelligent discussion.

He says he's gone, but he never answered the question. The question that was important to the very issue he himself raised, and said was important. Mahsihmo said it was CRITICAL CRUCIAL RELEVANT IMPORTANT that free thought should not be suppressed and anyone who did so was CRIMINAL. I showed that his creationist heroes suppress free thought, so they are CRIMINAL by his definition. Now he has decided that subject is UNIMPORTANT IRRELEVANT TRIVIAL. Did it become TRIVIAL the femtosecond that his creationist heroes suppressed free thought? He never answered the damn question.

Doc Bill · 11 February 2013

mahsihmo said: This has DEGENERATED to personal attacks and name calling...! Not worth the time or effort. I'm sorry to have stirred up so much FEAR, HATRED, and UGLINESS. I'll look ELSEWHERE for an intelligent discussion. How sad to see adults act like kids on a playground...!

To quote Montgomery Burns: Excellent!

diogeneslamp0 · 11 February 2013

I'm wondering whether TwoApples will ever address the issues he himself raised:

1. Ambulocetus proven not related to whales by unnamed "molecules"

2. Rhodhocetus proven not related to whales by unnamed "molecules"

3. Skulls can never be evidence for evolution, susceptible to "cherry picking"

etc.

I'm predicting we'll never get references for these claims.

mahsihmo · 11 February 2013

Are you as DUMB as you portend to be...??? I HAVE NEVER BEEN TO THIS SITE BEFORE TODAY...! I've had enough of your asinine belly aching. Grow up, and sport a "pair". knock off the whining about "Joe".

RE-STATE the question...!!!

mahsihmo · 11 February 2013

prongs · 11 February 2013

I will try to conform to Richard's request by quoting Tim Berra.

The creationists are determined to force their will on society and the schools, through the courts if possible. Their strategy - ironically enough, considering the moral precepts of Christianity - is founded in deception, misrepresentation, and obfuscation designed to dupe the public into thinking that their is a genuine scientific controversy about the validity of evolution. No such controversy exists, but it is difficult for the lay public to distinguish the scientists, who often disagree on the nuances of evolutionary theory (but not on evolution's existence), from the creationists, who stick together and cloak absurd claims in scientific terminology. Creationist arguments are discussed in Chapter 5 of this book, and the reader is also referred to Science (1982, 215: 934-43) for the legal opinion of U.S. District Court Judge William R. Overton on the creationists' claims to be "scientific."

Italics in original. Preface pg viii to ix. Tim Berra - Evolution and the Myth of Creationism - A Basic Guide to the Facts in the Evolution Debate, Stanford University Press, 1990

Just Bob · 11 February 2013

mahsihmo said: Are you as DUMB as you portend to be...??? I HAVE NEVER BEEN TO THIS SITE BEFORE TODAY...! I've had enough of your asinine belly aching. Grow up, and sport a "pair". knock off the whining about "Joe". RE-STATE the question...!!!

Help with typing from an ex English teacher: 1) The occasional use of capslock for emphasis is reasonable, but you seriously overdo it, often for no apparent reason. 2) In a sentence accusing someone of being dumb, it's best not to confuse the word portend with pretend. 3) Why do you start and end sentences with ellipses (...)? They add nothing except irritation. An ellipsis should only be used when something has been deleted, such as unnecessary words in a quote, or in casual writing to indicate a conversational pause -- neither of which is what you're doing. 4) Never multiply question marks or exclamation points. They add nothing except further irritation. 5) Don't put words in quotes ("pair") unless you're quoting someone verbatim or you're calling attention to an irony (e.g. The pastor checked into the motel with his "wife".)

harold · 11 February 2013

Mike Elzinga said:
harold said: Remember, always keep asking them simple, straight questions. If they want ID in schools, ask them the usual questions about ID. ... If they say they don't want ID, ask them PRECISELY how they want to change the current science curriculum. Precisely what do they want to take out? Precisely what do they want to add? ...
All instructors, especially those teaching in a high school, are required to develop a course syllabus, a set of course objectives along with a set of teaching materials and exams. In the Advanced Placement courses, students have to cover material that will help them score well on the Advanced Placement exams. This really gets down to specifics; and it directly affects the chances of high school students getting into the colleges and universities of their choice. I would like to see any of these ID/creationist trolls meet that requirement right here on this thread. What would their syllabus look like? What are the course objectives for each week of the year? What teaching materials would they include? How would students be tested on their understanding of the material? What would typical exam questions look like? How would any of their additional material contribute to a student’s ability to pass the AP exams? Here is what we will see from the trolls. Complete avoidance of the questions or vague platitudes at best. But never, ever any specifics.

Exactly.

Doc Bill · 11 February 2013

mahsihmo said: Are you as DUMB as you portend to be...??? I HAVE NEVER BEEN TO THIS SITE BEFORE TODAY...! I've had enough of your asinine belly aching. Grow up, and sport a "pair". knock off the whining about "Joe".

I thought you were done on the previous page, Joe. Why are you still here? Go away, already! Vamoose! Shoo! Hie thee hither! Take a long walk off a short pier! Make like a tree and leave! Go play on the freeway. Bye bye!

Dave Luckett · 11 February 2013

FL said: On a more sophisticated note:
If they say they don’t want ID, ask them PRECISELY how they want to change the current science curriculum. Precisely what do they want to take out? Precisely what do they want to add?
Not difficult at all. The non-Darwinist simply responds, "LSEA", and provides the link. Automatic Victory on tap. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/06/text_of_louisiana_science_educ007391.html FL

And when we go to that link, what do we find? Why, we find not a single word about any specific change to the science curriculum. Not one word about what changes exactly this legislation would introduce. All we find about these matters is this: The legislation aims to:

create and foster an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning.

How is this to be done? What measures are specified for achieving these noble and lofty ambitions? Why, none at all. The bill is completely silent on what changes are involved, if any. Later in the legislation, there is a provision that teachers may introduce other materials than the ones approved by the appropriate authority, provided that these materials are not specifically disapproved. But still not a word about what, specifically, is to be taught. So FL's "answer" is completely unresponsive, and he is in fact lying in his teeth when he says that the LSEA gives any specific answer to the question. It specifies nothing whatsoever. Its only purpose is to provide a figleaf for creationists within the system to push their agenda.

Mike Elzinga · 11 February 2013

Dave Luckett said: So FL's "answer" is completely unresponsive, and he is in fact lying in his teeth when he says that the LSEA gives any specific answer to the question. It specifies nothing whatsoever. Its only purpose is to provide a figleaf for creationists within the system to push their agenda.

FL’s behavior tells us what to expect. FL fakes knowledge of science and pretends to argue for ‘alternatives” that are well-known sectarian pseudo-science. We have seen a quantitative example. He can’t even understand or use a simple mathematical formula for calculating the entropy of an isolated thermodynamic system; but he instead blusters and bluffs that it is all about disorder. So we know that he and others like him would eat up class time spreading lies, misconceptions, and misrepresentations of science; and we know exactly what those would be.

phhht · 11 February 2013

There may be some of you don't know FL as well as I do.
In addition to his creationist beliefs, FL takes other, um, unconventional positions.

He asserts that an episode of the television show Unsolved Mysteries provides evidence of miraculous healing.

He is virulently homophobic.

He claims that the Bible says that once upon a time, all carnivores were vegetarians.

He very much enjoys posting depictions of torture. His favorite proselytizing device is extortion.

phhht · 11 February 2013

The link above is broken. Try this.

He very much enjoys posting depictions of torture. His favorite proselytizing device is extortion.

Henry J · 11 February 2013

So we know that he and others like him would eat up class time spreading lies, misconceptions, and misrepresentations of science; and we know exactly what those would be.

But don't they have hundreds of those to chose from? And they can't do all of them every time. ;)

https://me.yahoo.com/a/HVJnIBo.k9XNMUFdkYB_RBnH84qDk9rLK_k-#51686 · 12 February 2013

mahsihmo said: Are you as DUMB as you portend to be...??? I HAVE NEVER BEEN TO THIS SITE BEFORE TODAY...! I've had enough of your asinine belly aching. Grow up, and sport a "pair". knock off the whining about "Joe".

You're not fooling anyone, Bozo Joe. You keep coming back to this forum pretending to be new people. You were banned for threatening scientists and for excessive trolling. Just go!

Frank J · 12 February 2013

Would someone be kind enough to update me, as I have not had the time to participate as much as I wanted on this thread.

I see that "2A2B" jumped on my use of the word "clown" while ignoring the rest of my comments. I think my assessment of both the intelligence and morality of rank-and-file evolution deniers and anti-evolution activists is quite clear from my many posts over the years, and very different from what 2A2B wants readers to think.

Skimming A2AB's comments suggests that he is a "pseudoskeptic" - one who claims to have "no dog in the fight" but whines incessantly about one, while merely ignoring the other(s). But I may have missed comments about the other "dogs." In particular, since he appears to get his long-refuted incredulity arguments from the DI playbook - which itself does not mean that he necessarily believes any of them. So the obvious first question is whether he agrees with Behe that the "better" alternate explanation includes ~4 billion years of common descent. And if not if he ever challenged Behe directly.

apokryltaros · 12 February 2013

Henry J said:
So we know that he and others like him would eat up class time spreading lies, misconceptions, and misrepresentations of science; and we know exactly what those would be.
But don't they have hundreds of those to chose from? And they can't do all of them every time. ;)

Exactly, hence, not a single Creationist-friendly "science" curriculum, proposed or put into practice, would feature any sort of actual science education. If the teacher/school administrators isn't/aren't lazy, the the entire school year may be taken up with teaching students that the Bible is infallible, that science can never be trusted if it doesn't ape what the teacher says the Bible says, and that gays, scientists, Liberals, and or atheists are to blame, or, if the teacher/school administrators are lazy, then, the teacher may be trusted to use Hanna-Barberra Bible-themed cartoons in lieu of teaching.

DS · 12 February 2013

Frank J said: Would someone be kind enough to update me, as I have not had the time to participate as much as I wanted on this thread. I see that "2A2B" jumped on my use of the word "clown" while ignoring the rest of my comments. I think my assessment of both the intelligence and morality of rank-and-file evolution deniers and anti-evolution activists is quite clear from my many posts over the years, and very different from what 2A2B wants readers to think. Skimming A2AB's comments suggests that he is a "pseudoskeptic" - one who claims to have "no dog in the fight" but whines incessantly about one, while merely ignoring the other(s). But I may have missed comments about the other "dogs." In particular, since he appears to get his long-refuted incredulity arguments from the DI playbook - which itself does not mean that he necessarily believes any of them. So the obvious first question is whether he agrees with Behe that the "better" alternate explanation includes ~4 billion years of common descent. And if not if he ever challenged Behe directly.

Frank, Here is a brief summary of the thread: Joe tried to post under yet another alias and started spouting a bunch of creationist nonsense and quote mining. When he was outed, he immediately switched to another name and started spouting nonsense about academic freedom and critical thinking. He ignored all questions put to him, refused to provide any scientific references or any evidence for his baseless assertions and basically pissed and moaned about how mean people were to him. The administrators refused to enforce their ban on him, even though he has threatened physical violence in the past. He has been caught in several lies, including claiming that Sean Carroll does not believe in evolution and that Crick discovered DNA. He apparently has some deep seated psychosis involving attention from scientists, whether positive or negative. He promised to leave and then stuck around anyway. I'm sure he will change names and try agin shortly, but he isn't going to fool anyone no matter what he does. That about sums it up. Now you don't have to wade through all nine pages of flatulence.

twoapplestobees · 12 February 2013

I don't have the answers that would satisfy you. I'm going to research the argument further to see if you and the others are actually up to speed on the latest data. It doesn't seem like it as of now. I just got Thomas Nagel's book, Mind and Cosmos yesterday. Its very insightful. I suggest that you all read it. No he is not a scientist, but the scientific research that he uses in the book comes from scholars he knows in the academic world and he cites them. I'll leave you with this quote from the introduction, "As I have said, doubts about the reductionist account of life go against the dominant scientific consensus, but that consensus faces problems of probability that I believe are not taken seriously enough, both with respect to the evolution of life forms though accidental mutation and natural selection and with respect to the formation from dead matter of physical systems capable of such evolution. The more we learn about the intricacy of the genetic code and its control of the chemical processes of life, the harder those problems seem." I'll be back with more knowledge. Hopefully (and I mean this not as an insult) you will be back with more etiquette. Cheers

diogeneslamp0 said: I'm wondering whether TwoApples will ever address the issues he himself raised: 1. Ambulocetus proven not related to whales by unnamed "molecules" 2. Rhodhocetus proven not related to whales by unnamed "molecules" 3. Skulls can never be evidence for evolution, susceptible to "cherry picking" etc. I'm predicting we'll never get references for these claims.

twoapplestobees · 12 February 2013

I don't have the answers that would satisfy you. I'm going to research the argument further to see if you and the others are actually up to speed on the latest data. I just got Thomas Nagel's book, Mind and Cosmos yesterday. Its very insightful. I suggest that you all read it. No he is not a scientist, but the scientific research that he uses in the book comes from scholars he knows in the academic world. I'll leave you with this quote from the introduction, "As I have said, doubts about the reductionist account of life go against the dominant scientific consensus, but that consensus faces problems of probability that I believe are not taken seriously enough, both with respect to the evolution of life forms though accidental mutation and natural selection and with respect to the formation from dead matter of physical systems capable of such evolution. The more we learn about the intricacy of the genetic cade and its control of the chemical processes of life, the harder those problems seem." I'll be back with more knowledge. Hopefully (and I mean this not as an insult) you will be back with more etiquette. Cheers

diogeneslamp0 said: I'm wondering whether TwoApples will ever address the issues he himself raised: 1. Ambulocetus proven not related to whales by unnamed "molecules" 2. Rhodhocetus proven not related to whales by unnamed "molecules" 3. Skulls can never be evidence for evolution, susceptible to "cherry picking" etc. I'm predicting we'll never get references for these claims.

twoapplestobees · 12 February 2013

I agree Biggs that it is difficult for two opposing views to dialogue about a tough issue, but I disagree that the fault is always with the minority group as it happens to be here.. Just because more people thought the world was flat didn't change what new scientific discoveries uncovered. Just because Darwin and other scientist looking through poor microscopes thought little of the inside of the cell didn't change the fact that with more discoveries the cell was discovered to be a complicated chemical factory beyond anyone's imagination. Closed-mindedness is at fault here. Not opposing views.

j. biggs said:
mahsihmo said: This has DEGENERATED to personal attacks and name calling...! Not worth the time or effort. I'm sorry to have stirred up so much FEAR, HATRED, and UGLINESS. I'll look ELSEWHERE for an intelligent discussion. How sad to see adults act like kids on a playground...!
It's hard to have an intelligent discussion with someone like you who has a demonstrable aversion to intelligent discussion. The fault lies with you.

twoapplestobees · 12 February 2013

And by the way. I am not Joe. I am Henry Appleby, currently living in the Carolinas. Isn't it probable that more than one human being with access to internet can disagree with you? sigh..

DS said:
Frank J said: Would someone be kind enough to update me, as I have not had the time to participate as much as I wanted on this thread. I see that "2A2B" jumped on my use of the word "clown" while ignoring the rest of my comments. I think my assessment of both the intelligence and morality of rank-and-file evolution deniers and anti-evolution activists is quite clear from my many posts over the years, and very different from what 2A2B wants readers to think. Skimming A2AB's comments suggests that he is a "pseudoskeptic" - one who claims to have "no dog in the fight" but whines incessantly about one, while merely ignoring the other(s). But I may have missed comments about the other "dogs." In particular, since he appears to get his long-refuted incredulity arguments from the DI playbook - which itself does not mean that he necessarily believes any of them. So the obvious first question is whether he agrees with Behe that the "better" alternate explanation includes ~4 billion years of common descent. And if not if he ever challenged Behe directly.
Frank, Here is a brief summary of the thread: Joe tried to post under yet another alias and started spouting a bunch of creationist nonsense and quote mining. When he was outed, he immediately switched to another name and started spouting nonsense about academic freedom and critical thinking. He ignored all questions put to him, refused to provide any scientific references or any evidence for his baseless assertions and basically pissed and moaned about how mean people were to him. The administrators refused to enforce their ban on him, even though he has threatened physical violence in the past. He has been caught in several lies, including claiming that Sean Carroll does not believe in evolution and that Crick discovered DNA. He apparently has some deep seated psychosis involving attention from scientists, whether positive or negative. He promised to leave and then stuck around anyway. I'm sure he will change names and try agin shortly, but he isn't going to fool anyone no matter what he does. That about sums it up. Now you don't have to wade through all nine pages of flatulence.

Robin · 12 February 2013

twoapplestobees said: I just got Thomas Nagel's book, Mind and Cosmos yesterday. Its very insightful. I suggest that you all read it. No he is not a scientist, but the scientific research that he uses in the book comes from scholars he knows in the academic world and he cites them. I'll leave you with this quote from the introduction, "As I have said, doubts about the reductionist account of life go against the dominant scientific consensus, but that consensus faces problems of probability that I believe are not taken seriously enough, both with respect to the evolution of life forms though accidental mutation and natural selection and with respect to the formation from dead matter of physical systems capable of such evolution. The more we learn about the intricacy of the genetic code and its control of the chemical processes of life, the harder those problems seem."

The problem I have with Nagel's argument - like so many other metaphilosophical arguments - is that it relies upon caricatures of groups of people - "scientists", "atheists", "neo-darwinism", etc - and is ultimately based upon Nagel's feelings and opinions rather than anything concrete. The introduction actually removes any credibility from Nagel's argument (imho) by relying almost exclusively on Nagel's so called "common sense". As in:

"But it seems to me that, as it is usually presented, the current orthodoxy about the cosmic order is the product of governing assumptions that are unsupported, and that it flies in the face of common sense…" "My skepticism is… just a belief that the available scientific evidence, in spite of the consensus of scientific opinion, does not… rationally require us to subordinate the incredulity of common sense…" "Everything we believe, even the most far-reaching cosmological theories, has to be based ultimately on common sense, and on what is plainly undeniable…" "I have argued patiently against the prevailing form of naturalism, a reductive materialism that purports to capture life and mind through its neo-Darwinian extension…. I find this view antecedently unbelievable— a heroic triumph of ideological theory over common sense…"

Yawn... So basically Nagel's entire book boils down to, "If a given explanation or overall approach to science doesn't satisfy me from a common sense perspective, it can't be true." Talk about your arguments from ignorance and personal incredulity. I mean, quantum mechanics offers nothing to satisfy common sense. Are we then to dismiss Smart Phone functionality as magic simply because Nagel isn't satisfied with it as science? That's absurd and yet that's almost exactly what Nagel is arguing visa-vis Neo-Darwinism and the emergence of life and consciousness. So I'll pass. Nagel is certainly a bright guy, but I'm not acquiescing to his special pleading regarding science simply because he's got a great reputation in philosophy.

Robin · 12 February 2013

twoapplestobees said: I agree Biggs that it is difficult for two opposing views to dialogue about a tough issue, but I disagree that the fault is always with the minority group as it happens to be here.. Just because more people thought the world was flat didn't change what new scientific discoveries uncovered. Just because Darwin and other scientist looking through poor microscopes thought little of the inside of the cell didn't change the fact that with more discoveries the cell was discovered to be a complicated chemical factory beyond anyone's imagination. Closed-mindedness is at fault here. Not opposing views.

Your analogy isn't demonstrating what you think it is, Apples. The fact is, people who understood the world was a sphere didn't convince the flat Earthers of this truth through rational discussion. The stubborn flat Earthers held onto their belief in spite of rational discussions and even hard evidence like photos. Heck, there are still flat Earth societies to this day! They, like creationists and IDers, are rational discussion deniers. The fault of such empty discussions lies squarely with those who shun rationality. For example, the cell is not "a complicated chemical factory beyond anyone's imagination." That statement, right there, is simply an argument from personal incredulity and ignorance. That statement, right there, is a boulder in the flow of rational discourse. The moment you presume that if you can't understand something, nobody else can, you've automatically nullified any credibility to your side of the discussion.

DS · 12 February 2013

twoapplestobees said: And by the way. I am not Joe. I am Henry Appleby, currently living in the Carolinas. Isn't it probable that more than one human being with access to internet can disagree with you? sigh..

IF you really are not Joe, my sincerest apologies. IF you really are not Joe, then you undoubtedly have no idea just what I deadly insult it is to be accused of such despicable behavior. IF you really are not Joe, I would be willing to continue this conversation on the bathroom wall.

twoapplestobees · 12 February 2013

I don't understand what the bathroom wall is. Are you being sarcastic or is that a different part of the forum?

DS said:
twoapplestobees said: And by the way. I am not Joe. I am Henry Appleby, currently living in the Carolinas. Isn't it probable that more than one human being with access to internet can disagree with you? sigh..
IF you really are not Joe, my sincerest apologies. IF you really are not Joe, then you undoubtedly have no idea just what I deadly insult it is to be accused of such despicable behavior. IF you really are not Joe, I would be willing to continue this conversation on the bathroom wall.

diogeneslamp0 · 12 February 2013

TwoApplestoBees appeared at Panda's Thumb boasting of his vast intellectual superiority and alleging that the scientists here don't know any science, oh, we know far less about science than TwoApplesToBees!

TwoApplesToBees wrote: I’m dumbfounded by the lack of knowledge that many of the concerned Evolutionists know about the actual SCIENCE behind this debate... Either you do know this controversy exists and you just ignore it, or you don’t know and you show yourselves to be perfectly ignorant.

Now let us compare TwoApples vast, superior knowledge about SCIENCE by checking out his most important claims, the scientific claims that he presented as critical, crucial, relevant, important. Numbers added by me, for clarity:

TwoApplesToBees wrote: [1] There are many many many points of disagreement between scientists on where all of the data is pointing. [2] Don’t you guys know that the findings of Ambulocetus natans and Rodhocetus kasrani... actually have been shown NOT to prove an accessorial relationship? [3] Those finds studied from a molecular level show that they have much less in common with the whale than Gould had thought. In fact the Hippo has more in common with the whale. [4] ... skulls aren’t good evidence to support Evolution. It’s too easy to cherry pick evidence. [5] ... the collection of therapsid fossils often show more mammal-like examples occurring earlier in the fossil record and more reptile-like examples occurring later. This is backwards if you hope that the therapsids fossil record will show a progression of reptiles to mammals... [6] ...Some fossils that are supposedly next to each other in the evolutionary progression are vastly spread apart around the globe.

We repeatedly challenged TwoApples to back up his claims with some citations to the scientific literature. He evaded these questions for a long time. Finally we get:

TwoApples wrote: I don’t have the answers that would satisfy you. I’m going to research the argument further to see if you and the others are actually up to speed on the latest data.

Oh I see-- you're going to research to see whether WE are "UP TO SPEED" on "THE LATEST DATA"! That's not what you said when you first showed up here. When you first showed up here, you said that you could tell in an eyeblink how ignorant we are of cutting-edge science, which you recognized based on your vast superior intellect! WE can cite our claims to the scientific literature and TwoApples cannot. Indeed, a few comments back, I cited three scientific papers on genetic comparisons of hippos and whales, mostly on retrotransposon/SINE DNA. But when we ask him very simple questions about backing up his claims of evidence and vast intellectual superiority [see above], now it seems he must do some research before he can back up his claims about DNA, the fossil record, the "controversy among scientists", and his own vast intellectual superiority. What double-checking is there to do? A few comments back, I gave three citations to the scientific literature. Go read them. Can you find an error in the genetic comparisons of retrotransposon data between whales and hippos? TwoApples, who cannot cite ANY scientific papers to back up his earth-shattering claims, and instead quotes a philosopher's book, is going to double-check to see if WE are "UP TO SPEED" on "THE LATEST DATA!"

I’ll be back with more knowledge.

How will you do your research-- READ MORE BOOKS ABOUT PHILOSOPHY? TwoApples, when you first showed up here, you said that you could recognize in an eyeblink what you called our "perfect ignorance" and "our lack of knowledge" of the latest science, which you could see based on your vast superior knowledge of the latest research.

TwoApplesToBees wrote: I’m dumbfounded by the lack of knowledge that many of the concerned Evolutionists know about the actual SCIENCE behind this debate... Either you do know this controversy exists and you just ignore it, or you don’t know and you show yourselves to be perfectly ignorant.

Now you say you must do more research and get more knowledge to check on us whether we're "up to speed" with "the latest data." Are you now willing to admit that you cannot back up the six factual claims you made above, [1],[2]...[6], with any evidence?

DS · 12 February 2013

Henry,

There is a button at the top of the page marked "wall". Click it to find my response.

j. biggs · 12 February 2013

twoapplestobees said: I agree Biggs that it is difficult for two opposing views to dialogue about a tough issue, but I disagree that the fault is always with the minority group as it happens to be here... ...Closed-mindedness is at fault here. Not opposing views.
j. biggs said:
mahsihmo said: This has DEGENERATED to personal attacks and name calling...! Not worth the time or effort. I'm sorry to have stirred up so much FEAR, HATRED, and UGLINESS. I'll look ELSEWHERE for an intelligent discussion. How sad to see adults act like kids on a playground...!
It's hard to have an intelligent discussion with someone like you who has a demonstrable aversion to intelligent discussion. The fault lies with you.

Did you actually read mahsihmo's comments 2A2Bs? Assuming you two aren't one in the same perhaps you would agree that starting off a dialogue with sneering rhetoric isn't demonstrative that the person in question is interested in intelligent discussion. In fact that is basically what I said in my response to mahsihmo. What I didn't say is that mahsihmo wasn't interested in intelligent discussion simply because I disagree with him. Now let's deal with some of your misconceptions.

Just because more people thought the world was flat didn't change what new scientific discoveries uncovered.

Paraphrasing Nagel's opinion, evolution flies in the face of common sense. Common sense also told us the world was flat, and without a scientific investigation of facts that simply didn't fit the flat earth model, we would still believe the earth is flat today. Common sense doesn't equal a scientific explanation. Seeing design in nature is apparently the common sense approach Nagel wants science to take. What he doesn't take into account is that this approach was tried and found lacking. History shows that evidence trumps human common sense and intuition every time.

Just because Darwin and other scientist looking through poor microscopes thought little of the inside of the cell didn't change the fact that with more discoveries the cell was discovered to be a complicated chemical factory beyond anyone's imagination.

Darwin wasn't a cell and molecular biologist, he was a naturalist. Darwin made a fascinating discovery about how animal populations in an isolated environment undergo change. Natural selection and common descent remain essential parts of the modern synthesis. And your poor analogy which compares cells with human design fails on so many levels. For one factories don't reproduce, factories don't create products used to sustain themselves but consume raw materials in order to produce finished products consumers will buy in order to make a profit. Analogies can be a good teaching tool, but you have to understand that they break down quickly when carried to the extreme. All this and our understanding of cells, DNA, etc. has only enhanced our understanding of evolution and made the design argument even more implausible. I suggest that if you want intelligent design to be considered a full fledged scientific concept, you have a lot of research to do and evidence to collect, and most of all you have to come up with a hypothesis that is actually testable. Good luck with all that.

Mike Elzinga · 12 February 2013

twoapplestobees said: I'll leave you with this quote from the introduction, "As I have said, doubts about the reductionist account of life go against the dominant scientific consensus, but that consensus faces problems of probability that I believe are not taken seriously enough, both with respect to the evolution of life forms though accidental mutation and natural selection and with respect to the formation from dead matter of physical systems capable of such evolution. The more we learn about the intricacy of the genetic cade and its control of the chemical processes of life, the harder those problems seem."

I suspect this twoapples person has been spending a lot of time over at UD where one of the threads is about Thomas Nagel’s book. That book reinforces ID/creationist misconceptions about science. Science is no longer about reductionism, a term with which philosophers saddled physics over a century ago. If Nagel really believes that science is about reductionism, he is at least a century out of date Anybody who has paid attention in their high school chemistry class would know that the properties of even the simplest compounds such as sodium chloride – i.e., NaCl – are nothing like the properties of sodium or the properties of chlorine; not even a “blend” of those properties. What one learns from the study of chemistry and condensed matter physics is that the properties of compounds and complex assemblies of atoms and molecules are emergent properties; they are not reducible to the properties of the constituents making up the complex assembly. Furthermore, those emergent properties are typically temperature dependent; and they also depend on the larger environment in which they are embedded as well as on the other complex systems with which they interact. The reductionism of the philosophers has been passé for a long time. As to the “problems of probability,” this lies at the heart of ID/creationist misconceptions and misrepresentations about matter and energy and the formation of complex molecules. Here again a high school education in physics, chemistry, and biology would normally dispel those misconceptions if ID/creationists ever paid attention. A simple exercise that scales up the charge-to-mass ratios of protons and electrons to macroscopic masses on the order of kilograms that are separated by distances on the order of meters shows that electron volt interactions at distances on the order of nanometers scale up to energies of interaction on the order of 10¹⁰ megatons of TNT. The interactions among atoms and molecules are not trivial; and using the notions of tornados sweeping through junkyards and assembling 747s as evidence of “problems of probability” is a misrepresentation of well-known chemistry, physics, and biology. This is why ID/creationists should never teach science. Even their “PhDs” don’t know enough science to pass high school. They always get it wrong; and they get it wrong for a reason that has been glaringly evident for at least fifty years. They have bent and broken scientific concepts beyond recognition in order to make a pseudoscience that conforms to their sectarian beliefs. Every ID/creationist misconception and misrepresentation of science follows a characteristic pattern that is unique to ID/creationists. That is how ID/creationist influence on political legislation is so easily recognized. No other groups get it wrong in the same way that ID/creationists do. In fact, ID/creationists are the only pushers of pseudoscience trying to get their pseudoscience mandated by law. No other pseudo scientists do this. The reason for the difference lies in the sectarian drive to proselytize.

twoapplestobees · 12 February 2013

I posted this in the wall but since I'm being ripped apart here I want to make my closing remarks known...

DS said: Henry, Yesterday you were given several references containing evidence for the theory of evolution. You completely ignored them even though you demanded them, even though you claimed they did not exist, even though you claimed to be familiar with the literature. Here they are again: Some References, mostly on SINEs and retrotransposons (there are many others): “Molecular evidence from retroposons that whales form a clade within even-toed ungulates”. Shimamura, M.; Yasue, H.; Ohshima, K.; Abe, H.; Kato, H.; Kishiro, T.; Goto, M.; Munechika, I. et al. (1997). Nature 388 (6643): 666–670. doi:10.1038/41759. PMID 9262399 “SINE evolution, missing data, and the origin of whales”. Shedlock, A. M.; Milinkovitch, M. C.; Okada, N. (2000). Systematic Biology 49 (4): 808–816. doi:10.1080/106351500750049851. “Phylogenetic relationships among cetartiodactyls based on insertions of short and long interpersed elements: Hippopotamuses are the closest extant relatives of whales”. Nikaido M, Rooney AP, Okada N (1999). Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 96 (18): 10261–10266. doi:10.1073/pnas.96.18.10261. PMC 17876. PMID 10468596. Now Henry (if that is your real name), until you can explain all of the evidence in these references and dozens more on the subject, you will be considered to be in error. If you can provide an alternative explanation for all of the evidence, one that has more explanatory and predictive power, we are all listening. Once you have explained all of the evidence from SINE insertions, we can move on to mitochondrial DNA, nuclear DNA, fossils, developmental evidence and developmental genetics. You should be aware that all of these data sets give the exact same answer. Cetaceans are descended from terrestrial ancestors and evolution is true. Until you can address all of the evidence, you will be considered to be in error.

I'll definitely follow these citations and read them thoroughly. But I am still perplexed about something: why do I have to know ALL of the data to be relieved from error? The scientific data that I am aware of I've read about but I didn't discover it. Based on my philosophical outlook, I deem certain information (like the information disputed between the different camps here) to be more or less credible. I recognize that most people adhere to Evolution as scientifically sound. I also know that others don't. Ultimately I think we all have to make our decisions as best we can on as much as we can know and then live with them. Let me give this familiar example...O.J. Simpson. The scientific evidence was given in the trial. Now in this case I side with the majority of people who think that he probably did kill his wife. But some disagree. And despite the evidence given, the jury let him go. My point is to say that the evidence is always interpreted by different people who vary in how they respond to it. We disagree with what scientific evidence speaks to this issue of the Origin of Life. My point in joining the discussion was to say that this wasn't as much a closed case as some of the others have asserted. So let's continue learning. I will be the first to say that I am wrong if I believe the data is sufficient. Where I sit here and now, I am not convinced. And I'm not some moron who is convinced that the earth is flat. That would be absurd to everyone in the world. In this case and in this discussion, I have read enough of the opposing views to feel like I sit in a relatively good size group of skeptics who are looking for the truth. I hope that we can mutually respect each other even through our disagreements.

eric · 12 February 2013

twoapplestobees said: Just because more people thought the world was flat didn't change what new scientific discoveries uncovered.

You're comparing acceptance of the theory of evolution with flat eartherism?

Closed-mindedness is at fault here. Not opposing views.

Happily, I'm very open minded about alternative explanations for how species arose. Lay it on me. When, where, and how did humans arise? What alternative mechanism did your non-evolutionary cause (presumably, an intelligence) use to create homo sapiens? How do you propose we test your mechanistic hypothesis - i.e., can you describe some fact about the world, waiting to be discovered, which will turn out to be true under your hypothesis which we would not expect to turn out to be true under evolution? Some moon monolith, perhaps?

Richard B. Hoppe · 12 February 2013

twoapplestobees said: [SNIP] My point is to say that the evidence is always interpreted by different people who vary in how they respond to it.

Well, no, evidence is not "always interpreted by different people who vary in how they respond to it." For example, the great bulk of scientists who know the professional literature of biology do not interpret the evidence for evolution--both common descent and the importance of natural selection operating on mutations that are random with respect to the 'needs' of a population--differently. They concur in the consensus that those are as close to established facts as exist in science.

We disagree with what scientific evidence speaks to this issue of the Origin of Life. My point in joining the discussion was to say that this wasn't as much a closed case as some of the others have asserted.

We're not discussing the origin of life (OOL) in this thread. We're discussing the question of the origin of the diversity of life once life got started. To be blunt, the theory of evolution cares not one tiny bit about how life got started--it's agnostic on that issue. It's about what happens after a population of imperfect replicators with heritable variation got started. The theory of evolution takes as an initial condition the existence of a population of entities with the mentioned characteristics; it does not address where that population came from. That's the bailiwick of a different research program. Want to learn a bit about OOL? I recommend the first two chapters of Nick Lane's Life Ascending to start with.

FL · 12 February 2013

All instructors, especially those teaching in a high school, are required to develop a course syllabus, a set of course objectives along with a set of teaching materials and exams. I would like to see any of these ID/creationist trolls meet that requirement right here on this thread.

That's certainly not a difficult request, Mike. I've conducted hour-long presentations on the Intelligent Design hypothesis both at church AND at the hometown secular university, so it's not scary at all. Think about it. These days, there is a ton of helpful book, magazine, online, video, and DVD media materials available that explain and illustrate the Intelligent Design hypothesis. So the fact is that any teacher who is studied-up and capable of explaining the ID hypothesis in their own words for an hour (see example link below), can EASILY line up some of those many resources into a systematic, step-by-step, timeline-based curriculum. It's no different than what you would do on YOUR teaching gigs, Mike. Simply set up a timeline; Basic Explanations of each ID concept, along with textbook/other reading assignments, accompanied by Question & Answer gigs, Handouts, Videos, Quizzes. One would do a couple Microscope Sessions too, and a couple Field Trips (with snacks and pop) to the larger Kansas parks and lakes. (Kids and adults love Microscopes and Field Trips with Snacks and Pop.) Any teacher could easily stretch out the timeline to one semester or two, if allowed. Or, conversely, they could compress it down to two class sessions (including Videos and Microscope Session). In fact, it could even be compressed down to one class session (I speak from experience on those last two sentences.) ****

How would any of their additional material contribute to a student’s ability to pass the AP exams?

Not a bad question, although mere regurgitation of the canned AP test material is NOT the final goal here. We want students to well-understand or better-understand, and become informed media consumers of, the biological world around them. Right off the bat, the science student's critical thinking resources will be sharpened by exposure to the ID hypothesis and questions/issues, and that's going to help them good on the AP test. Remember, the ID instruction is intended to SUPPLEMENT the regular canned textbook material. They'll still get their required dose of AP biology material, but now they'll get a scientific alternative that helps them THINK and COMPARE/CONTRAST and STUDY the regular biology claims they've been exposed to. Critical thinking science skills get developed and sharpened. That means Better science-literate kids, Better science-literate adults. That's what you'd like to see, wouldn't you Mike? That's the goal you agree with, right?

apokryltaros · 12 February 2013

Liar For Jesus lied:
All instructors, especially those teaching in a high school, are required to develop a course syllabus, a set of course objectives along with a set of teaching materials and exams. I would like to see any of these ID/creationist trolls meet that requirement right here on this thread.
That's certainly not a difficult request, Mike. I've conducted hour-long presentations on the Intelligent Design hypothesis both at church AND at the hometown secular university, so it's not scary at all. Think about it. These days, there is a ton of helpful book, magazine, online, video, and DVD media materials available that explain and illustrate the Intelligent Design hypothesis.

You mean like the incompetently proofread "Of Pandas and People," or the various science-free, nonsensical anti-science propaganda excreted from Creationist websites, like Answers In Genesis' dreck about woodpecker tongues or giraffes?

phhht · 12 February 2013

FL said: ...Basic Explanations of each ID concept...

Wonderful! At last, a studied-up teacher who can expound on the basics! Tell us, o great explicator, how to tell design from non-design.

diogeneslamp0 · 12 February 2013

TwoApples wrote: Just because Darwin and other scientist looking through poor microscopes thought little of the inside of the cell

Every claim that "Intelligent Design" or creationism is based on "Cutting edge science" or "the latest science" must be challenged. As a first example, I am sick of the false argument that no one knew the inside of the cell was complicated in Darwin's day and Darwin thought the cell was a mere "blob of protoplasm". This is a myth; the nucleus was observed by von Leeuwenhoek and described by Franz Bauer in 1804. I have read many creationist books, going back to the 1900's-1920's-1930's, so I know that many of the Intelligent Design arguments passed off nowadays as "cutting edge science" are more than 100 years old. For example. Consider Houston Stewart Chamberlain, perhaps the most important ideological influence on Adolf Hitler, and an implacable enemy of Darwinism. In his books like "Foundations of the Nineteenth Century" he attacked Darwinism and Darwinists. In his book "Immanuel Kant" (written 1905, translated to English 1914) in Chapter 6 he launches into a long, extended attack on Darwinism and the intellectual inferiority of Darwinists. Many of the "cutting edge" arguments which IDers say are "the latest science" appear in this 113-year-old book. You can read it yourself online. For example, above TwoApples invokes the argument (to paraphrase) "Once scientists thought the cell was simple, but now we know it's complex, too complex to have evolved." 1. But this exact argument, "once scientists thought the cell was simple, cutting edge science shows it is complex" appears in this 113-year-old book, see Chapter 6, p. 103-5. Read it yourself! 2. The argument about the irreducibility of the bacterial flagellum, which is THE Icon and Emblem of the Intelligent Design movement, appears on pages 101-3, with diagrams, of this 113-year-old book. (Irreducibility of cilia appear on p. 99-101). 3. Chamberlain's language for the same ideas is a bit different: he describes what Behe calls "Irreducible Complexity", but Chamberlain calls it "reciprocally conditioned parts". For a 113-year-old description of how "Irreducible Complexity" makes evolution impossible, see p. 90; p. 97-98; p. 99-101 (Vacuole & Cilium); p. 124-6; etc. 4. There are no Transitional Fossils, No Ape-to-Human Fossils, we see only Degeneration: p. 130; Footnote 128 p. 487. 5. Transitional Fossils are Impossible, can never exist because transitions between Gestalten [Forms, ontologies] are non-functional: p. 121. 6. Cambrian Explosion: All Types In Cambrian Formations Exist Today! Ancient fossils are not simple: p. 126-7; Footnote 137, p. 488; p. 136. 7. Haeckel’s Embryo Drawings are Frauds, Embryonic Recapitulation is a hoax: Footnote 125, p. 484-5; also p. 127-8. 8. Against Abiogenesis: Cutting Edge Science of 1905 Shows Simplest Life Forms are Complex, therefore could not have evolved: p. 88-89; p. 96-97; p. 98-9. 9. Pasteur Disproved Spontaneous Generation, thus disproving Abiogenesis once and for all: p. 119. 10. Darwin’s Pigeon studies only show Microevolution, not Macroevolution: Footnote 109, p. 482-3. 11. Vestigial Organs Are Fully Functional: p. 115-16. 12. Cutting edge science of 1905 proved “The anatomical impossibility” of Human Descent from Apes: Footnote 126, page 485-7. 13. Darwinism is just a Pagan Religion/Philosophy, not Science: p. 117-9. 14. Living Fossils Disprove Evolution: Footnote 138, p. 488-9; p. 137-9. And for laughs: 15. If Man Evolved from Bacteria, Why Do Bacteria Still Exist? p. 160. 16. In Vol. I, the old Nazi complains about how the Darwinist Thought Police are "a priesthood" that squashes all free thought and dissent:

Houston Stewart Chamberlain (1905) wrote: “The one thing against which I defend myself is this, that an invisible church served by a priesthood of narrow-minded, arrogant, and intolerant professors, who under the honourable title of “learned“ enjoy a quite unjustified respect, — since learning and power of judgment by no means of necessity go hand in hand — that these enemies of nature, this tribe of fanatics should seize upon my understanding even in childhood, should annihilate its healthy power of observation, should hold in a scientific vice its healthy thought, and compel my belief in silly dogmas with a tyranny more cruel than the tribunal of the Inquisition. There is no need for me to believe in God: it matters little whether I am a morally strong, energetic, and free man: but if I refuse to believe in… the waves that are rays and the rays that are waves, in the amplitudes and oscillations and polarisations and such abominations, together with the descent of man from apes and of apes from jelly-fish, then I am outside the pale”. [Chamberlain, Immanuel Kant Vol. I, p.151]

[See: Houston Stewart Chamberlain, Immanuel Kant Vol. II (1905/1914), Chapter 6]

FL · 12 February 2013

Wonderful! At last, a studied-up teacher who can expound on the basics!

Yes I am, and I'm happy about it too. I'm not an ID-expert, but neither am I an ID-illiterate. I'm neither arrogant nor ashamed, to have had opportunities to share the ID hypothesis with youth and adults, church AND secular. Which reminds me -- I promised you guys a certain link in regards to being able to "explain the ID hypothesis in their own words for an hour." I forgot to put that article in there, so I'm gonna put it in right here. Did I write it? Yes I wrote it. So please enjoy it, Phhht! http://cjonline.com/blog-post/contra-mundum/2012-10-23/are-you-intelligently-designed FL

diogeneslamp0 · 12 February 2013

FL said:
All instructors, especially those teaching in a high school, are required to develop a course syllabus, a set of course objectives along with a set of teaching materials and exams. I would like to see any of these ID/creationist trolls meet that requirement right here on this thread.
That's certainly not a difficult request, Mike. I've conducted hour-long presentations on the Intelligent Design hypothesis both at church AND at the hometown secular university, so it's not scary at all. Think about it. These days, there is a ton of helpful book, magazine, online, video, and DVD media materials available that explain and illustrate the Intelligent Design hypothesis. So the fact is that any teacher who is studied-up and capable of explaining the ID hypothesis in their own words for an hour (see example link below), can EASILY line up some of those many resources into a systematic, step-by-step, timeline-based curriculum.

Really? You mean like Caroline Crocker's slide show? Crocker was one of the "martyrs" allegedly discriminated against in the movie Expelled. One single slide of Crocker's presentation contained four, FOUR "weaknesses of evolution" all of which were myths and hoaxes copied-n-pasted from creationist websites. That one slide said: 1. There's just one specimen of Archaeopteryx 2. Archaeopteryx was a fraud 3. Eophippus [aka Hyracotherium, a dog-sized ancestor of the horse] is the same as the living animal, the hyrax. 4. Eophippus is found in the same geological strata as modern horses, their descendents. That was just one slide with four creationist hoaxes-- and her presentation to her class might've had maybe 40 slides in it. You do the math. Yes, FL is right: it's much easier to put together creationist slide shows, because they're allowed to just make shit up, copy shit from the kiddie page at Answers in Genesis, and we're not.

phhht · 12 February 2013

phhht said: There may be some of you who don't know FL as well as I do. In addition to his creationist beliefs, FL takes other, um, unconventional positions. He asserts that an episode of the television show Unsolved Mysteries provides evidence of miraculous healing. He is virulently homophobic. He claims that the Bible says that once upon a time, all carnivores were vegetarians. He very much enjoys posting depictions of torture. His favorite proselytizing device is extortion.

I'll also mention that FL's only tactic for dealing with unpalatable questions is to pretend that he has never heard them. That's what he'll do with this:

phhht said:
FL said: ...Basic Explanations of each ID concept...
Wonderful! At last, a studied-up teacher who can expound on the basics! Tell us, o great explicator, how to tell design from non-design.

Mike Elzinga · 12 February 2013

FL said: It's no different than what you would do on YOUR teaching gigs, Mike. Simply set up a timeline; Basic Explanations of each ID concept, along with textbook/other reading assignments, accompanied by Question & Answer gigs, Handouts, Videos, Quizzes.

You don’t appear to have any clue what is in an AP course. You haven’t demonstrated anything. You don’t even know what a lesson plan is; you don’t know how to lay out a set of objectives, and you don’t know how to test. You seem to think that high school students are little kindergarteners. I have seen what bright high school students do with people like you; they rip them to shreds right in front of the entire class; they don’t put up with bullshit. And they record their takedowns of idiot teachers on their cell phones and on audio and video and display them on the internet. And, since you “know” so much about physics from your “deep understanding” of Bueche’s book, how would you address the tornado-in-a-junkyard argument of the ID/creationists? Do you even know how it misrepresents chemistry and physics? You still can’t do that entropy calculation to demonstrate what entropy is and what it is not. As I said above, all you have are platitudes; nothing specific. You don’t know what to teach or how to teach.

SensuousCurmudgeon · 12 February 2013

diogeneslamp0 said: I have read many creationist books, going back to the 1900's-1920's-1930's, so I know that many of the Intelligent Design arguments passed off nowadays as "cutting edge science" are more than 100 years old. For example. Consider Houston Stewart Chamberlain, perhaps the most important ideological influence on Adolf Hitler, and an implacable enemy of Darwinism. In his books like "Foundations of the Nineteenth Century" he attacked Darwinism and Darwinists. In his book "Immanuel Kant" (written 1905, translated to English 1914) in Chapter 6 he launches into a long, extended attack on Darwinism and the intellectual inferiority of Darwinists. Many of the "cutting edge" arguments which IDers say are "the latest science" appear in this 113-year-old book. You can read it yourself online.

Excellent. Absolutely excellent.

diogeneslamp0 · 12 February 2013

Mike Elzinga said: I have seen what bright high school students do with people like you; they rip them to shreds right in front of the entire class; they don’t put up with bullshit. And they record their takedowns of idiot teachers on their cell phones and on audio and video and display them on the internet.

Do you have any links to that, Mike?

phhht · 12 February 2013

FL said:
Wonderful! At last, a studied-up teacher who can expound on the basics!
Yes I am, and I'm happy about it too. I'm not an ID-expert, but neither am I an ID-illiterate. I'm neither arrogant nor ashamed, to have had opportunities to share the ID hypothesis with youth and adults, church AND secular. Which reminds me -- I promised you guys a certain link in regards to being able to "explain the ID hypothesis in their own words for an hour." I forgot to put that article in there, so I'm gonna put it in right here. Did I write it? Yes I wrote it. So please enjoy it, Phhht! http://cjonline.com/blog-post/contra-mundum/2012-10-23/are-you-intelligently-designed FL

I'm not going to read FL's loony stuff. I've read tons over the years, here at this site. I say again: FL will ignore the question of how to tell the designed from the non-designed. If his post explains that, I'll eat my hats, caps, hairnets, toupees, and propeller beanies.

Mike Elzinga · 12 February 2013

FL said:
How would any of their additional material contribute to a student’s ability to pass the AP exams?
Not a bad question, although mere regurgitation of the canned AP test material is NOT the final goal here. We want students to well-understand or better-understand, and become informed media consumers of, the biological world around them.

So you really think AP courses are about regurgitation. That may be how you got through your courses; and that also explains why you still don’t know anything about science. It is also the reason you think that the TV show Unsolved Mysteries is proof of faith healing. But we already demonstrated all that over on the Bathroom Wall. You could not come close to competing with the high school students I’ve taught. Many of them had several publications in peer review journals by the time they entered the university. You would have flunked right from day one. What a despicable, pretentious bastard you are.

FL · 12 February 2013

You don’t appear to have any clue what is in an AP course

Oh come on Mike. My hometown Barnes & Noble carries the AP Biology Practice Books just like YOUR hometown Barnes & Noble does. We've both checked 'em out (well I have for sure; I cain't speak for you, obviously!).

You don’t even know what a lesson plan is; you don’t know how to lay out a set of objectives, and you don’t know how to test.

Oh please, Mike. Don't even embarrass yourself by talkin' silly like this. I've been teaching youth and adults (primarily via church) for YEARS. Quite familiar with lesson plans, quiz/test, and specifying objectives for the classes I've conducted. I know that you have been teaching for years too, You're likewise familiar with those things, and that's all fine. But like I said, don't talk blindly (translation: stupid) when you don't know how long another person's been teaching or how well they teach.

I have seen what bright high school students do with people like you; they rip them to shreds right in front of the entire class; they don’t put up with bullshit. And they record their takedowns of idiot teachers on their cell phones and on audio and video and display them on the internet.

Then you go invite those wonder-kids to the Panda Website or the Bathroom Wall so they can come rip ME to shreds. Tell 'em they better git it right the first time, or I'll send 'em back to their primordial mommas CRYING!!! Mwahahahaha!!!! By the way, what do you think of that C-J blog article I wrote? Care to rip it to shreds or something, dear Mike? FL

phhht · 12 February 2013

FL said: I'll send 'em back to their primordial mommas CRYING!!!

Why don't you make me cry, FL? All you gotta do is to say how to tell the designed from the non-designed. But you can't do that, can you, you incompetent poseur. No, all you got is bluster and hot air.

Mike Elzinga · 12 February 2013

diogeneslamp0 said:
Mike Elzinga said: I have seen what bright high school students do with people like you; they rip them to shreds right in front of the entire class; they don’t put up with bullshit. And they record their takedowns of idiot teachers on their cell phones and on audio and video and display them on the internet.
Do you have any links to that, Mike?

I wish I did; but that was over 15 years ago, and I don’t know if those audios and videos are still up on the internet. But they were quite impressive takedowns because the instructor was one of those proselytizers who denigrated the religions of many of the students and didn’t know the subject matter he claimed he could teach. It was one of those bureaucratic screw-ups that put that instructor up against those students. FL wouldn’t have lasted 10 seconds. By the way, those “kids” are now professors and researchers at places like Cal Tech, MIT, Georgia Tech, University of Chicago, the Perimeter Institute, and many other places. They were great kids to work with; better than many the graduate students I had taught or the undergraduate and graduate students I mentored in industry.

apokryltaros · 12 February 2013

phhht said:
Liar for Jesus bragged: I'll send 'em back to their primordial mommas CRYING!!!
Why don't you make me cry, FL? All you gotta do is to say how to tell the designed from the non-designed. But you can't do that, can you, you incompetent poseur. No, all you got is bluster and hot air.

For literal years, FL used to boast and brag about having a "3-plank theory" that would (magically) explain how Intelligent Design was a science and how it had explanatory powers. There were only two times in his entire trolling career here that he came closest to revealing his mythical "theory," once when he tried to wheedle PvM into letting him make a blogpost here about it, and another time when he quoted nonsense spoken by Bill Dembski. Either way, phhht is stone-correct about FL being an incompetent poseur. If FL wants to prove him wrong, why can't FL simply state how to tell Intelligently designed structures from undesigned structures? Or least explain how and why Intelligent Design is supposed to be a science? No, that's far, far too difficult for someone like FL. Much better to try and taunt and threaten the opposition with insults and impotent Hellfire fantasies to break their wills. I mean, look how that's convinced us of FL's position already.

FL · 12 February 2013

All you gotta do is to say how to tell the designed from the non-designed.

You mean, like what I wrote in the article you didn't read??

apokryltaros · 12 February 2013

Liar lied:
All you gotta do is to say how to tell the designed from the non-designed.
You mean, like what I wrote in the article you didn't read??

So how come you won't give a summary of the article? Maybe because the article does not explain how to tell designed from non-designed? What's the matter? Incompetent reading comprehension skills got your forked tongue?

phhht · 12 February 2013

FL said:
All you gotta do is to say how to tell the designed from the non-designed.
You mean, like what I wrote in the article you didn't read??

Except you didn't explain that in your article, did you, you incompetent, jumped-up intellectual wannabe. Go ahead, bully-boy, make me cry. Explain it here.

eric · 12 February 2013

FL said: Right off the bat, the science student's critical thinking resources will be sharpened by exposure to the ID hypothesis and questions/issues, and that's going to help them good on the AP test.

This assumes your material doesn't skew or get wrong the manaistream science you're supposed to be covering. I bet it does.

Remember, the ID instruction is intended to SUPPLEMENT the regular canned textbook material.

So, at best, ID material:Biology like Prayer:Surgery.

They'll still get their required dose of AP biology material, but now they'll get a scientific alternative that helps them THINK and COMPARE/CONTRAST and STUDY the regular biology claims they've been exposed to. Critical thinking science skills get developed and sharpened. That means Better science-literate kids, Better science-literate adults.

My AP chem teacher spent only a few minutes on the plum pudding model of the atom. Oh, think how much better off I'd be if he spent hours describing it!!! If I had had to learn all about it, took tests on it, done projects on it! Not. First, critical thinking can be taught without having to waste the students' time on plum pudding models and other useless, outdated ideas. Second, because a students' time and effort has an opportunity cost. There is always something else they could be learning in the time you spend on X. Teaching ID is almost always going to be a comparably bad investment of their time.

That's what you'd like to see, wouldn't you Mike? That's the goal you agree with, right?

Actually, I think Mike's goal is to shine a light on lesson plans so that schools can detect ones that are very likely to be unconstitutional. With a secondary goal of deterrence (if everyone knows there's going to be a light shined, they may not develop blatantly unconstitutional curricula in the first place). Ironically, I'd bet that your own (private and home school) lesson plans would actually be very useful. But not in the way you think.

Mike Elzinga · 12 February 2013

phhht said:
FL said: I'll send 'em back to their primordial mommas CRYING!!!
Why don't you make me cry, FL? All you gotta do is to say how to tell the designed from the non-designed. But you can't do that, can you, you incompetent poseur. No, all you got is bluster and hot air.

One can’t help noticing that I gave FL two specific examples where he had an opportunity to demonstrate a lesson involving ID/creationist “arguments;” and all he did was ignore them. He has no clue about what is involved in teaching a course in science, or how much has to be done, or how much time is involved.

PA Poland · 12 February 2013

FL said:
Wonderful! At last, a studied-up teacher who can expound on the basics!
Yes I am, and I'm happy about it too. I'm not an ID-expert, but neither am I an ID-illiterate. I'm neither arrogant nor ashamed, to have had opportunities to share the ID hypothesis with youth and adults, church AND secular. Which reminds me -- I promised you guys a certain link in regards to being able to "explain the ID hypothesis in their own words for an hour." I forgot to put that article in there, so I'm gonna put it in right here. Did I write it? Yes I wrote it. So please enjoy it, Phhht! http://cjonline.com/blog-post/contra-mundum/2012-10-23/are-you-intelligently-designed FL

You vomited up standard, run of the mill IDiocy FL.

1. Specified Complexity and/or Irreducible Complexity are well-defined and empirically detectable. 2. Undirected natural causes, like naturalistic evolution, cannot explain Specified Complexity and/or Irreducible Complexity.

FALSE ! Examination of REALITY shows that repeated rounds of mutation/selection can indeed generate 'specified complexity', and that naturalistic evolution can indeed explain 'irreducible complexity'- GIVEN THE FACT THAT IRREDUCIBLY COMPLEX SYSTEMS HAVE BEEN SHOWN TO HAVE EVOLVED IN RECENT TIMES ! Evolution can do this because SELECTION IS NOT RANDOM. Variations that work become more common in a population, those that don't tend to go extinct. End result - an INCREASE in 'specified information' (in this case, ability to thrive in the organism's environment is what is doing the specifying). 'Irreducible complexity' would ONLY be a problem for evolution if it were IMPOSSIBLE for parts to be added to or subtracted from a system, or if functions could not change. Observations of REALITY show that parts can be added or subtracted from systems, and that functions can change. Thus, your claim that 'the presence of IC disproves evolution !!!' is erroneous.

3. Intelligent causation best explains Specified Complexity and/or Irreducible Complexity.

'Intelligent causation' explains NOTHING; it is merely a glorification of ignorance, since anything and everything can be 'explained' as the whim of an unknowable being. As in : "Since *** I *** can't figure out how this could happen naturally, ~~GOD~~DESIGNERDIDIT !!!!!!"

That's an actual 3-point scientific hypothesis of Intelligent Design. And yes, it IS scientific, because that hypothesis makes a testable prediction which can be falsified in the real world. Here's the testable prediction: "The concept of intelligent design entails a strong prediction that is readily falsifiable. In particular, the concept of intelligent design predicts that complex information, such as that encoded in a functioning genome, NEVER arises from purely chemical or physical antecedents. Experience will show that only intelligent agency gives rise to functional information. All that is necessary to falsify the hypothesis of intelligent design is to show confirmed instances of purely physical or chemical antecedents producing such information." -- philosopher of science Dr. Stephen Meyer with Dr. Mark Hartwig, from the textbook "Of Pandas and People", 2nd ed, 1993.

Has been done SEVERAL times - nylonase, atrazine degradation, degradation of recently developed xenobiotic compounds, catalytic antibodies and the FACT that, starting from a string of random amino acids, just about any function can be generated (like ATP binding, DNA and RNA ligases, DNA polymerase, etc). Natural selection excels at generating FUNCTIONAL 'information', since organisms with too much non-functional 'information' tend to go extinct.

Richard B. Hoppe · 12 February 2013

FL said: Yes I am, and I'm happy about it too. I'm not an ID-expert, but neither am I an ID-illiterate. I'm neither arrogant nor ashamed, to have had opportunities to share the ID hypothesis with youth and adults, church AND secular. Which reminds me -- I promised you guys a certain link in regards to being able to "explain the ID hypothesis in their own words for an hour." I forgot to put that article in there, so I'm gonna put it in right here. Did I write it? Yes I wrote it. So please enjoy it, Phhht! http://cjonline.com/blog-post/contra-mundum/2012-10-23/are-you-intelligently-designed

FL wrote

Think about it. These days, there is a ton of helpful book, magazine, online, video, and DVD media materials available that explain and illustrate the Intelligent Design hypothesis.

Well, I've read a whole lot of traditional creationist and intelligent design creationist literature, ranging from Morris's 1974 Scientific Creationism and Gish's Evolution: The fossils say No! to Dembski's The Design Inference and No Free Lunch and Meyer's Signature in the Cell, and I have never read a detailed exposition of the "Intelligent Design Hypothesis". So maybe you, FL, can help. Here's my template for ID's "theory":

[Sometime or other] [some intelligent agent(s)] designed [something or other], and then [somehow or other] manufactured that design in matter and energy, leaving [this independent evidence] for the presence (or at least [this independent evidence] for the existence) of the hypothesized design(s) and/or manufacturing process.

Now, would you, FL, fill in the italicized blanks in a way that expresses the so-called "Intelligent Design hypothesis" in an affirmative manner, please? I read your post, and nowhere does it provide an affirmative hypothesis. It depends on false assertions. For example, quoting Meyer, you assert

In particular, the concept of intelligent design predicts that complex information, such as that encoded in a functioning genome, NEVER arises from purely chemical or physical antecedents. Experience will show that only intelligent agency gives rise to functional information. All that is necessary to falsify the hypothesis of intelligent design is to show confirmed instances of purely physical or chemical antecedents producing such information."

But here is a review article describing just that:

Abstract Gene duplication provides raw material for functional innovation. Recent advances have shed light on two fundamental questions regarding gene duplication: which genes tend to undergo duplication? And how does natural selection subsequently act on them? Genomic data suggest that different gene classes tend to be retained after single-gene and whole-genome duplications. We also know that functional differences between duplicate genes can originate in several different ways, including mutations that directly impart new functions, subdivision of ancestral functions and selection for changes in gene dosage. Interestingly, in many cases the 'new' function of one copy is a secondary property that was always present, but that has been co-opted to a primary role after the duplication.

Or try this one on a specific innovation:

Abstract How gene duplication and divergence contribute to genetic novelty and adaptation has been of intense interest, but experimental evidence has been limited. The genetic switch controlling the yeast galactose use pathway includes two paralogous genes in Saccharomyces cerevisiae that encode a co-inducer (GAL3) and a galactokinase (GAL1). These paralogues arose from a single bifunctional ancestral gene as is still present in Kluyveromyces lactis. To determine which evolutionary processes shaped the evolution of the two paralogues, here we assess the effects of precise replacement of coding and non-coding sequences on organismal fitness. We suggest that duplication of the ancestral bifunctional gene allowed for the resolution of an adaptive conflict between the transcriptional regulation of the two gene functions. After duplication, previously disfavoured binding site configurations evolved that divided the regulation of the ancestral gene into two specialized genes, one of which ultimately became one of the most tightly regulated genes in the genome.

In your post you mention two ID concepts, saying

1. Specified Complexity and/or Irreducible Complexity are well-defined and empirically detectable.

Specified complexity is not "well-defined", else we would have examples of the calculation of SC for biological systems. But no ID theorist has ever calculated the specified complexity of a biological system. In Dembski's presentations of SC it is a composite numerical variable incorporating a binary variable (is this thing specified or not?) and a probability that is ill-defined, since Dembski doesn't know the denominator of the probability nor the shape of the probability distribution across instances. To my knowledge he has never calculated the specified complexity for a biological structure or process. So it's not well-defined. In fact, in your post you do not define those terms but rather merely give analogies and claim without support that they're well-defined. And that's all IDists have: strained analogies with human design, where we actually have independent evidence for the presence and behavior of the designing and manufacturing entities: We know humans exist!

phhht · 12 February 2013

phhht said:
FL said:
All you gotta do is to say how to tell the designed from the non-designed.
You mean, like what I wrote in the article you didn't read??
Except you didn't explain that in your article, did you, you incompetent, jumped-up intellectual wannabe. Go ahead, bully-boy, make me cry. Explain it here.

Well, o great explicator? Why don't you explain this purported empirical test which detects Specified Complexity and/or Irreducible Complexity? Surely the ability to empirically distinguish the designed from the non-designed is one of ID's fundamentals, one you explain in your talks. So tell us how to do it. Except you can't tell us that. You're nothing but a bullshitting charlatan who thinks TV shows are evidence for miraculous healing. You're nothing but a deluded religious fanatic who claims that once upon a time, all carnivores were vegetarians. You're ridiculous, FL. I'm sure you're really good at frightening Sunday school children until the cry, you bully, but when it comes to grown-ups, it's all dodge 'em, duck 'em, got no answers so fuck 'em. You can't make anybody here cry, you preposterous oaf. Quite the contrary. You make us laugh.

FL · 12 February 2013

So how come you won’t give a summary of the article?

Oh, shoot. You are unable to click on the link for a simple ONE-PAGE article??? You probably deserve a swig of the BBQ sauce just for THAT!! FL :)

apokryltaros · 12 February 2013

Asshole For Jesus taunted:
So how come you won’t give a summary of the article?
Oh, shoot. You are unable to click on the link for a simple ONE-PAGE article??? You probably deserve a swig of the BBQ sauce just for THAT!!

If your inane article really did explain how to detect Intelligently designed from undesigned, then you would be able to give a brief summary. But since you would rather taunt me with how I'm going to be raped and tortured in Hell as punishment for not blindly obeying you, it stands to reason that the article does not explain how to detect Intelligently Design from undesigned, and that you can not, will not summarize how to do so even if your miserable life depended on it.

apokryltaros · 12 February 2013

I also noticed that FL totally ignored Richard Hoppe's dissection when he taunted me. I wonder if that was deliberate.

eric · 12 February 2013

FL said: 1. Specified Complexity and/or Irreducible Complexity are well-defined and empirically detectable.

Okay, below are five number sequences. Zero or more of them represent a real genomic sequence. Use your detector to tell me which ones they are. Also critical: explain to me the algorithm for how you came up with your answer, whatever that answer is, in sufficient detail that I can reproduce your work. Without that explanation, I'm going to assume you found a way to cheat or got lucky (with 5 sequences and 0-5 possible real sequences, there's a 1/32 chance of a random correct guess). #1: 3441133341 3312213232 1312414234 1233431334 2134423424 4231322312 #2: 1232211132 2311232111 2223332134 1333443222 4322131122 2413241322 #3: 4111444314 2434332222 4233224234 2242114314 3233443224 2432313444 #4: 1334113342 1322141132 3433114113 1211111243 3211432244 2133212141 #5: 1112213112 2424241112 3223334433 2331114231 1132424213 3424312342

2. Undirected natural causes, like naturalistic evolution, cannot explain Specified Complexity and/or Irreducible Complexity.

Explain to me what prevents a point mutation from happening. What is ID's proposed mechanism that prevents a 1 from being mutated into a 2 only when that will improve/assist future development of the organism, but allows it otherwise. Seems to me like your second plank requires time-traveling gremlins. Something in your proposed physics has to "know" when a genetic change will lead to an environmentally favorable developmental change.

3. Intelligent causation best explains Specified Complexity and/or Irreducible Complexity.

Explain to me how (what mechanism) the intelligent cause used to create the real sequences above. Was it a miracle? Did the designer have a genetics lab?

Kevin B · 12 February 2013

apokryltaros said: I also noticed that FL totally ignored Richard Hoppe's dissection when he taunted me. I wonder if that was deliberate.

That is suspiciously like a Design Inference^TM.

diogeneslamp0 · 12 February 2013

FL said: I forgot to put that article in there, so I'm gonna put it in right here. Did I write it? Yes I wrote it. So please enjoy it, Phhht! http://cjonline.com/blog-post/contra-mundum/2012-10-23/are-you-intelligently-designed FL

FL, this should be a simple one for an ID expert like you. Here are two strings. One is intelligently designed, I promise. The other is a random scramble. Which one is intelligently designed?

A: “chimuaruyoniitekonamiuedakorutoruganoyobonaireomoisuhanohiodahiripo”

B: “ueomuitearukonamidagakoborenaiyoniomoidasuharunohihitoripochinoyoru”

Show all calculations as you compute Dembski's Specified Complexity to identify the intelligently designed sequence.

phhht · 12 February 2013

FL said: 2. Undirected natural causes, like naturalistic evolution, cannot explain Specified Complexity and/or Irreducible Complexity.

And FL can't explain them either. Nobody can.

eric · 12 February 2013

diogeneslamp0 said: Here are two strings. One is intelligently designed, I promise. The other is a random scramble. Which one is intelligently designed?
A: “chimuaruyoniitekonamiuedakorutoruganoyobonaireomoisuhanohiodahiripo”

B: “ueomuitearukonamidagakoborenaiyoniomoidasuharunohihitoripochinoyoru”

You lazybones, I at least did 5! :) Still, now the odds of him getting both our challenges correct is 1/64, and I expect yours is probably much harder to cheat than mine. However, yours reminded me of encrypted text and that made it occur to me that a real message encrypted with a 1-time pad of the same length of the message is logically indistinguishable from a random string. Making FL's plank #1 logically impossible for detecting designers that wish to remain hidden. This is not a case of needing a better detector, it simply can't be done using only the info contained in the string. That's a minor bump though, as Demski and all the other ID defenders have claimed that Type 1 errors are possible, just not type 2.

phhht · 12 February 2013

Over at the Bathroom Wall, where I customarily hang out, FL is notorious for making completely unsupported assertions. He claims that the Bible says that carnivores used to be vegetarians
(href="http://pandasthumb.org/bw/index.html#comment-296998">here),
and that the Bible says that plants are not alive (here).

Of course, the Bible never says any such thing. But that doesn't stop FL from making shit up out of whole cloth and insisting that it is true. He's a serial fabricator.

Now he's pulling the same stunt with regard to detecting design. He asserts that there is an empirical way to detect it.

But of course there is none.

FL is making it up again, just as he did with vegesaurs and dead plants. He's hallucinating the reality he wishes were true.

diogeneslamp0 · 12 February 2013

eric said:
diogeneslamp0 said: Here are two strings. One is intelligently designed, I promise. The other is a random scramble. Which one is intelligently designed?
A: “chimuaruyoniitekonamiuedakorutoruganoyobonaireomoisuhanohiodahiripo”

B: “ueomuitearukonamidagakoborenaiyoniomoidasuharunohihitoripochinoyoru”
You lazybones, I at least did 5! :) Still, now the odds of him getting both our challenges correct is 1/64, and I expect yours is probably much harder to cheat than mine. ... That's a minor bump though, as Demski and all the other ID defenders have claimed that Type 1 errors are possible, just not type 2.

No. CSI produces both false positives and false negatives, as ID proponents admit. Let's remind FL of the infamous MathGRRL threads at Uncommon Descent where MathGRRL asked the UDites how to compute the gain in Specified Complexity for a simple gene duplication. For literally hundreds of comments, the usual assholes, like Kairosfocus and BornAgain77, heaped insults on MathGRRL, buried her under their cultic bafflegab (CSI, DFSCI, FSCI/O, etc.) and psychoanalyzed her motivations, but wouldn't do the goddamn math. See the first MathGRRL thread. At comment #282, Vincent Torley finally did the math. He screwed it up, saying that a typical gene has 100,000 nucleotides (!) and no one caught that, but it doesn't matter-- a simply calculation shows that ANY gene duplication will astronomically increase Dembski's Complex Specified Information. I hear Gpuccio came to the same conclusion earlier. At comment #309, Torley admits that Dembski's Specified Complexity is basically useless and doesn't have the properties claimed. At comment #334, Torley admits that Dembski's Specified Complexity produces false positives and cannot reliably detect design because of the false positive problem. At comment #397, CJYMan admits evolution can increase CSI, with the (unsubstantiated) claim that CSI must exist first before evolution can increase it. So, to be clear, Dembski's CSI produces both false positives AND false negatives. The second MathGRRL thread is here; it is more of the same: insults, abuse, psychoanalysis, assholery. It is entertaining to here the UDites blather about statues of the Virgin Mary miraculously appearing in Mexico, and the mystic quantum properties of the Shroud of Turin.

phhht · 12 February 2013

Another off-putting aspect of FL's advocacy is that not a single assertions he makes is really his own.

He just parrots the usual suspects, from AiG to CARM. He hasn't got an original thought in his head. It's all stolen from his authority figures.

harold · 12 February 2013

FL said:
Wonderful! At last, a studied-up teacher who can expound on the basics!
Yes I am, and I'm happy about it too. I'm not an ID-expert, but neither am I an ID-illiterate. I'm neither arrogant nor ashamed, to have had opportunities to share the ID hypothesis with youth and adults, church AND secular. Which reminds me -- I promised you guys a certain link in regards to being able to "explain the ID hypothesis in their own words for an hour." I forgot to put that article in there, so I'm gonna put it in right here. Did I write it? Yes I wrote it. So please enjoy it, Phhht! http://cjonline.com/blog-post/contra-mundum/2012-10-23/are-you-intelligently-designed FL

Well, that settles that. FL admits that the intended purpose of the Montana bill is to teach ID/creationism in public school science class, which is already illegal. No wonder the Montana legislature doesn't want to mess with that bill. Thank you for clearing that up, FL, I asked one of the other people in this thread what they actually wanted to change in the Montana high school curriculum, and it was one of the many simple, obvious, courteous, logical questions of mine which was blatantly evaded. But now you've cleared it up.

eric · 12 February 2013

diogeneslamp0 said: At comment #309, Torley admits that Dembski's Specified Complexity is basically useless and doesn't have the properties claimed. At comment #334, Torley admits that Dembski's Specified Complexity produces false positives and cannot reliably detect design because of the false positive problem. At comment #397, CJYMan admits evolution can increase CSI, with the (unsubstantiated) claim that CSI must exist first before evolution can increase it.

I wasn't aware of that, thanks! Though it wouldn't surprise me if Dembski kept repeating his old spiel despite that.

Dave Luckett · 12 February 2013

FL said:
All you gotta do is to say how to tell the designed from the non-designed.
You mean, like what I wrote in the article you didn't read??

It's extraordinary, this strange mindset FL's got. He really thinks assertion (from him) changes reality. That's the only explanation I can make for this. Of course this article he wrote and linked to doesn't say how to tell the designed from the non-designed. It says no such thing. It implies, but only implies, that some things that are designed exhibit Behean "irreducible complexity", but it contains no actual rule or precept, and it simply ignores the obvious and immediate objections to this idea when applied to living structures. This is, of course, simply to ignore the century or more of work on exaption. This is so plainly obvious on actually reading the piece that one cannot account for FL's misrepresentation of it, above, simply by calling it an untruth. Of course his statement is untrue. FL does not provide a way to tell design from non-design. But only someone who has rearranged reality for his own convenience could think for a moment that this would not be blatantly obvious to anyone who actually goes and looks. How to account for this? Is it simply a patent lie? Is he a stupid enough liar to think that nobody will check up? Or is it an actual dismissal of reality?

phhht · 12 February 2013

Dave Luckett said: ...one cannot account for FL's misrepresentation of it... simply by calling it an untruth. Of course his statement is untrue. FL does not provide a way to tell design from non-design. But only someone who has rearranged reality for his own convenience could think for a moment that this would not be blatantly obvious to anyone who actually goes and looks.

FL is doing what he did with his claims about prelapsarian pan-vegetarianism and non-living plants: he is hallucinating a reality which he would like to believe, but which isn't there. FL's Biblical citations in support of his claims yield no such support, and anybody who reads them can see that for himself. The same is true of his claim to have told how to distinguish the designed from the non-designed. Anybody who reads the post can see for himself that it does no such thing. FL is a bull-goose loony. He's a deluded, fairly simple-minded religious fanatic who just makes up whatever his illness tells him to. He's blithely indifferent to reality, no matter how blatantly contradictory.

Frank J · 13 February 2013

twoapplestobees said: And by the way. I am not Joe. I am Henry Appleby, currently living in the Carolinas. Isn't it probable that more than one human being with access to internet can disagree with you? sigh..
DS said:
Frank J said: Would someone be kind enough to update me, as I have not had the time to participate as much as I wanted on this thread. I see that "2A2B" jumped on my use of the word "clown" while ignoring the rest of my comments. I think my assessment of both the intelligence and morality of rank-and-file evolution deniers and anti-evolution activists is quite clear from my many posts over the years, and very different from what 2A2B wants readers to think. Skimming A2AB's comments suggests that he is a "pseudoskeptic" - one who claims to have "no dog in the fight" but whines incessantly about one, while merely ignoring the other(s). But I may have missed comments about the other "dogs." In particular, since he appears to get his long-refuted incredulity arguments from the DI playbook - which itself does not mean that he necessarily believes any of them. So the obvious first question is whether he agrees with Behe that the "better" alternate explanation includes ~4 billion years of common descent. And if not if he ever challenged Behe directly.
Frank, Here is a brief summary of the thread: Joe tried to post under yet another alias and started spouting a bunch of creationist nonsense and quote mining. When he was outed, he immediately switched to another name and started spouting nonsense about academic freedom and critical thinking. He ignored all questions put to him, refused to provide any scientific references or any evidence for his baseless assertions and basically pissed and moaned about how mean people were to him. The administrators refused to enforce their ban on him, even though he has threatened physical violence in the past. He has been caught in several lies, including claiming that Sean Carroll does not believe in evolution and that Crick discovered DNA. He apparently has some deep seated psychosis involving attention from scientists, whether positive or negative. He promised to leave and then stuck around anyway. I'm sure he will change names and try agin shortly, but he isn't going to fool anyone no matter what he does. That about sums it up. Now you don't have to wade through all nine pages of flatulence.

Then you won't mind telling us whether or not you agree with Michael Behe who fully concedes a ~4-billion year "tree" of life, as in "common descent with modification," though in his opintion not always driven ny "RM + NS." Given all that you claim to have read, you surely have at least a "best guess" opinion on that, and are very aware that Behe is one of the most cited evolution-deniers of the last 20 years.

Bobsie · 13 February 2013

FL said:Oh, shoot. You are unable to click on the link for a simple ONE-PAGE article???

I did click. Where's your data and references. Where's the research rigor? Without that all you are doing is telling a story and a made up one at that.

apokryltaros · 13 February 2013

Bobsie said:
Liar whined:Oh, shoot. You are unable to click on the link for a simple ONE-PAGE article???
I did click. Where's your data and references. Where's the research rigor? Without that all you are doing is telling a story and a made up one at that.

It's even worse than that: there is no story, made up or otherwise, told like he promises, there's only a little scrap of Confabulated Bafflegab For Jesus, nothing more. And this is what FL and Atheistoclast want taught to students in science classes, instead of science! False promises of imaginary flim flam coupled with brain-destroying anti-science propaganda.

apokryltaros · 13 February 2013

Bobsie said:
Liar whined:Oh, shoot. You are unable to click on the link for a simple ONE-PAGE article???
I did click. Where's your data and references. Where's the research rigor? Without that all you are doing is telling a story and a made up one at that.

AltairIV · 13 February 2013

diogeneslamp0 said: FL, this should be a simple one for an ID expert like you. Here are two strings. One is intelligently designed, I promise. The other is a random scramble. Which one is intelligently designed?
A: “chimuaruyoniitekonamiuedakorutoruganoyobonaireomoisuhanohiodahiripo”

B: “ueomuitearukonamidagakoborenaiyoniomoidasuharunohihitoripochinoyoru”
Show all calculations as you compute Dembski's Specified Complexity to identify the intelligently designed sequence.

Hehehe. I, at least, know exactly which string is intelligently designed, and what it is. But I'm not telling!

TomS · 13 February 2013

diogeneslamp0 said: For example. Consider Houston Stewart Chamberlain, perhaps the most important ideological influence on Adolf Hitler, and an implacable enemy of Darwinism. In his books like "Foundations of the Nineteenth Century" he attacked Darwinism and Darwinists. In his book "Immanuel Kant" (written 1905, translated to English 1914) in Chapter 6 he launches into a long, extended attack on Darwinism and the intellectual inferiority of Darwinists. * * * [See: Houston Stewart Chamberlain, Immanuel Kant Vol. II (1905/1914), Chapter 6]

This is a significant addition to our understanding of evolution denial. Is there some way that you could make this available in a more accessible way? There is (as far as I know) no simple url distinguishing this one comment at the PT. TalkReason.org? RationalWiki.org?

diogeneslamp0 · 13 February 2013

AltairIV said:
diogeneslamp0 said: FL, this should be a simple one for an ID expert like you. Here are two strings. One is intelligently designed, I promise. The other is a random scramble. Which one is intelligently designed?
A: “chimuaruyoniitekonamiuedakorutoruganoyobonaireomoisuhanohiodahiripo”

B: “ueomuitearukonamidagakoborenaiyoniomoidasuharunohihitoripochinoyoru”
Show all calculations as you compute Dembski's Specified Complexity to identify the intelligently designed sequence.
Hehehe. I, at least, know exactly which string is intelligently designed, and what it is. But I'm not telling!

Don't you dare tell! The IDers MUST figure it out by computing Dembski's Complex Specified Information, showing all calculations. If they use any other method, they're just whistling under the moon.

diogeneslamp0 · 13 February 2013

TomS said:
diogeneslamp0 said: For example. Consider Houston Stewart Chamberlain, perhaps the most important ideological influence on Adolf Hitler, and an implacable enemy of Darwinism. In his books like "Foundations of the Nineteenth Century" he attacked Darwinism and Darwinists. In his book "Immanuel Kant" (written 1905, translated to English 1914) in Chapter 6 he launches into a long, extended attack on Darwinism and the intellectual inferiority of Darwinists. * * * [See: Houston Stewart Chamberlain, Immanuel Kant Vol. II (1905/1914), Chapter 6]
This is a significant addition to our understanding of evolution denial. Is there some way that you could make this available in a more accessible way? There is (as far as I know) no simple url distinguishing this one comment at the PT. TalkReason.org? RationalWiki.org?

I'll write it up at my blog, to start with. There's much more to it than I wrote. Many of the key concepts of ID are resurrections of late 19th century, early 20th German shit philosophy (vitalism/Elan vital, Gestalt, Holism (anti-reductionism), orthogenesis, etc.) and Chamberlain was knee deep in that shit. (If there is a more polite term than "shit philosophy", please suggest one. Naturphilosophie and Gestalt do not capture the whole screwy story.) I will write it up, but if you would like to learn more on your own, you can start by reading Anne Harrington's "Re-enchanted Science" about German anti-reductionist, anti-Darwinist holism. It's great, but it's just part of the story.

apokryltaros · 13 February 2013

diogeneslamp0 said: (If there is a more polite term than "shit philosophy", please suggest one.

Two polite euphemisms exist, "navel contemplation" and "deliberate/malicious confabulation"

Just Bob · 13 February 2013

Scheißephilosophie

SensuousCurmudgeon · 13 February 2013

diogeneslamp0 said: If there is a more polite term than "shit philosophy", please suggest one. Naturphilosophie and Gestalt do not capture the whole screwy story.

You've probably heard the old joke about a couple of university administrators discussing which departments were the least expensive. One said: "It's math, because a mathematician needs only a pencil, paper, and a wastebasket." The other said: "No, it's philosophy. A philosopher doesn't need a wastebasket." (Sincere apologies to all philosophy professors.)

Ron Bear · 13 February 2013

SensuousCurmudgeon,
I laughed out loud and then retold your joke immediately. :-)

Frank J · 13 February 2013

The IDers MUST figure it out by computing Dembski’s Complex Specified Information, showing all calculations. If they use any other method, they’re just whistling under the moon.
— diogeneslamp0

They have a foolproof method. It's called "Heads I win, tails you lose."

FL · 14 February 2013

Good morning! Happy (heterosexual) Valentine's Day, guys and gals. (Sorry for the qualifier, but I was watching the TV News yesterday and some people apparently didn't get the memo!). Increased workload this last half of the week, so apologies for the delay. I'm primarily responding to PA Poland and afterwards to Dr. Hoppe, but also I'll just throw a few responses around just for the fun of it. Probably take about two days, starting today. **** Bobsie had an interesting brief shpiel:

I did click. Where’s your data and references. Where’s the research rigor? Without that all you are doing is telling a story and a made up one at that.

Ummm, your response is halfway perceptive (and halfway not). My job as a blogger, my college degree in fact, is in "how to effectively tell an accurate story to the general public at the Reader's Digest level." So you're partly right. I do my writing as if I'm telling a story, because that's what newspaper readers want to hear. They do want accuracy and attribution, but they're not looking for highly technical journal articles. I think I did okay on letting people know where I was getting my information from. **** Meanwhile, Harold trumpets (in bold):

FL admits that the intended purpose of the Montana bill is to teach ID/creationism in public school science class, which is already illegal.

But if you re-read the C-J blog article, you'll see that I haven't mentioned the Montana bill at all, nor anything pertaining to Montana for that matter. The article was written LONG BEFORE anything popped up in Montana. So Harold is obviously derailed (not deranged, just derailed) on this one. As for me personally, I'm not under any obligation to avoid blogging about God as the Intelligent Designer. Especially when I'm writing to the general public about the Intelligent Design hypothesis. ID hypothesis is good, it's even revolutionary, but people need God most of all. That's what drives my blog. The ID hypothesis does NOT mention any deity and doesn't start with or pre-assume ANY claims from ANY religious texts. But if you find something that displays the markers of Intelligent Design (like your eyes), it's rationally okay to infer ***afterwards*** that the Designer is God.

"The hearing ear and the seeing eye, the LORD has made them." (Proverbs 20:12)

So honestly, you could rationally infer from the irreducible complexity of the eye alone, that it was intelligently designed by Somebody. The Bible then tells you who that Somebody really is. Then you abandon atheism and agnosticism already, and get hooked up with that Somebody via Jesus Christ. New life, eternal life, washed and cleaned-up all the way inside. Now THAT's rationality, folks! FL

phhht · 14 February 2013

FL said: Good morning! Happy (heterosexual) Valentine's Day, guys and gals. (Sorry for the qualifier, but I was watching the TV News yesterday and some people apparently didn't get the memo!).

Here is FL, combining his virulent homophobia with his favorite proselytizing technique, the threat:

FL said: Nine-Eleven, Katrina Disaster, Wholesale Tornadoes, East-Coast Earthquakes, etc, etc. They just keep on coming. (This quake was the strongest East Coast quake since World War II.) These are all Wake-Up-Calls, people. Pure wake-up calls. Something is coming down the road. Quickly. Seriously. Anybody with access to a Bible (or at least a library card) knows what happens to nations that keep on spitting in God's face. You know this gay marriage mess America is swallowing, comes straight from the Devil's diarrhea. Smells like it too. You know what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah when they went too far. America's just about there, folks. You think America will get a free pass if we don't repent? NOPE.

phhht · 14 February 2013

Well, FL? That post you made didn't say anything at all about how to tell the designed from the non-designed, did it? Nope, it DID NOT SAY THAT. You're just making shit up again, just like you did with the vegesaurs and the non-living plants. Can you really not understand that anybody who looks for himself can see that you are lying?

phhht said:
Dave Luckett said: ...one cannot account for FL's misrepresentation of it... simply by calling it an untruth. Of course his statement is untrue. FL does not provide a way to tell design from non-design. But only someone who has rearranged reality for his own convenience could think for a moment that this would not be blatantly obvious to anyone who actually goes and looks.
FL is doing what he did with his claims about prelapsarian pan-vegetarianism and non-living plants: he is hallucinating a reality which he would like to believe, but which isn't there. FL's Biblical citations in support of his claims yield no such support, and anybody who reads them can see that for himself. The same is true of his claim to have told how to distinguish the designed from the non-designed. Anybody who reads the post can see for himself that it does no such thing. FL is a bull-goose loony. He's a deluded, fairly simple-minded religious fanatic who just makes up whatever his illness tells him to. He's blithely indifferent to reality, no matter how blatantly contradictory.

FL · 14 February 2013

FL does not provide a way to tell design from non-design.

Already did that, Dave. Your "taint so" doesn't work here. The two markers of intelligent design, the two ways to rationally and scientifically differentiate 'designed' from 'non-designed', are: 1. Specified Complexity 2. Irreducible Complexity. I like the first one (as well as the second) in the science category of Origin of Life. SC deals with a certain kind of information and OOL is demonstrably chock-full of that certain kind of information. (Need proof? Reread the Trevors and Abel article that I gave to the readers.) I like the second one especially for postbiotic items (like your eyes, your brain, your ATP nano-motors, etc). Regarding Irreducible Complexity, you emphasized the word "implies", Dave. And it's good that you are willing to say that term. But there's the kicker: now that you brought it up, you do NOT get to blow it off. Those "implications" ARE there on the table, and nobody is able to knock them off the table. Why? Because your eye does exist. Your brain does exist. Your ATP nano-motors do exist. Even the university textbook Evolutionary Analysis (Freemon-Herron) says that NOT ALL of Behe's examples of Irreducible Complexity have been refuted. So you have to be at least open-minded enough to deal with Irreducible Complexity. It's here, scientifically here, and it won't go away. (As well as SC). FL

phhht · 14 February 2013

I reiterate my prediction. When FL gets questions he can't answer, and his interlocutors are too big to bully into tears, he's all dodge 'em, duck 'em, got no answer so fuck 'em. Run and hide, you sniveling coward.

phhht said: I'll also mention that FL's only tactic for dealing with unpalatable questions is to pretend that he has never heard them. That's what he'll do with this:
phhht said:
FL said: ...Basic Explanations of each ID concept...
Wonderful! At last, a studied-up teacher who can expound on the basics! Tell us, o great explicator, how to tell design from non-design.

phhht · 14 February 2013

FL said:
FL does not provide a way to tell design from non-design.
So you have to be at least open-minded enough to deal with Irreducible Complexity. It's here, scientifically here, and it won't go away. (As well as SC).

You're flat-out lying again, FL. You DID NOT SAY how to empirically distinguish the designed from the non-designed. You DID NOT SAY how to detect your fictional complexity. Go ahead, o great explicator. Tell us just one single objective test to distinguish one from the other.

phhht · 14 February 2013

FL has proved me wrong, because I forgot his Unsolved Mysteries tactic: he simply re-asserts his delusions, over and over, despite overwhelming factual contradiction.

phhht said: I reiterate my prediction. When FL gets questions he can't answer, and his interlocutors are too big to bully into tears, he's all dodge 'em, duck 'em, got no answer so fuck 'em. Run and hide, you sniveling coward.
phhht said: I'll also mention that FL's only tactic for dealing with unpalatable questions is to pretend that he has never heard them. That's what he'll do with this:
phhht said:
FL said: ...Basic Explanations of each ID concept...
Wonderful! At last, a studied-up teacher who can expound on the basics! Tell us, o great explicator, how to tell design from non-design.

phhht · 14 February 2013

FL said: ...people need God ...

What for, FL? Your gods have no effect on the world. They are nothing but feckless constructions of your lunacy. Or you could prove me wrong. Name one objectively verifiable effect that your gods have on the world. Just one will do. But you can't even do that, can you, o great explicator.

eric · 14 February 2013

FL said:
FL does not provide a way to tell design from non-design.
Already did that, Dave. Your "taint so" doesn't work here. The two markers of intelligent design, the two ways to rationally and scientifically differentiate 'designed' from 'non-designed', are: 1. Specified Complexity 2. Irreducible Complexity.

That is not "a way." A way is a set of instructions for doing the determination. Something like: take the negative log of the probability of the system components assembling in this configuration at random, and if that value is greater than umpty ump, it counts as irreducibly complex. You answer is as non-responsive as someone asking 'how do I factor a polynomial' and you responding 'factoring.'

So you have to be at least open-minded enough to deal with Irreducible Complexity. It's here, scientifically here, and it won't go away. (As well as SC).

I'm very open-minded. I genuinely look forward to you describing your system - your way - of telling whether the following strings are irreducibly complex. I would frakking LOVE it if you IDers provided us with a definition that can be used to actually calculate something, because right now, I don’t think you can. It depresses me to think that your "way" of determining whether a system is IC is rectal extraction, and so I would very much like you to show me its not. So, I’m open. Tell me whether the following strings are irreducibly complex (or have specified complexity: I'll take your way of determining either), and most importantly, what steps you followed to make that determination: #1: 3441133341 3312213232 1312414234 1233431334 2134423424 4231322312 #2: 1232211132 2311232111 2223332134 1333443222 4322131122 2413241322 #3: 4111444314 2434332222 4233224234 2242114314 3233443224 2432313444 #4: 1334113342 1322141132 3433114113 1211111243 3211432244 2133212141 #5: 1112213112 2424241112 3223334433 2331114231 1132424213 3424312342 A: “chimuaruyoniitekonamiuedakorutoruganoyobonaireomoisuhanohiodahiripo” B: “ueomuitearukonamidagakoborenaiyoniomoidasuharunohihitoripochinoyoru”

PA Poland · 14 February 2013

FL said:
FL does not provide a way to tell design from non-design.
Already did that, Dave. Your "taint so" doesn't work here. The two markers of intelligent design, the two ways to rationally and scientifically differentiate 'designed' from 'non-designed', are: 1. Specified Complexity 2. Irreducible Complexity. I like the first one (as well as the second) in the science category of Origin of Life. SC deals with a certain kind of information and OOL is demonstrably chock-full of that certain kind of information. (Need proof? Reread the Trevors and Abel article that I gave to the readers.)

How do you define 'specified complexity' ? If it is a measure of how well a sequence performs a certain task, then natural selection EXCELS at generating 'specified complexity'. If 'specified complexity' is just a noise you make when confronted with something beyond your limited ability to understand or explain, then the term is utterly useless. And given the FACT that 'irreducible complexity' can evolve, finding examples of it neither harms evolution nor helps Magical Skymanism. So BOTH of the 'diagnostics' you use to tell designed from non-designed FAIL TO DO THE JOB.

I like the second one especially for postbiotic items (like your eyes, your brain, your ATP nano-motors, etc). Regarding Irreducible Complexity, you emphasized the word "implies", Dave. And it's good that you are willing to say that term. But there's the kicker: now that you brought it up, you do NOT get to blow it off. Those "implications" ARE there on the table, and nobody is able to knock them off the table. Why? Because your eye does exist. Your brain does exist. Your ATP nano-motors do exist. Even the university textbook Evolutionary Analysis (Freemon-Herron) says that NOT ALL of Behe's examples of Irreducible Complexity have been refuted.

The existence and functioning of eyes and brains are fully explainable via known, reality-based processes in evolution. The existence of ATP 'nano-motors' is fully explainable via known, reality-based processes in evolution. Since irreducible complexity CAN EVOLVE, finding 'IC' systems helps you not one bit. And which of Behe's 'examples' have not been refuted yet ? (and no, blubbering '** I ** refuse to accept the reality-based explanation on the grounds that ** I ** think it is too improbable !!!' is not a refutation). The fact that such explanations are beyond your flaccid ability/willingness to understand does not make them false or controversial.

diogeneslamp0 · 14 February 2013

FL said:
FL does not provide a way to tell design from non-design.
Already did that, Dave. Your "taint so" doesn't work here. The two markers of intelligent design, the two ways to rationally and scientifically differentiate 'designed' from 'non-designed', are: 1. Specified Complexity 2. Irreducible Complexity.

No, you cannot infer 'intelligent design with either of these, because we know of natural processes that produce both of them. 1. Specified Complexity: As I just pointed out a few comments back, and you ignored, ID proponents now admit that evolution and other natural processes can produce astronomically large amounts of CSI. Proof: here again is the first of the two infamous MathGrrl threads at Uncommon Descent. Read it and weep. MathGrrl asks ID's greatest brains to compute the change in CSI for a simple gene duplication. The UDites heap insults, abuse, and ad hominems on her and tell her to go away. Then at comment #282, VJ Torley finally does the math, and shows in an eyeblink that gene duplication produces astronomically large amounts of CSI. I heard Gpuccio agrees. By comment #397, CJYMan agrees that evolution can greatly increase CSI. If you want real experimental proof, here's a recent paper on a novel enzyme, with a completely new structure (actually largely unstructured) and a new sequence, produced by in vitro evolution. No human on earth knew ahead of time what the sequence or structure of that enzyme would be, and no human could have found it without Darwinian evolution in a test tube. Since you know so much about CSI, why don't you compute the CSI of the brand new enzyme? I won't hold my breath. 2. Irreducible complexity. We know that natural processes create irreducible complexity because it has been observed. Natural arches (e.g. Utah) are irreducibly complex, if you remove a part the arch falls down. But they're produced by natural processes. If you want a biochemical example, here's an observed case of an irreducibly complex system evolving while we watch: the biochemical pathway to degrade PCP, a xenobiotic that didn't exist in nature until humans recently invented it. The pathway has three enzymes, all necessary. The middle enzyme in the pathway evolved a new function, enabling an irreducibly complex network to degrade PCP. "Evolution of a metabolic pathway for degradation of a toxic xenobiotic: the patchwork approach." Copley SD. Trends Biochem Sci. 2000 Jun;25(6):261-5. Also see : Anandarajah K, et al. “Recruitment of a double bond isomerase to serve as a reductive dehalogenase during biodegradation of pentachlorophenol.” Biochemistry. 2000 May 9;39(18):5303-11.

Bobsie · 14 February 2013

FL said:Bobsie had an interesting brief shpiel:
I did click. Where’s your data and references. Where’s the research rigor? Without that all you are doing is telling a story and a made up one at that.
Ummm, your response is halfway perceptive (and halfway not). My job as a blogger, my college degree in fact, is in "how to effectively tell an accurate story to the general public at the Reader's Digest level." So you're partly right. I do my writing as if I'm telling a story, because that's what newspaper readers want to hear. They do want accuracy and attribution, but they're not looking for highly technical journal articles. I think I did okay on letting people know where I was getting my information from.

But newspapers is not where real science is done. You said you did real science on this topic. What you present is a made up fantasy story sans any and all supporting empirical evidence and academic research rigor. Maybe interesting to some but irrelevant to the real science. Wouldn't you agree?

Dave Luckett · 14 February 2013

FL simply lies. Here's his claim:

FL | February 12, 2013 1:23 PM | Reply
All you gotta do is to say how to tell the designed from the non-designed.
You mean, like what I wrote in the article you didn’t read??

That is, he claims to have written an article in which he states how to tell the designed from the non-designed. When you read the article, you find no test. You find only an assertion that either of two qualities, specified complexity and irreducible complexity, are certain indicators of design. But the whole of the previous discussion had been about how the first of these is not detectible, and precisely why the second is not such an indicator. So FL's assertion was simply a lie. He knew, perfectly well, that he had not produced an actual test for the first, nor justified the second, so he knew perfectly well that his assertion that he had was a lie. He was lying, and he knew he was lying. Either that, or he is so estranged from reality that he thinks that it conforms to his retrospective will. Which would mean that FL thinks that he's God.

apokryltaros · 14 February 2013

It is utterly sad, tragically pathetic in a morbidly hilarious way watching FL trying to win an argument about what is and isn't science against actual scientists and lifelong students of science, doing nothing but make evidenceless assertions that he magically knows more about science than actual scientists.

And hilariously, FL thinks he can cow us by throwing Intelligent Design jargon at us as though they were rocks.

Utterly pathetic.

apokryltaros · 14 February 2013

Dave Luckett said: He was lying, and he knew he was lying. Either that, or he is so estranged from reality that he thinks that it conforms to his retrospective will. Which would mean that FL thinks that he's God.

Or that FL is so estranged from reality that he honestly assumes that we're gullible enough to believe his lies after all these years of repeatedly dealing with his malicious confabulations.

Doc Bill · 14 February 2013

What is utterly sad, and tragically pathetic in a morbidly hilarious way is that FL has been flogging the same argument for about 10 years! I first ran across Floyd at the KCFS forum where he was, well, just like he is now!

Worse than sad, tragically pathetic etc is that FL doesn't even keep up with his own circus. It's like the rest of them have gone Cirque de IDee and FL is still dressed up like Bozo the Clown. Hey, Floyd, it's "functional" specified complexity. Didn't you read Stephen Meyer's epic, wind-breaking opus minimus, "Behe Hears a Who," I mean, "Signature in the Whatzits." Stevie definitely rules out "specified complexity" as MERE specified complexity and settles on the equally undefined Functional Specified Complexity (tm) which now has more, new and improved complexity power ranger crystals.

Anyway, get your beauty rest FL you grizzled old fart because we demand entertainment and it's your turn in the barrel tomorrow.

SWT · 14 February 2013

phhht said:
FL said:
FL does not provide a way to tell design from non-design.
So you have to be at least open-minded enough to deal with Irreducible Complexity. It's here, scientifically here, and it won't go away. (As well as SC).
You're flat-out lying again, FL. You DID NOT SAY how to empirically distinguish the designed from the non-designed.

'Course he did. The algorithm is similar to the one demonstrated here (starting around 0:39).

phhht · 14 February 2013

SWT said:
phhht said:
FL said:
FL does not provide a way to tell design from non-design.
So you have to be at least open-minded enough to deal with Irreducible Complexity. It's here, scientifically here, and it won't go away. (As well as SC).
You're flat-out lying again, FL. You DID NOT SAY how to empirically distinguish the designed from the non-designed.
'Course he did. The algorithm is similar to the one demonstrated here (starting around 0:39).

Ah yes. Except for the nose. He added that.

AltairIV · 15 February 2013

diogeneslamp0 said: Don't you dare tell! The IDers MUST figure it out by computing Dembski's Complex Specified Information, showing all calculations. If they use any other method, they're just whistling under the moon.

Oh, of course not. I much prefer seeing the ID crowd twist in the wind. I just wanted to confirm that there is an actual, independently verifiable, answer. If and when the time comes I'm willing to explain my methods in detail. I will only say right now that I verified it by using my own, home-built, limited design detector, which only reliably works on a certain narrow range of input types. Your strings just happened to fall within that range. However it doesn't work at all on eric's five strings. It just keeps giving me "unrecognized input" errors. But surely the IDers, with their sooperdooper advanced universal design detectors can do much better. It should be trivial for them to separate design from non-design in both tests.

TomS · 15 February 2013

How about someone giving an example, even hypothetical, of something which is not "intelligently designed"?

Then we can see how the methodology of discriminating between "designed" and "not designed" works.

Unfortunately, whenever I try to think of something which is not real, it always turns out that it is something which has been designed by human intelligence. A flying carpet or a shmoo or a "Penrose triangle" or a centaur, they're all intelligently designed.
And, on the other hand, the standard doctrine of creation says that all things which do exist are created. So it seems to be difficult to come up with an example of something which is not intelligently designed.

Just Bob · 15 February 2013

TomS said: How about someone giving an example, even hypothetical, of something which is not "intelligently designed"?

We've seen a couple of attempted answers to that on PT: usually something like "a pile of dirt" or "any rock". When asked how the cdesign proponentsist can tell that a particular rock has NOT been designed clear down to the placement of each atom, he goes strangely silent.

Henry J · 15 February 2013

How about someone giving an example, even hypothetical, of something which is not “intelligently designed”?

Would arguments for ID fit that description? :p

Dave Lovell · 15 February 2013

FL said: So honestly, you could rationally infer from the irreducible complexity of the eye alone, that it was intelligently designed by Somebody. The Bible then tells you who that Somebody really is. Now THAT's rationality, folks! FL

So Floyd, is your God more irreducibly complex than an eye, and if so why does the Bible not tell us who designed It?

Henry J · 15 February 2013

It designed itself, then used a time loop to implement Itself in the past before It did the design work, so that It would be there to do the design work that wasn't actually needed at that point since It was already there.

TomS · 15 February 2013

Just Bob said:
TomS said: How about someone giving an example, even hypothetical, of something which is not "intelligently designed"?
We've seen a couple of attempted answers to that on PT: usually something like "a pile of dirt" or "any rock". When asked how the cdesign proponentsist can tell that a particular rock has NOT been designed clear down to the placement of each atom, he goes strangely silent.

How do they reconcile that with:

For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: Colossians 1:16

prongs · 15 February 2013

TomS said:
Just Bob said:
TomS said: How about someone giving an example, even hypothetical, of something which is not "intelligently designed"?
We've seen a couple of attempted answers to that on PT: usually something like "a pile of dirt" or "any rock". When asked how the cdesign proponentsist can tell that a particular rock has NOT been designed clear down to the placement of each atom, he goes strangely silent.
How do they reconcile that with:
For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: Colossians 1:16

Hey FL! My Quartz crystal, that one in my collection, water clear with faces that look polished - is it designed or not? (Ray M. said "Not". What do you say?) A simple question. Can you answer it (unambiguously)?

Mike Elzinga · 15 February 2013

Henry J said: It designed itself, then used a time loop to implement Itself in the past before It did the design work, so that It would be there to do the design work that wasn't actually needed at that point since It was already there.

Woooowww; that’s really trippy, man! And all the while it is outside of time looking at history all at once.

dalehusband · 17 February 2013

More lies from FL. Gee, where to start.....?

FL said: Good morning! Happy (heterosexual) Valentine's Day, guys and gals. (Sorry for the qualifier, but I was watching the TV News yesterday and some people apparently didn't get the memo!).

So what? It does you no harm to have gays and lesbians enjoy the holiday too, bigot.

Increased workload this last half of the week, so apologies for the delay. I'm primarily responding to PA Poland and afterwards to Dr. Hoppe, but also I'll just throw a few responses around just for the fun of it. Probably take about two days, starting today.

Yes, I guess it does take you a long time to look up or even make up bullcrap. Here's a hint, @$$hole: truth tends to be self-evident and does not need a long time to perceive and to tell others.

Bobsie had an interesting brief shpiel:
I did click. Where’s your data and references. Where’s the research rigor? Without that all you are doing is telling a story and a made up one at that.
Ummm, your response is halfway perceptive (and halfway not). My job as a blogger, my college degree in fact, is in "how to effectively tell an accurate story to the general public at the Reader's Digest level." So you're partly right. I do my writing as if I'm telling a story, because that's what newspaper readers want to hear. They do want accuracy and attribution, but they're not looking for highly technical journal articles. I think I did okay on letting people know where I was getting my information from.

In other words, your statements are indeed useless to us. Dismissed.

Meanwhile, Harold trumpets (in bold):
FL admits that the intended purpose of the Montana bill is to teach ID/creationism in public school science class, which is already illegal.
But if you re-read the C-J blog article, you'll see that I haven't mentioned the Montana bill at all, nor anything pertaining to Montana for that matter. The article was written LONG BEFORE anything popped up in Montana. So Harold is obviously derailed (not deranged, just derailed) on this one. As for me personally, I'm not under any obligation to avoid blogging about God as the Intelligent Designer. Especially when I'm writing to the general public about the Intelligent Design hypothesis. ID hypothesis is good, it's even revolutionary, but people need God most of all. That's what drives my blog.

So would I be right in inferring that you do nothing but blog from your mommy's basement? Sure seems like it! No, liar, people do NOT need God. The successful lives of atheists around the world prove otherwise. Grow up and stop assuming people have to be treated like children.

The ID hypothesis does NOT mention any deity and doesn't start with or pre-assume ANY claims from ANY religious texts. But if you find something that displays the markers of Intelligent Design (like your eyes), it's rationally okay to infer ***afterwards*** that the Designer is God.

Charles Darwin himself dealt with that misconception in the Origin of Species. Your repeating it here proves you are an idiot.

"The hearing ear and the seeing eye, the LORD has made them." (Proverbs 20:12)
So honestly, you could rationally infer from the irreducible complexity of the eye alone, that it was intelligently designed by Somebody. The Bible then tells you who that Somebody really is. Then you abandon atheism and agnosticism already, and get hooked up with that Somebody via Jesus Christ. New life, eternal life, washed and cleaned-up all the way inside. Now THAT's rationality, folks! FL

No, that is ignorance. You have always been full of it.

FL said:
FL does not provide a way to tell design from non-design.
Already did that, Dave. Your "taint so" doesn't work here. The two markers of intelligent design, the two ways to rationally and scientifically differentiate 'designed' from 'non-designed', are: 1. Specified Complexity 2. Irreducible Complexity. I like the first one (as well as the second) in the science category of Origin of Life. SC deals with a certain kind of information and OOL is demonstrably chock-full of that certain kind of information. (Need proof? Reread the Trevors and Abel article that I gave to the readers.) I like the second one especially for postbiotic items (like your eyes, your brain, your ATP nano-motors, etc). Regarding Irreducible Complexity, you emphasized the word "implies", Dave. And it's good that you are willing to say that term. But there's the kicker: now that you brought it up, you do NOT get to blow it off. Those "implications" ARE there on the table, and nobody is able to knock them off the table. Why? Because your eye does exist. Your brain does exist. Your ATP nano-motors do exist. Even the university textbook Evolutionary Analysis (Freemon-Herron) says that NOT ALL of Behe's examples of Irreducible Complexity have been refuted. So you have to be at least open-minded enough to deal with Irreducible Complexity. It's here, scientifically here, and it won't go away. (As well as SC). FL

Specified Complexity is a pointless idea. Life forms are made from polymers, including DNA, RNA, proteins, and carbohydrates, which can be of UNLIMITED length, so complexity is not an issue. Also, natural selection can work over time to make specific changes to DNA which in turn change lines of organisms. Irreducible Complexity only defines what a structure in an organism is now, not what it could have been in the past. Structures can develop via natural selection to be a certain complexity and then become less complex due to the extra complexity not being necessary, resulting in irreducible complexity AS A DIRECT RESULT OF BLIND EVOLUTION. But this makes the organism vulnerable if damage is then done to the structure. A more effective intelligent design would include backups to keep the structure working and thus would NOT be irreducibly complex. The moment Darwin published his book the Origin of Species, the case for intelligent design and indeed all kinds of Creationist bullcrap, was destroyed and Creationist con artists like you have been merely desperately fighting to keep others from figuring out the truth. What YOU have, FL, is a case of Irreducible Stupidity. Enjoy your delusions, but no one else need suffer from them!

apokryltaros · 17 February 2013

dalehusband said: What YOU have, FL, is a case of Irreducible Stupidity. Enjoy your delusions, but no one else need suffer from them!

If FL can not make other people suffer for his own stupidity, then he can not enjoy his personal delusion.

FL · 18 February 2013

When FL gets questions he can’t answer, and his interlocutors are too big to bully into tears, he’s all dodge ‘em, duck ‘em, got no answer so fuck ‘em.

Well, after all these years, it's clear that (1) I'm here to stay, and (2) you are not one of the "big interlocuters". (In fact, your own fellow evolutionists sometimes hand you a debate defeat just to pass the time!). But I do not want to be a downer. Panda City wouldn't be Panda City without you, as well as the others. Anyway, I'm starting up again, probably have more time to talk this week. Eventually may shift my responses to the Bathroom Wall, because I'd like to stay on this one topic for a while. I don't know if the Intelligent Design hypothesis will ever be "legalized" for teaching in public schools, but I'm not waiting for that future event. One of my goals, which I have come to love, is to make use of my OWN constitutional freedom of speech, as time and opportunity permit, to spread the word about ID in any and all forums that I can find, to post examples & discussion of ID basics to religious and secular folks alike. (Simply let adults and youth SEE examples and discussion of how they are products of ID and help motivate them to adopt that truth for themselves regardless of their local school situation. It's just an amazing hypothesis, an amazing God-given tool of rational and scientific exploration of the biological world around us.) FL

phhht · 18 February 2013

phhht said:
Dave Luckett said: ...one cannot account for FL's misrepresentation of it... simply by calling it an untruth. Of course his statement is untrue. FL does not provide a way to tell design from non-design. But only someone who has rearranged reality for his own convenience could think for a moment that this would not be blatantly obvious to anyone who actually goes and looks.
FL is doing what he did with his claims about prelapsarian pan-vegetarianism and non-living plants: he is hallucinating a reality which he would like to believe, but which isn't there. FL's Biblical citations in support of his claims yield no such support, and anybody who reads them can see that for himself. The same is true of his claim to have told how to distinguish the designed from the non-designed. Anybody who reads the post can see for himself that it does no such thing. FL is a bull-goose loony. He's a deluded, fairly simple-minded religious fanatic who just makes up whatever his illness tells him to. He's blithely indifferent to reality, no matter how blatantly contradictory.

gnome de net · 18 February 2013

FL said: Simply let adults and youth SEE examples and discussion of how they are products of ID and help motivate them to adopt that truth for themselves regardless of their local school situation. It's just an amazing hypothesis, an amazing God-given tool of rational and scientific exploration of the biological world around us.

Exactly (and I do mean exactly) what motivating "examples and discussion" will you "let adults and youth SEE" that you haven't let us see? What will convince them, but has so far failed to convince us?

j. biggs · 18 February 2013

FL, you said that you could explain how to detect design. eric and diogeneslamp0 provided you with some strings, some of which are designed and some of which are not for you to demonstrate the use of ID concepts in design detection. Please, commence with the demonstration. I am eager to see exactly how ID is used to detect design in these simple examples.

phhht · 18 February 2013

FL said:
When FL gets questions he can’t answer, and his interlocutors are too big to bully into tears, he’s all dodge ‘em, duck ‘em, got no answer so fuck ‘em.

The truth hurts, huh FL. You vomit your meaningless delusions, you get thoroughly shredded and mulched, and you run away and hide. You do it again and again. You did it in this reply to my post. After all these years, we've seen it hundreds of times.

FL · 18 February 2013

Nowww, let me get to PA Poland (and then Dr. Hoppe). Poland first.

You vomited up standard, run of the mill IDiocy FL.

Well, YOU don't seem to like the ID hypothesis. Probably cramps your materialism, yes? But there is one word of your statement that I agree with: the key term "standard." I want to be sure that, when I explain ID to the general public, that I AM giving the standard, accurate explanation of what the ID hypothesis is all about. So your term is sort of a corroboration for me. I do want to present the "run of the mill" (as you said) ID explanation. **** Given the following key statements:

1. Specified Complexity and/or Irreducible Complexity are well-defined and empirically detectable. 2. Undirected natural causes, like naturalistic evolution, cannot explain Specified Complexity and/or Irreducible Complexity.

You replied,

FALSE ! Examination of REALITY shows that repeated rounds of mutation/selection can indeed generate ‘specified complexity’, and that naturalistic evolution can indeed explain ‘irreducible complexity’- GIVEN THE FACT THAT IRREDUCIBLY COMPLEX SYSTEMS HAVE BEEN SHOWN TO HAVE EVOLVED IN RECENT TIMES!

Two important things to note: (1) You are claiming that "Evolution-Did-It"; that is, you're claiming that naturalistic evolution can "indeed" produce both specified complexity and irreducible complexity. (And you're not the only one: recall Ken Miller's "Acid Test" victorious (but ultimately a flop) crowing of "Evolution-Did-It" in his book "Finding Darwin's God." He was cock-sure that the Barry Hall experiment absolutely knocked out Michael Behe's Irreducible Complexity, absolutely showing scientifically that "Evolution-Did-It" (that is, evolution produced the IC in the question, and hence falsifying Behe's IC.) Miller was sure of it until the subsequent flopola (and that bootleg bottle of IPTG). Anyway, that's the kicker. What you have REALLY said, is that SC and IC really are well-defined and empirically detectable. You're corroborating out loud that the criteria of "well-defined and empirically detectable" regarding SC and IC, is real enough for scientists to scientifically falsify both of'em via "Evolution-Did-It". Hence Item #1 stands. It's not false at all. Btw, even the university textbook Evolutionary Analysis (by Freeman and Herron) publicly conceded that "NOT ALL" of Behe's biological examples of IC have been refuted. **** (2) Now, what about the ID Item #2 there? Frankly, it's absolutely true. All I have to do is present you with one example where "Evolution/Natural Selection-Did-It" utterly fails. Is SC a real concept? Yes it is, each of your posts and my posts are true SC. Our sentences, our syntax, our symbols, our coding, our buzzwords--all that human language communication system is pure Specified Complexity that Evolution CANNOT Do At All. So, in the origin of life arena, if you see that SC-language-system-stuff happening again (eg, involving the first living cell on Earth), but this time you have NO intervention from humans, animals, evolution, or any known materialistic source, your only rational and scientfic choice is to accept that SC as the product and the marker of Intelligent Design, period. **** And so, here's your SC example of all that, which neither you nor anybody else can refute with "Evolution-Did-It."

Peer-reviewed life-origin literature pre-supposes that, given enough time, genetic instructions arose via natural events. Thus far, no paper has provided a plausible mechanism for natural process algorithm-writing... Following cooling (of the Earth), it is difficult to understand how natural processes could have generated the following aspects of life in such a short time: (1) A genetic operating system with which to record programming instructions, (2) the programs themselves for production or assembly of every building block, biochemical pathway, and metabolic cycle needed for even the simplest protometabolism to develop, and (3) A coding system with which to translate triplet codon language into polyamino acid language.

But it gets worse than that (for prebiotic evolution and natural selection.) If you don't accept intelligent design, if previotic evolution and natural selection is your ticket, then...

How did inanimate nature write: (1) The conceptual instructions needed to organize metabolism? (2) A language/operating system needed to symbolically represent, record, and replicate those instructions? (3) A bijective coding scheme (a one-to-one correspondence of symbol meaning) with planned redundancy so as to reduce noise pollution betweeen triplet codon "block code" symbols ("bytes") and amino acid symbols? -- Trevors and Abel, "Chance and Necessity Do Not Explain Origin of Life", Cell Biology International Nov. 2004

Now this is a lot of stuff, but the upshot is clear: on the inside of your DNA, there's a complex language communication system that is as totally chock full of Specified Complexity as your posts or mine. Like I suggested in the C-J article: YOU are the final disproof of the worn-out, dog-pooped theory of evolution. YOU are the final confirmation of the amazing Intelligent Design hypothesis! FL

phhht · 18 February 2013

FL said: Nowww,

The usual dodge 'em, duck 'em, no answer so fuck 'em approach. Why don't you tell us how to distinguish the designed from the non-designed? We KNOW why you won't do that, you sniveling coward. It's because you CAN'T. All you can do is LIE about how you've already done it, except nobody see it but you.

phhht · 18 February 2013

FL said: 1. Specified Complexity and/or Irreducible Complexity are well-defined and empirically detectable.

C'mon, you blatherskite, tell us how empirically to detect Specified Complexity in Paley's watch, in a snowflake, in a tornado, or in a fingernail clipping. After all, your claim is a "key statement." It may be key, but it isn't true. You're making stuff up again, FL, just exactly like you did with the non-existent Biblical support for vegesaurs and non-living plants. You can't tell us how to do it because NOBODY can, least of all you, you incompetent pseudo-intellectual. Anybody who looks at your blog post will see that, despite your endlessly repeated claims to the contrary, you did not say there how to distinguish the designed from the non-designed.

PA Poland · 18 February 2013

FL said: Nowww, let me get to PA Poland (and then Dr. Hoppe). Poland first.
You vomited up standard, run of the mill IDiocy FL.
Well, YOU don't seem to like the ID hypothesis. Probably cramps your materialism, yes? But there is one word of your statement that I agree with: the key term "standard." I want to be sure that, when I explain ID to the general public, that I AM giving the standard, accurate explanation of what the ID hypothesis is all about. So your term is sort of a corroboration for me. I do want to present the "run of the mill" (as you said) ID explanation.

There is no "ID hypothesis" (accurate or otherwise), since ID FAILS to rise to any testable level. All it is is just glorifications of personal incredulity and the stupid idea that if *** YOU *** can 't figure something out, the ONLY possible 'explanation' is ~~GOD~~'Intelligent Designer DIDIT' !!!!!!!

Given the following key statements:
1. Specified Complexity and/or Irreducible Complexity are well-defined and empirically detectable. 2. Undirected natural causes, like naturalistic evolution, cannot explain Specified Complexity and/or Irreducible Complexity.
You replied,
FALSE ! Examination of REALITY shows that repeated rounds of mutation/selection can indeed generate ‘specified complexity’, and that naturalistic evolution can indeed explain ‘irreducible complexity’- GIVEN THE FACT THAT IRREDUCIBLY COMPLEX SYSTEMS HAVE BEEN SHOWN TO HAVE EVOLVED IN RECENT TIMES!
Two important things to note: (1) You are claiming that "Evolution-Did-It"; that is, you're claiming that naturalistic evolution can "indeed" produce both specified complexity and irreducible complexity. (And you're not the only one: recall Ken Miller's "Acid Test" victorious (but ultimately a flop) crowing of "Evolution-Did-It" in his book "Finding Darwin's God." He was cock-sure that the Barry Hall experiment absolutely knocked out Michael Behe's Irreducible Complexity, absolutely showing scientifically that "Evolution-Did-It" (that is, evolution produced the IC in the question, and hence falsifying Behe's IC.) Miller was sure of it until the subsequent flopola (and that bootleg bottle of IPTG). Anyway, that's the kicker. What you have REALLY said, is that SC and IC really are well-defined and empirically detectable. You're corroborating out loud that the criteria of "well-defined and empirically detectable" regarding SC and IC, is real enough for scientists to scientifically falsify both of'em via "Evolution-Did-It".

'Specified complexity' has been defined a few times - AND EVOLUTION CAN INDEED GENERATE IT; thus, only a weak-kneed, feeble-bladdered imbecile would NEED to invoke the whim of a Magical Sky Pixie/'Intelligent Designer' to explain its presence. 'IC' has been defined a few times - AND EVOLUTION CAN INDEED EXPLAIN IT; thus, only a weak-kneed, feeble-bladdered imbecile would NEED to invoke the whim of a Magical Sky Pixie/'Intelligent Designer' to explain its presence. Again, buffoon : IC would ONLY be a problem for evolution if it were impossible for parts to be added to or subtracted from a system, and if it was IMPOSSIBLE for functions to change. Given the OBSERVED REALITY that parts can be added to or subtracted from systems, and that functions can change, bellowing 'IC proves ID !!!' demonstrates that you are a blithering, thick-skulled willfully stupid ignoramus.

Hence Item #1 stands. It's not false at all. Btw, even the university textbook Evolutionary Analysis (by Freeman and Herron) publicly conceded that "NOT ALL" of Behe's biological examples of IC have been refuted.

Again buffoon : there are a few definitions of 'specified complexity' and 'irreducible complexity', which vary upon who you ask. Those definitions that actually have referents to reality are fully explainable via evolution. IIRC, 'specified complexity' for enzymes is how well it performs a SPECIFIC function - this is easily increased (and even created by) rounds of mutation and selection. Again, simpleton : given the FACT that 'irreducibly complex' systems can evolve (even given Behe's 'definition'), finding an 'IC' system does not prove intelligent design.

(2) Now, what about the ID Item #2 there? Frankly, it's absolutely true. All I have to do is present you with one example where "Evolution/Natural Selection-Did-It" utterly fails.

And you have not done that - you've merely flatulated that you have, but given that no sane or rational person cares what you 'think' ...

Is SC a real concept? Yes it is, each of your posts and my posts are true SC. Our sentences, our syntax, our symbols, our coding, our buzzwords--all that human language communication system is pure Specified Complexity that Evolution CANNOT Do At All.

Like most f*ckwitted imbeciles, you have confused the map with the territory; you PRESUME that the abstractions we have developed have power over that which was abstracted from. DNA is NOT a human-derived language; so your festering analogy is feeble at best.

So, in the origin of life arena, if you see that SC-language-system-stuff happening again (eg, involving the first living cell on Earth), but this time you have NO intervention from humans, animals, evolution, or any known materialistic source, your only rational and scientfic choice is to accept that SC as the product and the marker of Intelligent Design, period.

Again, simpleton : DNA is not a human-derived language, so your blithering argument from craptacular analogy FAILS. Again, buffoon : 'specified complexity' CAN EVOLVE. Starting from a random sequence of amino acids, it is quite possible to generate a very effective enzyme. The 'specified complexity' is A RESULT OF SELECTION. Again, you chiromaniacal philodox : just because *** YOU *** are a gibbering twit does not mean everyone else is stupid. Just because ** YOU ** can't figure something out does not mean 'God/Designer DIDIDT !!!!!!' An example : antifreeze glycoproteins. There are many different types known, AND EACH IS DERIVED FROM CHANGES IN ALREADY EXISTING PROTEINS. What happened in the history of these fish is the waters they swam in got colder, so any mutations that granted an advantage tended to become more common - there was SELECTION. A few mutated proteins proved useful, became the baseline above which any later changes had to surpass. End result - some very effective antifreeze proteins. At this point, a drooling IDiot would stagger in, notice how well the proteins function, then whip out a calculator and scream "The odds of this particular protein arising is 1 in 20^gadzookillions to one against !!! Therefore, ~~GOD~~Intelligent Designer DIDIT !!!!!!!1!!!1!!" [snip of standard creationut argument from personal incredulity]

phhht · 18 February 2013

FL said: What you have REALLY said, is that SC and IC really are well-defined and empirically detectable.

No, FL, another hallucination. It is YOU who makes that claim. Except you cannot back it up. Just like your claim about Biblical support for vegesaurs, your claim that specified complexity is empirically detectable is unsullied by factual support.

Mike Elzinga · 18 February 2013

FL’s only purpose in life is to always be the turd in the punchbowl. He needs to go back to the Bathroom Wall.

Dave Luckett · 18 February 2013

FL says: Is (specified complexity) a real concept? Yes it is, each of your posts and my posts are true SC. Our sentences, our syntax, our symbols, our coding, our buzzwords–all that human language communication system is pure Specified Complexity that Evolution CANNOT Do At All. So, in the origin of life arena, if you see that SC-language-system-stuff happening again (eg, involving the first living cell on Earth), but this time you have NO intervention from humans, animals, evolution, or any known materialistic source, your only rational and scientfic choice is to accept that SC as the product and the marker of Intelligent Design, period.

Dr Poland has already dealt with the main factual fallacy FL has just exhibited, which is to refuse to acknowledge that complexity and functional irreducibility can be and are explained by evolution, and that this has been empirically demonstrated and observed in the field. (This is not to say that either quality is well-defined by creationists. Their "specified complexity" is not specified, and what they call "irreducible complexity" is not irreducible. There is no way to detect either in living things, and FL is simply lying when he avers that he has provided one.) I'm extracting the above mainly to demonstrate one of FL's little verbal tics, namely, his habit of making an absurdly specious argument and then adding some stupid little closer - like "period", or "that's settled" at the end. Biggy, you might recall, used to say "checkmate" in the same place, with multiple exclamation points. FL's argument is patently ridiculous. It runs: "some human products, such as written speech, are designed (or perhaps composed) and are complex; therefore anything complex must have been designed". To this is added a blank and false assertion that evolution can't produce complexity, which is simply to assume the consequent. As soon as his proposition is stated in clear terms, rather than in FL's confused, looped and recursive prose (with faux-folksy embellishments), its stark irrationality becomes blatant, of course. It's a sort of syllogism of the form: "A dog has four legs; tables have four legs; therefore a dog is a table." I continue to wonder at the kind of mind that is so richly capable of producing such patent miscarriages of reality, and yet can function within that reality - well, more or less. I also contemplate the deficiencies of the language: is there a word for a blatantly self-evident untruth uttered with fraudulent conviction? The conviction, being a purely inward quality, cannot actually be disproven, yet what is produced is a feebly ridiculous lie. But I can't fathom the morass of internally compartmentalised contradictions that constitutes FL's mind. He probably believes it, granted. But it's still a lie.

Richard B. Hoppe · 18 February 2013

Henry J said: It designed itself, then used a time loop to implement Itself in the past before It did the design work, so that It would be there to do the design work that wasn't actually needed at that point since It was already there.

Think that's a satire? Nope. That was one of Behe's suggestions for the designer(s) in Darwin's Black Box: time-traveling molecular biologists!

FL · 20 February 2013

Anyway, get your beauty rest FL you grizzled old fart because we demand entertainment and it’s your turn in the barrel tomorrow.

No, Doc, YOU demand entertainment. YOU do not care. YOUR head is comfortably in the sand (or some other tightly enclosed space), because truth-seeking is not of importance to you, and there's no political battle currently brewing in Kansas. But that doesn't mean everybody sees it as you do. They're still asking me questions here (not you, but me) after all these years. So I try to answer, and as you somewhat noted, I try to answer consistently over time. KCFS Forum is shut down now, has been shut down for a long time. The evolutionists are all getting their beauty rest in Kansas. But in other states -- they are not, and that is as it should be. FL

FL · 20 February 2013

But now, let me think about Dr. Hoppe's comments. (Also I'll do some replies on Diogenes.)

Diogenes: "Specified Complexity: As I just pointed out a few comments back, and you ignored, ID proponents now admit that evolution and other natural processes can produce astronomically large amounts of CSI."

But as I mentioned to PA Poland, there's a science spot where they clearly do NOT admit any such thing. Nor can naturalistic evolutionists get away with claiming that "Evolution-Did-It" (that is, produced CSI) in that one spot. Your only rational and scientific choice THERE, is the Intelligent Design hypothesis.

Diogenes: "MathGrrl asks ID’s greatest brains to compute the change in CSI for a simple gene duplication."

Hey, I know for a fact that I'm not trained nor qualified to do any such CSI computation. It's beyond me. However, it's already been proved here, that it honestly doesn't mater at all whether you can or you can't do one. As soon as evolutionists like Ken Miller (or PA Poland for that matter) started saying "Evolution-Did-It", (that is, Evolution Produced Specified Complexity), you conceded the existence of SC, and you conceded that it was sufficiently well-defined and empirically-detectable for you to do a proclamation that "Evolution-Did-It".

Diogenes: "Darwinian evolution in a test tube"

Sorry, but your article has already been fisked by Evolution News and Views. Simply go to the link. Case closed. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/02/directed_evolut068891.html ****

Bobsie: But newspapers is not where real science is done.

Newspapers are where science news is explained to good lay people who just want the science story in simple, quick, Reader's Digest English. Nothing wrong with that. **** Let's really move on to Dr. Hoppe. Think I'll take a minute. FL

FL · 20 February 2013

Hmm. I see now where PA Poland is actually Dr. Poland. My apologies to the omission, all future refs will be to "Dr. Poland."

FL · 20 February 2013

FL’s argument is patently ridiculous. It runs: “some human products, such as written speech, are designed (or perhaps composed) and are complex; therefore anything complex must have been designed”.

No, I have not made this specific statement Dave, at any time in our discussion. Human language is not only complex but specified at the same time. It's the COMBINATION of way-too-high "specificity" and way-too-high "complexity" that puts your posts and mine beyond all natural or evolutionary means of production. You need to accurately quote or summarize people's statements far better, Dave.

FL · 20 February 2013

I say again: FL will ignore the question of how to tell the designed from the non-designed. If his post explains that, I’ll eat my hats, caps, hairnets, toupees, and propeller beanies.

See the previous explanation to Dave. That's how you tell "designed" from "non-designed" using the marker of Specified Complexity (and you already know about the other marker, Irreducible Complexity.) You don't have to eat anything Phhht, just try to listen and understand. That's all. That's good enough.

eric · 20 February 2013

FL said: Hey, I know for a fact that I'm not trained nor qualified to do any such CSI computation. It's beyond me.

We keep saying, we want you to tell us how to determine whether the following strings are designed. Give us the instructions to do so. If you cannot do the actual math, we will do it for you. But we need to know what math to do. If you cannot tell us how, then you don't really know what it is, whether natural processes can create it, or whether it even exists. As a reminder, here are the strings. Tell us HOW to determine either the SCI or CS or whatever: #1: 3441133341 3312213232 1312414234 1233431334 2134423424 4231322312 #2: 1232211132 2311232111 2223332134 1333443222 4322131122 2413241322 #3: 4111444314 2434332222 4233224234 2242114314 3233443224 2432313444 #4: 1334113342 1322141132 3433114113 1211111243 3211432244 2133212141 #5: 1112213112 2424241112 3223334433 2331114231 1132424213 3424312342 A: “chimuaruyoniitekonamiuedakorutoruganoyobonaireomoisuhanohiodahiripo” B: “ueomuitearukonamidagakoborenaiyoniomoidasuharunohihitoripochinoyoru”

eric · 20 February 2013

FL said: It's the COMBINATION of way-too-high "specificity" and way-too-high "complexity" that puts your posts and mine beyond all natural or evolutionary means of production.

You are now claiming to have analyzed these posts and determined them to have high specificity and high complexity. Because you've arrived at the conclusion thatt posts have 'way too high specificity' etc. How did you arrive at that conclusion? You must have a way - an algorithm, a set of instructions - for coming to that conclusion. Tell us what that way is, or admit that you're just pulling these claims out of your ass.

phhht · 20 February 2013

FL said:
I say again: FL will ignore the question of how to tell the designed from the non-designed. If his post explains that, I’ll eat my hats, caps, hairnets, toupees, and propeller beanies.
See the previous explanation to Dave. That's how you tell "designed" from "non-designed" using the marker of Specified Complexity (and you already know about the other marker, Irreducible Complexity.) You don't have to eat anything Phhht, just try to listen and understand. That's all. That's good enough.

Nope, I don't have to eat my hats, because you DID NOT SAY THAT. Just like the vegesaurs, you CLAIM that the evidence is there, but anybody who reads your posts can see for himself that YOU DO NOT SAY THAT. You DO NOT SAY HOW to tell the designed from the non-designed. You merely assert that it is possible. And you can't back up that assertion, FL, because you're hallucinating methods which do not exist.

apokryltaros · 20 February 2013

Liar For Jesus lied:
I say again: FL will ignore the question of how to tell the designed from the non-designed. If his post explains that, I’ll eat my hats, caps, hairnets, toupees, and propeller beanies.
See the previous explanation to Dave. That's how you tell "designed" from "non-designed" using the marker of Specified Complexity (and you already know about the other marker, Irreducible Complexity.)

Just because you said you did so does not make it true, FL. You conveniently forget that you have earned the reputation of being a malicious, confabulating liar. You don't know how to tell the difference between "designed" and "non-designed," and you will never, ever explain to us how to detect "Irreducible Complexity" (or Intelligent Design, or why Creationism should be taught instead of science in science classrooms), even if it means being literally eaten alive by Paley's Watch. But it doesn't matter to you if even if you know you're lying through your teeth, you're still going get your sexual jollies by screaming at us to believe your bullshit no matter what, or you'll threaten us with how God is going to rape us forever with barbeque sauce in Hell as revenge either way.

phhht · 20 February 2013

FL said:
FL’s argument is patently ridiculous. It runs: “some human products, such as written speech, are designed (or perhaps composed) and are complex; therefore anything complex must have been designed”.
It's the COMBINATION of way-too-high "specificity" and way-too-high "complexity" that puts your posts and mine beyond all natural or evolutionary means of production.

Nope, wrong again. I produce all of my posts entirely on my own. No gods are involved. I do it all thanks to entirely natural talent. OK, I confess to the occasional performance-enhancing glass of beer. You're just trying the old, tired, personal incredulity argument again, FL. You're nothing but a bundle of fallacies. I'm phhht, and I approve this message.

apokryltaros · 20 February 2013

phhht said:
Liar For Jesus lied:
I say again: FL will ignore the question of how to tell the designed from the non-designed. If his post explains that, I’ll eat my hats, caps, hairnets, toupees, and propeller beanies.
See the previous explanation to Dave. That's how you tell "designed" from "non-designed" using the marker of Specified Complexity (and you already know about the other marker, Irreducible Complexity.) You don't have to eat anything Phhht, just try to listen and understand. That's all. That's good enough.
Nope, I don't have to eat my hats, because you DID NOT SAY THAT. Just like the vegesaurs, you CLAIM that the evidence is there, but anybody who reads your posts can see for himself that YOU DO NOT SAY THAT. You DO NOT SAY HOW to tell the designed from the non-designed. You merely assert that it is possible. And you can't back up that assertion, FL, because you're hallucinating methods which do not exist.

Do remember that FL is a malicious liar who screams at us about how we will all suffer eternal rape in Hell with barbeque sauce if we do not agree that his inane confabulations are unimpeachable holy law that magically supersedes the totality of science. That, and he's a total idiot who is honest-to-goodness truly stupid enough to think that a science-hating no-thinktank like the Discovery Institute's "Evolutionnews" is actually a reputable source for science news, in addition to being magically capable of debunking actual science.

FL · 20 February 2013

Dr. Hoppe: "Well, I’ve read a whole lot of traditional creationist and intelligent design creationist literature, ranging from Morris’s 1974 Scientific Creationism and Gish’s Evolution: The fossils say No! to Dembski’s The Design Inference and No Free Lunch and Meyer’s Signature in the Cell, and I have never read a detailed exposition of the “Intelligent Design Hypothesis”.

I remember Gish's "Evolution: the fossils say No." A golden oldie, that one, but outdated of course. I read Dembski's "The Design Inference" also (although the math part was beyond my reach, not being a grad student in math). But for actually explaining the ID hypothesis to the general public, I found Dembski's 1999 IVP book Intelligent Design to fit the bill perfectly (and it also spelled out how Behe's IC related to Dembski's SC in plain English!). So when you say, "I have never read a detailed exposition of the “Intelligent Design Hypothesis", all I can say is, I have. And no, it doesn't need to be PhD-math level to be detailed; the Plain-English works quite well, I've discovered. ****

Dr. Hoppe: "Here's my template for ID's 'theory': [Sometime or other] [some intelligent agent(s)] designed [something or other], and then [somehow or other] manufactured that design in matter and energy, leaving [this independent evidence] for the presence (or at least [this independent evidence] for the existence) of the hypothesized design(s) and/or manufacturing process.

Sure, let's make it simple with a specific statement. The first living cell on Planet Earth originated as a result of Intelligent Design instead of Naturalistic Chemical Evolution, and we know this is true because certain required items within the first living cell display the two clear markers of Intelligent Design, viz. Specified Complexity and/or Irredicible Complexity (Examples: Genetic-Algorithm-Writing and the ATP Nano-motor, respectively). Okay, that's done. **** You also quoted a review article, with the specific intention of refuting the Meyer-Hartwig Testable Prediction that I included in my explanation of the ID hypothesis. It starts off with this:

Gene duplication provides raw material for functional innovation

Most folks who follow the origins debate already know that Gene Duplication is among the evolutionists' favorite "Evolution-Did-It" arguments. But there's two items to note: (1) Again, by going that route, you confirm that SC and IC are well-defined and empirically testable. (2) Gene Duplication is a staple "Evolution-Did-It" pushback, but it don't work when there ain't nothing in the fridge to start off with. So it don't cut the custard when we're talking about language-based Genetic-Algorithm-Writing and/or ATP Nano-motors in that very first living cell. (3) And there is a third issue: Are there PROBLEMS with the "Evolution Did It Via Gene Duplication" sales pitch? http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/10/gene_duplicatio064971.html

(From CreationWiki) "For example, the evidence may be enough to say that all dogs coming from the same canine family are similar or different due to gene duplications, but not enough to prove true to the extent that a new species such as felines came along due to gene duplication of canine genes. In fact, in many cases, the gene duplications that take place in humans, are ones that create massive impediments in the human performance, not increase it, therefore breaking the possibility that evolution, as defined as genetic changes for the betterment of an individual or species, could be due to gene duplication. One such problem with the gene duplications is Trisomy, or "down's syndrome". This is one problem that causes the human mind to perform irrationally, unable to process input and create logic through reason."

Gene duplication is not all it's primordially cracked up to be. ****

Specified complexity is not “well-defined”, else we would have examples of the calculation of SC for biological systems.

No, SC is in fact well-defined and empirically detectable, else you and your colleagues wouldn't be claiming that Evolution can produce it, whether by Gene Duplication, Barry Hall's experiment, or any other "Evolution Did It" citation. Right now, the only card you guys are apparently playing on the SC issue is this thing of "can you compute CSI for such and such". But it's obviously not a deal-breaker if anybody cannot do so, since you guys blatantly claim that Naturalistic Evolution can produce CSI anyway. (Busted.) Hence SC is well-defined and empirically detectable, as is IC. Let's stop there a moment so I can surf the thread and the Wall a little more. FL

phhht · 20 February 2013

FL said: SC is well-defined and empirically detectable, as is IC.

FL doubles down on his unsupported hallucinations. If design is so empirically detectable, why don't you tell us how to do it? It's because design IS NOT EMPIRICALLY DETECTABLE. Neither FL nor anyone else can say how to detect and measure the design content of, say, a snowflake - much less a pocket watch. Go ahead, FL, why don't you repeat your empty claim that design is detectable because you say it is. If you repeat it enough, maybe you'll convince somebody. Uh huh.

FL · 20 February 2013

I produce all of my posts entirely on my own. No gods are involved. I do it all thanks to entirely natural talent.

Ummm, let's say (for discussion sake) that your statement is correct. God's not keeping Phhht's sorry butt alive from minute to minute and day to day; there exists NO God or gods anyway; so Phhht's quoted statement is actually 100% correct. Okay, I got the message. BUT.....even if your statement is 100% correct, exactly how does it refute what you were specifically replying to?

It’s the COMBINATION of way-too-high “specificity” and way-too-high “complexity” that puts your posts and mine beyond all natural or evolutionary means of production.

You didn't deny that specific paragraph at all. So (even if ZERO gods exist), maybe you can go back and see if you have any refutation for that one paragraph at all? FL

phhht · 20 February 2013

FL said:
I produce all of my posts entirely on my own. No gods are involved. I do it all thanks to entirely natural talent.
Ummm, let's say (for discussion sake) that your statement is correct. God's not keeping Phhht's sorry butt alive from minute to minute and day to day; there exists NO God or gods anyway; so Phhht's quoted statement is actually 100% correct. Okay, I got the message. BUT.....even if your statement is 100% correct, exactly how does it refute what you were specifically replying to?
It’s the COMBINATION of way-too-high “specificity” and way-too-high “complexity” that puts your posts and mine beyond all natural or evolutionary means of production.
You didn't deny that specific paragraph at all. So (even if ZERO gods exist), maybe you can go back and see if you have any refutation for that one paragraph at all? FL

I refute it thus [kicks FL's butt]. There is nothing "beyond" the natural. You're in the grip of a delusional illness which causes you to see things which do not exist. Things like Biblical support for vegesaurs, like televised evidence for miraculous healing, like the detection of design, like gods. You're a bull-goose loony, FL.

eric · 20 February 2013

FL said: So when you say, "I have never read a detailed exposition of the “Intelligent Design Hypothesis", all I can say is, I have. And no, it doesn't need to be PhD-math level to be detailed; the Plain-English works quite well, I've discovered.

Then tell us in Plain-English HOW to determine the specificity or complexity of strings such as the seven examples you've been given or these posts. You've said you've read it (the method). You claim to understand it. You assert that these posts have specificity and complexity, which implies you are using the methodology you've learned. So you should have no problem telling us what it is. This should be easy for you. You've given the test answer, now we are merely asking you to show your work. That's all. You say these posts are highly specific - tell us how you decided that. The only reason this would ever be difficult for you is if you DONT really have a way of determining specificity, you're just lying about having a method at all.

PA Poland · 20 February 2013

FL said:
Dr. Hoppe: "Well, I’ve read a whole lot of traditional creationist and intelligent design creationist literature, ranging from Morris’s 1974 Scientific Creationism and Gish’s Evolution: The fossils say No! to Dembski’s The Design Inference and No Free Lunch and Meyer’s Signature in the Cell, and I have never read a detailed exposition of the “Intelligent Design Hypothesis”.
I remember Gish's "Evolution: the fossils say No." A golden oldie, that one, but outdated of course. I read Dembski's "The Design Inference" also (although the math part was beyond my reach, not being a grad student in math). But for actually explaining the ID hypothesis to the general public, I found Dembski's 1999 IVP book Intelligent Design to fit the bill perfectly (and it also spelled out how Behe's IC related to Dembski's SC in plain English!). So when you say, "I have never read a detailed exposition of the “Intelligent Design Hypothesis", all I can say is, I have. And no, it doesn't need to be PhD-math level to be detailed; the Plain-English works quite well, I've discovered.

And the 'Design GUESS' is constantly shown to be ridiculous and based on NOTHING but personal incredulity and wishful thinking.

Dr. Hoppe: "Here's my template for ID's 'theory': [Sometime or other] [some intelligent agent(s)] designed [something or other], and then [somehow or other] manufactured that design in matter and energy, leaving [this independent evidence] for the presence (or at least [this independent evidence] for the existence) of the hypothesized design(s) and/or manufacturing process.
Sure, let's make it simple with a specific statement. The first living cell on Planet Earth originated as a result of Intelligent Design instead of Naturalistic Chemical Evolution, and we know this is true because certain required items within the first living cell display the two clear markers of Intelligent Design, viz. Specified Complexity and/or Irredicible Complexity (Examples: Genetic-Algorithm-Writing and the ATP Nano-motor, respectively). Okay, that's done.

Again, twit : 'specified complexity' can be generated by known naturalistic mechanisms, so finding it is NOT 'evidence of the intervention of ~~Magical Sky Pixies~~/'Intelligent Designers'. Again, buffoon : DNA is NOT an example of 'genetic-algorithm-writing'. You have confused REGULARITIES intrinsic to a system with externally imposed rules. Again, simpleton : given the FACT that 'irreducibly complex' systems CAN EVOLVE, finding one is NOT 'evidence for the intervention of ~~Magical Sky Pixies~~/'Intelligent Designers'.

You also quoted a review article, with the specific intention of refuting the Meyer-Hartwig Testable Prediction that I included in my explanation of the ID hypothesis. It starts off with this:
Gene duplication provides raw material for functional innovation
Most folks who follow the origins debate already know that Gene Duplication is among the evolutionists' favorite "Evolution-Did-It" arguments. But there's two items to note: (1) Again, by going that route, you confirm that SC and IC are well-defined and empirically testable. (2) Gene Duplication is a staple "Evolution-Did-It" pushback, but it don't work when there ain't nothing in the fridge to start off with. So it don't cut the custard when we're talking about language-based Genetic-Algorithm-Writing and/or ATP Nano-motors in that very first living cell. (3) And there is a third issue: Are there PROBLEMS with the "Evolution Did It Via Gene Duplication" sales pitch? http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/10/gene_duplicatio064971.html
(From CreationWiki) "For example, the evidence may be enough to say that all dogs coming from the same canine family are similar or different due to gene duplications, but not enough to prove true to the extent that a new species such as felines came along due to gene duplication of canine genes. In fact, in many cases, the gene duplications that take place in humans, are ones that create massive impediments in the human performance, not increase it, therefore breaking the possibility that evolution, as defined as genetic changes for the betterment of an individual or species, could be due to gene duplication. One such problem with the gene duplications is Trisomy, or "down's syndrome". This is one problem that causes the human mind to perform irrationally, unable to process input and create logic through reason."
Gene duplication is not all it's primordially cracked up to be.

Wow, you are an idiot ! 1 : 'specified complexity' and 'irreducible complexity' CAN BE PRODUCED BY KNOWN NATURAL MECHANISMS. 2 : random sequence peptides (and even random sequence RNA strands) have selectable functions about 50+ orders of magnitude more often than IDiot numerology would 'predict'. 2.5 : DNA and life are NOT language-based systems; you have confused regularities of a system with an externally imposed ruleset. 3 : felines and canines are independent groups that arose from mammalian stock at different times, SO NO SANE OR RATIONAL PERSON WOULD EXPECT FELINES TO BE PRODUCED FROM TWIDDLING CANINE DNA ! 3.5 : There is ample evidence that WHOLE GENOME DUPLICATION has occurred - it happens in plants rather often, and it doesn't kill them. In fact, modern strawberries are 16N (8x the usual amount of genomic DNA) There is EVIDENCE that genes duplicate rather often, and that they are a source of novel genes. As to the blithering idiocy as duplications are ALWAYS harmful - one mutation in Drosophila that produced resistance to insecticides WAS A GENE DUPLICATION. They produced more phosphatase than the usual strains, and so were able to shrug off phosphide toxins. For every one example of a deleterious duplication you creationuts can vomit up, scientists can come up with DOZENS of examples of beneficial duplications of genes.

Specified complexity is not “well-defined”, else we would have examples of the calculation of SC for biological systems.
No, SC is in fact well-defined and empirically detectable, else you and your colleagues wouldn't be claiming that Evolution can produce it, whether by Gene Duplication, Barry Hall's experiment, or any other "Evolution Did It" citation. Right now, the only card you guys are apparently playing on the SC issue is this thing of "can you compute CSI for such and such". But it's obviously not a deal-breaker if anybody cannot do so, since you guys blatantly claim that Naturalistic Evolution can produce CSI anyway. (Busted.) Hence SC is well-defined and empirically detectable, as is IC. Let's stop there a moment so I can surf the thread and the Wall a little more.

'Specified complexity' has many definitions, and exists AS LONG AS SOMEONE CAN DEFINE EXACTLY WHAT THEY ARE MEASURING, AND EXPLAIN HOW THEY DID THE CALCULATIONS. That puts you IDiots, creationuts and theoloons in a double bind - if you define your terms enough, evolution can be shown to answer the question. But, if you keep the definitions flexible and unstated, no one will take you seriously. Again : evolution can indeed generate 'specified complexity' and 'irreducible complexity'; so finding any of these does not support ~~Magical Skymanism~~'/'Intelligent Design' one bit.

FL · 20 February 2013

Again, evolution can indeed generate ‘specified complexity’ and ‘irreducible complexity’

So indeed you've made the claim that answers your own statement in the very same post:

...if you define your terms enough, evolution can be shown to answer the question.

Your first statement means absolutely that the terms are indeed "defined enough" according to your second statement. And thanks for the corroboration! FL

Bobsie · 20 February 2013

FL said:
Bobsie: But newspapers is not where real science is done.
Newspapers are where science news is explained to good lay people who just want the science story in simple, quick, Reader's Digest English. Nothing wrong with that.

You said it. Newspapers are where you explain your science STORY. But it's not real science. Real science requires data, evidence, academic rigor, and compelling analytical logic. Story telling does not. FL, all you got is a story, and a made up one at that.

phhht · 20 February 2013

But YOU YOURSELF cannot explain, whether in plain English or in any other way, how to empirically detect design. All you do is to repeat,without evidence, endlessly, that it is possible. If it's so possible, put up or shut up, FL. Tell us, in plain English, how to detect and measure design in a snowflake. But you cannot do that. You'll continue to insist that your hallucinations are real. Nobody else can tell from what you post how to tell the designed from the non-designed. YOU CANNOT SAY YOURSELF HOW TO DO IT.

FL said: Your first statement means absolutely that the terms are indeed "defined enough" according to your second statement.

phhht · 20 February 2013

FL said:
Again, evolution can indeed generate ‘specified complexity’ and ‘irreducible complexity’
So indeed you've made the claim that answers your own statement in the very same post:
...if you define your terms enough, evolution can be shown to answer the question.
Your first statement means absolutely that the terms are indeed "defined enough" according to your second statement.

If evolution can do it, as you apparently concede it can, then there is NO NEED FOR THE GOD HYPOTHESIS. Purely natural means explain the things you claim you can measure. Kinda shot yourself through both feet there, huh FL.

FL · 20 February 2013

You’ve said you’ve read it (the method). You claim to understand it. You assert that these posts have specificity and complexity, which implies you are using the methodology you’ve learned. So you should have no problem telling us what it is.

Which I've already done, btw, both in the C-J article and here in this thread too. I cannot compute specified quantitatively, but I can accurately describe it qualitatively without blinking. And it's no problem to locate other folks to explain the methodology to you; you may find it helpful even. Therefore: Here's a pretty easy explanation for you, they "show their work" as you demand, and it's very straightforward where the general public can understand it at a Readers Digest level. You can't possibly miss it.

What is specified complexity? The term specified complexity sounds like a pretty big mouthful. But it's something we can all recognize without effort. Let's take an example. Imagine that a friend hands you a sheet of paper with part of Lincoln's Gettysburg address written on it: FOURSCOREANDSEVENYEARSAGOOURFATHERSBROUGHTFORTHONTHIS CONTINENTANEWNATIONCONCEIVEDINLIBERTY Your friend tells you that he wrote the sentence by pulling Scrabble pieces out of a bag at random. Would you believe him? Probably not. But why? One reason is that the odds against it are just too high. There are so many other ways the results could have turned out--so many possible sequences of letters--that the probability of getting that particular sentence is almost nil. But there's more to it than that. If our friend had shown us the letters below, we would probably believe his story. ZOEFFNPBINNGQZAMZQPEGOXSYFMRTEXRNYGRRGNNFVGUMLMTYQ XTXWORNBWIGBBCVHPUZMWLONHATQUGOTFJKZXFHP Why? Because of the kind of sequence we see. The first string fits a recognizable pattern: It's a sentence written in English, minus spaces and punctuation. The second string fits no such pattern. Now we can understand specified complexity. When a design theorist says that a string of letters is specified, he's saying that it fits a recognizable pattern. And when he says it's complex, he's saying there are so many different ways the object could have turned out that the chance of getting any particular outcome by accident is hopelessly small. Thus, we see design in our Gettysburg sentence because it is both specified and complex. We see no such design in the second string. Although it is complex, it fits no recognizable pattern. And if our friend had shown us a string of letters like "BLUE" we would have said that it was specified but not complex. It fits a pattern, but because the number of letter is so short, the likelihood of getting such a string is relatively high. Four slots don't give you as many possible letter combinations as 143, which is the length of our Gettysburg sentence. So that's the basic notion of specified complexity.

But let's elaborate the idea by looking at an example that doesn't involve letters. Imagine that you're standing in a football stadium that's covered by a dome. The stadium is well lit, and as you look around, you discover three red bull's eyes. One is painted on the dome overhead and two are painted on seats. Upon closer inspection, you find that the bull's eye on one of the seats has an arrow sticking in it, dead center. As you're looking at the arrow, your Scrabble-playing friend enters the stadium. He shouts a greeting and hurries over to where you're standing. "I see you found my handiwork," he says. "I did that just a few minutes ago. I turned off the lights, entered the stadium, spun around a couple of times and shot an arrow in the dark. When I turned lights back on, I discovered that the arrow had struck a bull's eye. In fact, I've shot several arrows that way, and every time I fired a shot, it hit a bull's eye." What would you think about your friend's story? As with the Gettysburg sentence, you'd be very skeptical. The odds of hitting a bull's eye even once without aiming are so low that you doubt he could have done it even once, let alone several times in a row. But as with the Gettysburg example, there's more to it than low probability. If your friend had told you that he'd never hit a target, and that his arrow had landed in a different spot every time, you'd probably believe him. Why? Because his shots fit no discernable pattern, as defined by the targets. Now we're in a position to give a broader description of specified complexity: Specified complexity is displayed by any object or event that has an extremely low probability of occurring by chance, and matches a discernable pattern. According to contemporary design theory, the presence of highly specified complexity is an indicator of an intelligent cause. -- "FAQs", ARN, www.arn.org

phhht · 20 February 2013

Once more tiresome time, FL employs the dodge. He DOES NOT SAY HOW to empirically detect and measure design. He simply ASSERTS IT CAN BE DONE. He claims he can tell just by looking. Well, if you can tell by looking, FL, is a tornado designed? Is a snowflake? For example, he says "The second string fits no such pattern." Bald, unsupported, baseless assertion. How can he tell his string fits no such pattern? In short, he cannot. He can't even say what such a pattern looks like, much less how to detect it. He's just MAKING SHIT UP AGAIN. He claims that his first sentence exhibits "specified complexity," but once again, it's all hot air and empty bullshit. He DOES NOT SAY HOW TO MEASURE IT. He just repeats his unsupported claim that it does. FL's source says

Specified complexity is displayed by any object or event that has an extremely low probability of occurring by chance, and matches a discernable pattern.

OK, FL, explain to us how to EMPIRICALLY detect and measure it. Tell us in plain English, not just that it is so, but HOW YOU CAN TELL. It won't do just to repeat that it is so, because IT IS NOT SO. This is FL at work, hallucinating his own private reality. Perhaps he actually believes that just claiming a string has specified complexity makes it so. Perhaps he actually believes that he can tell design from non-design JUST BY LOOKING, but of course that is NOT AN OBJECTIVE, EMPIRICAL METHOD for detecting or measuring it. FL is just repeating his same old tired bullshit, apparently convinced that repetition equates to reason.

FL said:
You’ve said you’ve read it (the method). You claim to understand it. You assert that these posts have specificity and complexity, which implies you are using the methodology you’ve learned. So you should have no problem telling us what it is.
Which I've already done, btw, both in the C-J article and here in this thread too. I cannot compute specified quantitatively, but I can accurately describe it qualitatively without blinking. And it's no problem to locate other folks to explain the methodology to you; you may find it helpful even. Therefore: Here's a pretty easy explanation for you, they "show their work" as you demand, and it's very straightforward where the general public can understand it at a Readers Digest level. You can't possibly miss it.
What is specified complexity? The term specified complexity sounds like a pretty big mouthful. But it's something we can all recognize without effort. Let's take an example. Imagine that a friend hands you a sheet of paper with part of Lincoln's Gettysburg address written on it: FOURSCOREANDSEVENYEARSAGOOURFATHERSBROUGHTFORTHONTHIS CONTINENTANEWNATIONCONCEIVEDINLIBERTY Your friend tells you that he wrote the sentence by pulling Scrabble pieces out of a bag at random. Would you believe him? Probably not. But why? One reason is that the odds against it are just too high. There are so many other ways the results could have turned out--so many possible sequences of letters--that the probability of getting that particular sentence is almost nil. But there's more to it than that. If our friend had shown us the letters below, we would probably believe his story. ZOEFFNPBINNGQZAMZQPEGOXSYFMRTEXRNYGRRGNNFVGUMLMTYQ XTXWORNBWIGBBCVHPUZMWLONHATQUGOTFJKZXFHP Why? Because of the kind of sequence we see. The first string fits a recognizable pattern: It's a sentence written in English, minus spaces and punctuation. The second string fits no such pattern. Now we can understand specified complexity. When a design theorist says that a string of letters is specified, he's saying that it fits a recognizable pattern. And when he says it's complex, he's saying there are so many different ways the object could have turned out that the chance of getting any particular outcome by accident is hopelessly small. Thus, we see design in our Gettysburg sentence because it is both specified and complex. We see no such design in the second string. Although it is complex, it fits no recognizable pattern. And if our friend had shown us a string of letters like "BLUE" we would have said that it was specified but not complex. It fits a pattern, but because the number of letter is so short, the likelihood of getting such a string is relatively high. Four slots don't give you as many possible letter combinations as 143, which is the length of our Gettysburg sentence. So that's the basic notion of specified complexity.
**
But let's elaborate the idea by looking at an example that doesn't involve letters. Imagine that you're standing in a football stadium that's covered by a dome. The stadium is well lit, and as you look around, you discover three red bull's eyes. One is painted on the dome overhead and two are painted on seats. Upon closer inspection, you find that the bull's eye on one of the seats has an arrow sticking in it, dead center. As you're looking at the arrow, your Scrabble-playing friend enters the stadium. He shouts a greeting and hurries over to where you're standing. "I see you found my handiwork," he says. "I did that just a few minutes ago. I turned off the lights, entered the stadium, spun around a couple of times and shot an arrow in the dark. When I turned lights back on, I discovered that the arrow had struck a bull's eye. In fact, I've shot several arrows that way, and every time I fired a shot, it hit a bull's eye." What would you think about your friend's story? As with the Gettysburg sentence, you'd be very skeptical. The odds of hitting a bull's eye even once without aiming are so low that you doubt he could have done it even once, let alone several times in a row. But as with the Gettysburg example, there's more to it than low probability. If your friend had told you that he'd never hit a target, and that his arrow had landed in a different spot every time, you'd probably believe him. Why? Because his shots fit no discernable pattern, as defined by the targets. Now we're in a position to give a broader description of specified complexity: Specified complexity is displayed by any object or event that has an extremely low probability of occurring by chance, and matches a discernable pattern. According to contemporary design theory, the presence of highly specified complexity is an indicator of an intelligent cause. -- "FAQs", ARN, www.arn.org
FL

phhht · 20 February 2013

FL said: Which I've already done...

Don't you realize, FL, that anybody who reads your post, anybody who reads the anecdotes you cite, can TELL FOR HIMSELF that you DO NOT SAY THAT?

PA Poland · 20 February 2013

FL said:
You’ve said you’ve read it (the method). You claim to understand it. You assert that these posts have specificity and complexity, which implies you are using the methodology you’ve learned. So you should have no problem telling us what it is.
Which I've already done, btw, both in the C-J article and here in this thread too. I cannot compute specified quantitatively, but I can accurately describe it qualitatively without blinking. And it's no problem to locate other folks to explain the methodology to you; you may find it helpful even. Therefore: Here's a pretty easy explanation for you, they "show their work" as you demand, and it's very straightforward where the general public can understand it at a Readers Digest level. You can't possibly miss it.
What is specified complexity? The term specified complexity sounds like a pretty big mouthful. But it's something we can all recognize without effort. Let's take an example. Imagine that a friend hands you a sheet of paper with part of Lincoln's Gettysburg address written on it: FOURSCOREANDSEVENYEARSAGOOURFATHERSBROUGHTFORTHONTHIS CONTINENTANEWNATIONCONCEIVEDINLIBERTY Your friend tells you that he wrote the sentence by pulling Scrabble pieces out of a bag at random. Would you believe him? Probably not. But why? One reason is that the odds against it are just too high. There are so many other ways the results could have turned out--so many possible sequences of letters--that the probability of getting that particular sentence is almost nil. But there's more to it than that. If our friend had shown us the letters below, we would probably believe his story. ZOEFFNPBINNGQZAMZQPEGOXSYFMRTEXRNYGRRGNNFVGUMLMTYQ XTXWORNBWIGBBCVHPUZMWLONHATQUGOTFJKZXFHP Why? Because of the kind of sequence we see. The first string fits a recognizable pattern: It's a sentence written in English, minus spaces and punctuation. The second string fits no such pattern. Now we can understand specified complexity. When a design theorist says that a string of letters is specified, he's saying that it fits a recognizable pattern. And when he says it's complex, he's saying there are so many different ways the object could have turned out that the chance of getting any particular outcome by accident is hopelessly small. Thus, we see design in our Gettysburg sentence because it is both specified and complex. We see no such design in the second string. Although it is complex, it fits no recognizable pattern. And if our friend had shown us a string of letters like "BLUE" we would have said that it was specified but not complex. It fits a pattern, but because the number of letter is so short, the likelihood of getting such a string is relatively high. Four slots don't give you as many possible letter combinations as 143, which is the length of our Gettysburg sentence. So that's the basic notion of specified complexity.

And a perfect example OF WHY IT IS SILLY TO CALCULATE ! What you vomited up was the CLASSIC 'One True Sequence' fallacy - what you are doing is 'calculating' the odds that one SPECIFIC, PRE-DETERMINED sequence would fall together all at once PURELY BY CHANCE. Good thing that IN REALITY, proteins do not form that way. AND the process of random mutation filtered by selection (repeated many, many times) can 'push' a sequence well away from random. Evolution is not a targeted search - it is not 'looking' for any particular sequence. So calculations like the ones Dembski tosses forth are irrelevant. Suppose you were walking along during a cloudy day and a raindrop struck you right on the end of your nose. Now, by your delusion of 'specified complexity', that drop MUST have been intelligently guided, for the odds of that SPECIFIC drop hitting you SPECIFICALLY on that SPECIFIC spot at that SPECIFIC time is astronomical.

But let's elaborate the idea by looking at an example that doesn't involve letters. Imagine that you're standing in a football stadium that's covered by a dome. The stadium is well lit, and as you look around, you discover three red bull's eyes. One is painted on the dome overhead and two are painted on seats. Upon closer inspection, you find that the bull's eye on one of the seats has an arrow sticking in it, dead center. As you're looking at the arrow, your Scrabble-playing friend enters the stadium. He shouts a greeting and hurries over to where you're standing. "I see you found my handiwork," he says. "I did that just a few minutes ago. I turned off the lights, entered the stadium, spun around a couple of times and shot an arrow in the dark. When I turned lights back on, I discovered that the arrow had struck a bull's eye. In fact, I've shot several arrows that way, and every time I fired a shot, it hit a bull's eye." What would you think about your friend's story? As with the Gettysburg sentence, you'd be very skeptical. The odds of hitting a bull's eye even once without aiming are so low that you doubt he could have done it even once, let alone several times in a row. But as with the Gettysburg example, there's more to it than low probability. If your friend had told you that he'd never hit a target, and that his arrow had landed in a different spot every time, you'd probably believe him. Why? Because his shots fit no discernable pattern, as defined by the targets. Now we're in a position to give a broader description of specified complexity: Specified complexity is displayed by any object or event that has an extremely low probability of occurring by chance, and matches a discernable pattern. According to contemporary design theory, the presence of highly specified complexity is an indicator of an intelligent cause.

And evolution can produce your version of 'specified complexity' quite easily - it is a RESULT OF SELECTION. For example, researchers started with a string of 70 random amino acids, and selected for ATP-binding ability. They started off rather easily (low temp, long time for the reaction to occur), collected the best performers, then mutated them, then screened the next generation with slightly more stringent conditions. End result - a very effective ATP-binding protein. Now, by your feeble-bladdered 'understanding' of 'specified complexity', the odds that such a protein could arise purely by chance is 1 in 20^70. Nearly impossible, thus showing high levels of 'specified complexity'. YET THE RESEARCHERS SUCCEEDED QUITE EASILY. Effective sequences came up about 1 in 10^12 clones - about 50+ orders of magnitude more often than IDiot numerology would 'predict'. Mainly because they weren't trying to generate one SPECIFIC protein, and thus didn't fall into the sheer IDiocy of the One True Sequence fallacy that has eaten your brain.

phhht · 20 February 2013

Let me give you an example of a plain-English description of an objective, empirical test for whether or not a sentence is in English:

Separate the sentence into words.
Look each word up in an English dictionary.
If each word in the sentence is found in the dictionary, then the sentence is in English.

See, FL? I do not simply ASSERT that a sentence is in English. I give you an independent, objective, empirical procedure that you can use yourself.

But you can't do that for design, can you, you incompetent pretender.

Dave Luckett · 20 February 2013

I see that I gave FL too much credit. I thought, on first glance, that he had committed a childishly obvious logical blunder. He assures me that he had in fact committed several, and compounded them. Here's his "argument" in full:

Is (specified complexity) a real concept? Yes it is, each of your posts and my posts are true SC. Our sentences, our syntax, our symbols, our coding, our buzzwords–all that human language communication system is pure Specified Complexity that Evolution CANNOT Do At All. So, in the origin of life arena, if you see that SC-language-system-stuff happening again (eg, involving the first living cell on Earth), but this time you have NO intervention from humans, animals, evolution, or any known materialistic source, your only rational and scientfic choice is to accept that SC as the product and the marker of Intelligent Design, period.

This is not a summary. This is the entire relevant part, in his own words. His logical glitch is painfully obvious, once you pick your way through the affectations and stylistic obtuseness: "Premise 1: Posts in a blog are complex and designed for a specific purpose. Premise 2: Life is complex and has a purpose. Conclusion: THEREFORE, life was designed." If we admit the premises, the argument obviously does not follow. It is a false syllogism of the form "A dog has four legs and barks; a table has four legs; therefore a table barks." But FL compounds this simple fallacy by the falsity of his premises. That is, not only does the argument not follow, but at least one of the premises he bases it on is false in itself. Blog posts, as a class of the specific uses of language, may be said to be designed for a purpose, and the whole structure of all languages may be said to be complex, but the whole structure of languages was never designed, and blog posts are pretty simple, after all. (FL's sentences are incompetently composed, which makes their meaning obscure, but still, they're not really complex.) That is, the posts themselves are not complex and the language they are composed in was not designed. (In fact, the more complex the use of language becomes, the less it fulfils its purpose, which is to communicate.) Therefore, blog posts do not have both necessary qualities, purposeful design and complexity. Premise one is false. To this, by way of spurious reinforcement, a further begging of the question is added: "Evolution CANNOT Do (specified complexity) At All". (Note the usual FL embellishments.) Of course, this isn't argument at all. It's simply denial from ignorance. I suppose I must acknowledge FL's proud instruction "to accurately quote or summarize people’s statements far better". (Observe, in passing, its redundancy.) It caused me to check. But the result of looking more closely at FL's hideous prose is that the shambolic incompetence of his thought becomes more obvious. I'll admit that the effort is worthwhile, therefore. It's just that I find it painful.

Just Bob · 20 February 2013

I have in front of me a small carbon crystal -- a rough diamond. Now, it might be a natural (undesigned?) diamond from Yellowknife, NT, or it might be a manmade (designed?) diamond, which might even be designed to include the same trace elements found in natural Yellowknife diamonds.

If it is a manmade diamond then it must be chock full o' "specified complexity", even more so if it is intended to counterfeit a natural Yellowknife diamond. So it should be ~~child's~~ turd's play to instantly see all that SC and instantly determine if it is a bit of carbon compressed and heated by unguided processes deep within the earth, or an object conceived, designed, and manufactured by an intelligent agent.

Right?

Mike Elzinga · 20 February 2013

Is the hexagon on Saturn designed? How about the rings?

How much specified complexity do they have?

These are extremely dangerous questions for ID/creationists because they don’t know enough about science to understand what they are seeing here. Therefore, not one of them can comment on them without making a complete ass of themselves.

diogeneslamp0 · 20 February 2013

PA Poland said: And evolution can produce your version of 'specified complexity' quite easily - it is a RESULT OF SELECTION. For example, researchers started with a string of 70 random amino acids, and selected for ATP-binding ability. They started off rather easily (low temp, long time for the reaction to occur), collected the best performers, then mutated them, then screened the next generation with slightly more stringent conditions. End result - a very effective ATP-binding protein. Now, by your feeble-bladdered 'understanding' of 'specified complexity', the odds that such a protein could arise purely by chance is 1 in 20^70. Nearly impossible, thus showing high levels of 'specified complexity'. YET THE RESEARCHERS SUCCEEDED QUITE EASILY. Effective sequences came up about 1 in 10^12 clones - about 50+ orders of magnitude more often than IDiot numerology would 'predict'. Mainly because they weren't trying to generate one SPECIFIC protein, and thus didn't fall into the sheer IDiocy of the One True Sequence fallacy that has eaten your brain.

Do you have a reference for that?

PA Poland · 20 February 2013

As a matter of fact, here it is :

Nature. 2001 Apr 5;410(6829):715-8.
Functional proteins from a random-sequence library.
Keefe AD, Szostak JW.

Abstract

"Functional primordial proteins presumably originated from random sequences, but it is not known how frequently functional, or even folded, proteins occur in collections of random sequences. Here we have used in vitro selection of messenger RNA displayed proteins, in which each protein is covalently linked through its carboxy terminus to the 3' end of its encoding mRNA, to sample a large number of distinct random sequences. Starting from a library of 6 x 10^12 proteins each containing 80 contiguous random amino acids, we selected functional proteins by enriching for those that bind to ATP. This selection yielded four new ATP-binding proteins that appear to be unrelated to each other or to anything found in the current databases of biological proteins. The frequency of occurrence of functional proteins in random-sequence libraries appears to be similar to that observed for equivalent RNA libraries."

Let's see - by IDionaut math, the odds of this experiment producing a functional protein [i]should be[/i] 1 in 20^80; yet they found 4 unrelated ones from just 6 x 10^12 colonies.

That's about 92 orders of magnitude more often.

Hmmm - one might suspect that ID 'calculations' are a wee bit off ... !

eric · 21 February 2013

FL said:[quoting what he says is his method] Imagine that a friend hands you a sheet of paper with part of Lincoln's Gettysburg address written on it: FOURSCOREANDSEVENYEARSAGOOURFATHERSBROUGHTFORTHONTHIS CONTINENTANEWNATIONCONCEIVEDINLIBERTY Your friend tells you that he wrote the sentence by pulling Scrabble pieces out of a bag at random. Would you believe him? Probably not. But why? One reason is that the odds against it are just too high. There are so many other ways the results could have turned out--so many possible sequences of letters--that the probability of getting that particular sentence is almost nil.

Okay progress. According to your method, complexity is a probability calculation: its the probability of the string occurring randomly. We can calculate that. But there's a problem with your definitino. The probability of getting any particular sequence of the same length and variety of digits/entries is the same. You are simply associating complexity with string length (and number of available entries per site). Since mutation can duplicate sequences, long string length is easily produced naturally and thus there is no barrier to nature producing complexity the way you've defined it. No designer required to achieve what you define as complexity. Next, specificity.

But there's more to it than that. If our friend had shown us the letters below, we would probably believe his story. ZOEFFNPBINNGQZAMZQPEGOXSYFMRTEXRNYGRRGNNFVGUMLMTYQ XTXWORNBWIGBBCVHPUZMWLONHATQUGOTFJKZXFHP Why? Because of the kind of sequence we see. The first string fits a recognizable pattern: It's a sentence written in English, minus spaces and punctuation. The second string fits no such pattern.

So, if it fits a recognizable pattern, its specific. this fits a recognizable pattern: its regular hexagons. So does this - its the Fibonacci sequence. "Aha!" I hear you say, "that's biological! Seeing the Fibonacci sequence in an organism may indeed bespeak design!" Unfortunately, this is another example of the Fibonacci sequence in nature. So nature can produce specificity also, because it can produce recognizable patterns. That's both parts of your CS that can be produced naturally. But there are other two huge problems with specificity, both of which are a result of it being something of an argument from ignorance. First, it has a type 1 error problem: if humans don't recognize the pattern, you don't count it as specific. So your methodology is going to be prone to large amounts of misidentifying specific things as nonspecific, simply because we may not recognize some pattern. Second, it has a type 2 error problem: if humans don't fully understand nature, you may count something as specific and designed out of ignorance of the natural mechanism that produced it. Like the giants' causeway. A design theorist has to assume they know everything relevant about nature before he/she rules nature out as a source. But they don't: no one ever does. So your methodology is going to lead to misidentifications of things as designed whenever there is human ignorance of some natural sequence of events that could produce it. And when it comes to creationist understanding of evolutionary mechanisms, there's plenty of that. Thus ends the theory discussion. Now for application. Lets use your definition!

Now we can understand specified complexity. When a design theorist says that a string of letters is specified, he's saying that it fits a recognizable pattern.

Well then FL, tell us which of the seven example strings fit a recognizable pattern. Use your method on the seven strings given. It should be easy for you - according to you, you should just be able to follow the above instruction to determine which of them are specific.

And when he says it's complex, he's saying there are so many different ways the object could have turned out that the chance of getting any particular outcome by accident is hopelessly small.

I will give you a boost on the complexity issue and tell you the answer there: the first five are all equally complex, with an improbabliity of 7E-37 the way you define complexity. The last two are equally complex with an improbability of 1.6E-95. For reference, both the Gettysburg string and the nonsense string in your quote had improbabilities of 4.5E-128. Use your method on this information to decide which of the seven strings are complex. So tell me, which are complex and which aren't? At this point, it should be trivial for you to determine which of the seven strings are C and S. Just combine the results of your specificity step with the results of your complexity step and tell us the results. So, which are the product of design, and which aren't?

diogeneslamp0 · 21 February 2013

FL said: I cannot compute specified quantitatively, but I can accurately describe it qualitatively

NO. If you cannot compute specified quantitatively, then you CANNOT accurately describe it qualitatively! Moreover, you lied. You said that you would describe how to detect design. To detect design, you need to compute SC, which you can't do, so you can't detect design. Here is FL's algorithm to detect design. 1. Get a string. 2. Compute its specified complexity. 3. I cannot compute specified complexity. 4. Go on the internet, and lie to other people and tell them I can detect design. That is not good enough FL, you lied about having a design-detection algorithm. To repeat:

FL said: I cannot compute specified quantitatively, but I can accurately describe it qualitatively

I reiterate: If you cannot compute specified quantitatively, then you CANNOT accurately describe it qualitatively! Your qualitative assessment is that evolution (indeed, no natural process) can increase SC. How could you possibly know that, when you can't compute SC? If you can't compute SC, how can you possibly assert that it always decreases due to evolution and other natural proceses? If you can't compute SC, how can you possibly assert that evolution and other natural proceses cannot increase it? If you can't compute SC, how can you possibly assert that all observed examples of increases in complexity due to evolution are decreases in SC? If you can't compute SC, how can you possibly know that SC is well-defined, that it has gone up, down or sideways, or that it is even a number? If you can't compute SC, how do you know that SC isn't a non-number-- it could be just a color or a texture or an OPINION as far as you can prove! Well, unlike you, WE CAN COMPUTE SPECIFIED COMPLEXITY! WE UNDERSTAND INTELLIGENT DESIGN THEORY! And we know that observed evolutionary processes increase SC by astronomical amounts! We read Dembski's 2005 paper "Specification: The Pattern that Signifies Intelligence" and we know that, following his math, gene duplication and many other processes increase SC astronomically! SC is an undefined property, not precisely defined for biological structures-- but INCREASES in SC can be defined! Even though SC has no well-defined value, we can define INCREASES in SC, so we know observed evolutionary processes increase SC astronomically. We don't just know that, we can PROVE it because WE CAN DO THE MATH, AND YOU CAN'T, DUMBASS!

diogeneslamp0 · 21 February 2013

FL said: Hey, I know for a fact that I'm not trained nor qualified to do any such CSI computation... However... it honestly doesn't mater at all whether you can or you can't do one.

What a lying sack of shit! FL promised us a design detection algorithm. First step: compute SC. But, oops-- FL can't compute SC! No worries! FL now tells us "it honestly doesn't mater at all whether you can or you can't do an SC calculation!" Oh, when FL grandly announced he had a design detection algorithm, the ability to compute specified complexity was CRUCIAL, CRITICAL, RELEVANT, IMPORTANT! When we ask him to identify which of two simple, simple, simple, short strings is intelligently designed, NOW he tells us he never could detect design, but no probs gangstas, computing specified complexity is now IRRELEVANT, UNIMPORTANT, TRIVIAL! FUCK YOU, FL! COMPUTING SPECIFIED COMPLEXITY WASN'T "IRRELEVANT, UNIMPORTANT, TRIVIAL" WHEN YOU LIED TO US AND SAID YOU COULD DETECT DESIGN! Oh NO, computing SC only became "IRRELEVANT, UNIMPORTANT, TRIVIAL" after we caught you LYING about your bullshit "design detection algorithm" THAT DOESN'T EXIST! You lying sack of shit creationist!

DS · 21 February 2013

diogeneslamp0 said:
FL said: Hey, I know for a fact that I'm not trained nor qualified to do any such CSI computation... However... it honestly doesn't mater at all whether you can or you can't do one.
What a lying sack of shit! FL promised us a design detection algorithm. First step: compute SC. But, oops-- FL can't compute SC! No worries! FL now tells us "it honestly doesn't mater at all whether you can or you can't do an SC calculation!" Oh, when FL grandly announced he had a design detection algorithm, the ability to compute specified complexity was CRUCIAL, CRITICAL, RELEVANT, IMPORTANT! When we ask him to identify which of two simple, simple, simple, short strings is intelligently designed, NOW he tells us he never could detect design, but no probs gangstas, computing specified complexity is now IRRELEVANT, UNIMPORTANT, TRIVIAL! FUCK YOU, FL! COMPUTING SPECIFIED COMPLEXITY WASN'T "IRRELEVANT, UNIMPORTANT, TRIVIAL" WHEN YOU LIED TO US AND SAID YOU COULD DETECT DESIGN! Oh NO, computing SC only became "IRRELEVANT, UNIMPORTANT, TRIVIAL" after we caught you LYING about your bullshit "design detection algorithm" THAT DOESN'T EXIST! You lying sack of shit creationist!

This is why I stopped res[ponding to the asshole months ago. He will literally say anything to infuriate, no matter how delusional or self contradictory. Then he will smugly ignore the fact that he was once again caught in a lie and start threatening eternal damnation to anyone who dares to disagree with him. He's just another attention whore who is for some reason tolerated on these threads. He has never once learned anything or ever admitted that he was wrong, even though he is consistently proven to be completely full of shit. Treat him like water, ignore him and eventually he will go away.

diogeneslamp0 · 21 February 2013

FL wrote: As soon as evolutionists like Ken Miller (or PA Poland for that matter) started saying "Evolution-Did-It", (that is, Evolution Produced Specified Complexity), you conceded the existence of SC, and you conceded that it was sufficiently well-defined and empirically-detectable for you to do a proclamation that "Evolution-Did-It".

NO. You cannot compute SC and you do not understand math! What I said was that evolution can INCREASE specified complexity. That is not the same as saying that specified complexity is well-defined. In fact, a mathematical quantity, like SC, can be undefined even though increases in it can be defined. That is the case with SC: the actual value of SC is undefined for all strings (which is why FL and all other lying creationist sacks of shit) never compute SC for any string or sequence, no matter how short and simple we make it. However, a simple calculation shows that observed evolutionary processes increase SC astronomically. Intelligent Design proponents cannot understand Intelligent Design "theory", but we evolutionists can. For example, let's check Dembski's 2005 shit paper "Specification: The Patter that Signifies Intelligence." Dembski gives two "recipes" for computing SC, one based on Kolmogorov complexity of a "pattern" that matches a string (but Dembski does not tell you how much the string may differ from the "pattern" and still be considered a match-- he can't be bothered to specify a pattern-matching algorithm.) So I'll skip that recipe. Dembski's second recipe is based on writing down a verbal description of a structure in English, the computing 250,000^w, where w = the number of words in the description. 250,000 is used because the English language allegedly has 250,000 words. With the second recipe, the specified complexity becomes

SC = -log_2 [ 250,000^w / A^L]

where: w = length of English description, L = length of sequence A = size of alphabet (e.g. 26 for a string in English, 4 for genetic sequences, 20 for proteins) Note that this becomes, with simple rearrangement, SC = L *log_2[ A] - (w * log_2 [ 250,000]) It is convenient to use the usual identity, if your calculator can't do log base 2: log_2[x] == ln[x] / ln[2] = 1.4427 * ln[x] Thus log_2 [250,000] = 17.93, and

SC = L * 1.4427 * ln[ A] - w * 17.93

For English language (A = 26): SC = L * 4.70 - w * 17.93

For DNA sequences (A = 4): SC = L * 2 - w * 17.93

For protein (amino acid) sequences (A = 20): SC = L * 4.32 - w * 17.93

Now suppose we have a gene of length 1,500 nucleotides. And suppose it undergoes the OBSERVED EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS of gene duplication. Now in reality, usually several genes get duplicated at once. But for simplicity, let's assume just one gene gets duplicated. So then: Before gene duplication: L = 1500 After gene duplication: L = 3000 Before gene duplication: SC = 3000 - w * 17.93 After gene duplication: SC = 6000 - w * 17.93

INCREASE IN SPECIFIED COMPLEXITY DUE TO OBSERVED EVOLUTIONARY PROCESSES: SC INCREASE = (SC After gene duplication) - (SC Before gene duplication) = [6000 - w * 17.93] - [3000 - w * 17.93] = 3000 More bits of SPECIFIED COMPLEXITY Motherfucker!

Specified complexity is both "UNDEFINED" (because no one knows what "w" is) but it doesn't matter because it CANCELS OUT of the equation, and observed evolutionary processes increase specified complexity by astronomical amounts!

FL said: Hey, I know for a fact that I’m not trained nor qualified to do any such CSI computation

WELL WE ARE AND WE DID! Now crawl back to bible school. Yippie Kay Yai, Choirfucker!

Just Bob · 21 February 2013

"Oh, when FL grandly announced he had a design detection algorithm..."

The turd's algorithm: I know it when I see it. Or even hear about it. Or when some other creationist tells me it's there.

j. biggs · 21 February 2013

Just Bob said: "Oh, when FL grandly announced he had a design detection algorithm..." The turd's algorithm: I know it when I see it. Or even hear about it. Or when some other creationist tells me it's there.

Or for more parsimony, "It is what I say it is."

co · 21 February 2013

Why isn't FL dumped to the BW every time he comes in here to stink up the place?

eric · 21 February 2013

diogeneslamp0 said: Before gene duplication: SC = 3000 - w * 17.93 After gene duplication: SC = 6000 - w * 17.93

I don't imagine FL will try and follow your math, so let's make it simple: FL, the definition of SC that YOU quoted, that YOU use, allows nature to increase its SC every time a string is duplicated. According to the definition YOU quoted, it is a nonconserved quantity that does not require a designer to produce.

FL · 21 February 2013

We keep saying, we want you to tell us how to determine whether the following strings are designed

And I keep telling you Eric, that you guys have already made such a determination irrelevant to the issue of specified complexity being well-defined and empirically detectable. Indeed, Dr. Poland seems as intent as proving SC to be so, as Dr. Ken Miller was in regards to proving Behe's IC to be so. The truth remains that even this snip of your post I've quoted here, is an example of SC that's beyond naturalistic evolution as a causative agent. And yes, you did get a fuller explanation about how that's so from another source, so you can't blow it off anymore. You have no refutation for the SC in your quotation. ****

Why isn’t FL dumped to the BW every time he comes in here to stink up the place?

Here I am trying to respond to what posters are asking of me, and you're trying to interrupt THEIR conversations?? ****

What I said was that evolution can INCREASE specified complexity. That is not the same as saying that specified complexity is well-defined.

However, Diogenes, we've already seen that the concept of SC is well-defined, and your colleague Dr. Poland has already said that evolution can PRODUCE specified complexity, regardless of of what you said or not said. Like it or not, Diogenes, I've already provided you and readers with a clear definition and a clear example of Specified Complexity. In fact, I've not only provided a clear definition not only in my own words (based upon Dembski's 1999 lay-level book "Intelligent Design"), but a clear definition from ARN also. And not only have I provided a clear example of SC from the human language communication system, but I've ALSO pointed to the same kind of language system phenomenon thing occurring in a science-journal-published example occurring in the scientific arena of Origin of Life. Clear definition, clear example, clear description. You say, "What I said was that evolution can INCREASE specified complexity." But I am telling you that: (1) SC is well-defined and empirically detectable (and since you're claiming that SC can be INCREASED via evolution, you're just helping to corroborate (1) along with Dr. Poland who says evolution can produce SC), and (2) I'm saying that naturalistic evolution can NOT originate SC (and it can't produce IC either) from scratch. Specifically WRT specified complexity, if I ask you, "How can naturalistic evolution produce your posts or mine, how can naturalistic evolution produce that Genetic Algorithm Writing that Trevors and Abel wrote of, where it never existed before in the prebiotic world?", your ONLY answer is "I don't know at all" on both counts. You've been just ASSUMING that "Evolution Did It", because that's what the religion of evolution demands. But there's no support for that. Just as with your posts and mine, intelligent causation is the only known cause. I'm not trying to compute the value for SC for this or that, my only task has been to give a clear ;auyperson-level definition and description of SC and IC. That's been done. FL

PA Poland · 21 February 2013

FL said:
We keep saying, we want you to tell us how to determine whether the following strings are designed
And I keep telling you Eric, that you guys have already made such a determination irrelevant to the issue of specified complexity being well-defined and empirically detectable. Indeed, Dr. Poland seems as intent as proving SC to be so, as Dr. Ken Miller was in regards to proving Behe's IC to be so.

Again, simpleton : 'specified complexity' and 'IC' may have definitions, but since EVOLUTION CAN PRODUCE BOTH OF THEM, neither is an indicator of intelligent design.

The truth remains that even this snip of your post I've quoted here, is an example of SC that's beyond naturalistic evolution as a causative agent. And yes, you did get a fuller explanation about how that's so from another source, so you can't blow it off anymore. You have no refutation for the SC in your quotation.

Evolution applies to systems that have imperfect replication and heritable variation; SINCE BLOGPOSTS ARE NOT LIVING THINGS, only a gibbering halfwit would claim that the use of language 'proves' intelligent design. Again, twit : you seem to have confused regularities of a living system with an externally imposed ruleset.

Why isn’t FL dumped to the BW every time he comes in here to stink up the place?
Here I am trying to respond to what posters are asking of me, and you're trying to interrupt THEIR conversations?? ****
What I said was that evolution can INCREASE specified complexity. That is not the same as saying that specified complexity is well-defined.
However, Diogenes, we've already seen that the concept of SC is well-defined, and your colleague Dr. Poland has already said that evolution can PRODUCE specified complexity, regardless of of what you said or not said. Like it or not, Diogenes, I've already provided you and readers with a clear definition and a clear example of Specified Complexity. In fact, I've not only provided a clear definition not only in my own words (based upon Dembski's 1999 lay-level book "Intelligent Design"), but a clear definition from ARN also.

Your 'definition' is nothing more than a silly-arsed, thinly-veiled Improbability Argument based on the stupid idea of their being One True Sequences. Since evolution is demographics and is NOT looking for anything in particular, such calculations are irrelevant. The example of an ATP-binding peptide arising from a random peptide library shows that 'specified complexity' can arise and increase (since you've defined 'specified complexity' as roughly the odds of a particular protein falling together all at once purely by chance). Since evolution IS NOT PURE CHANCE, calculations based on assuming it is are irrelevant.

And not only have I provided a clear example of SC from the human language communication system, but I've ALSO pointed to the same kind of language system phenomenon thing occurring in a science-journal-published example occurring in the scientific arena of Origin of Life. Clear definition, clear example, clear description.

Wrong on ALL FOUR COUNTS ! 1. The origin of life is NOT an example of language (no matter how many times you stamp your foot and scream otherwise). You have mistaken the evolved regularities of the systems for an externally imposed ruleset. 2, 3, and 4 : Your definition, examples and descriptions may be clear, but they show why ID is UTTERLY IRRELEVANT.

You say, "What I said was that evolution can INCREASE specified complexity." But I am telling you that: (1) SC is well-defined and empirically detectable (and since you're claiming that SC can be INCREASED via evolution, you're just helping to corroborate (1) along with Dr. Poland who says evolution can produce SC),

SC is not well defined as anything other than a silly, irrelevant 'calculation' of improbability based on the silly idea that evolution MUST find one specific target. Again, twit : the moment 'specified complexity' is defined, evolution can be shown to produce it. THUS THE PRESENCE OF 'SPECIFIED COMPLEXITY' IS NOT DIAGNOSTIC OF THE INTERVENTION OF ~~MAGICAL SKY PIXIES~~/'INTELLIGENT DESIGNERS'.

and (2) I'm saying that naturalistic evolution can NOT originate SC (and it can't produce IC either) from scratch. Specifically WRT specified complexity, if I ask you, "How can naturalistic evolution produce your posts or mine, how can naturalistic evolution produce that Genetic Algorithm Writing that Trevors and Abel wrote of, where it never existed before in the prebiotic world?", your ONLY answer is "I don't know at all" on both counts.

Too bad for you that reality-based scientists have SHOWN that SC and IC systems IN LIVING ORGANISMS can arise via known natural mechanisms. You seem fixated on the rather stupid idea that DNA possesses some sort of intrinsic language, then leaping to the silly conclusion that ~~Magical Sky Pixie~~/'Intelligent Designer' DIDIT !!!!1!!!!! 'specified complexity' can be generated by evolution because the ability to live long enough to reproduce is doing the 'specifying'. Organisms that don't do it very well tend to go extinct, while those that do a better job tend to become more common. End result : a LOT of 'specified complexity', or 'information' about how to thrive in the critter's environs. More posturing bafflegab :

You've been just ASSUMING that "Evolution Did It", because that's what the religion of evolution demands. But there's no support for that. Just as with your posts and mine, intelligent causation is the only known cause.

Wrong - we CONCLUDE 'evolution did it' because that is what the evidence shows; theistic outlook is of no relevance to the validity of evolution. For most BLOG POSTS (and generally things without heritable variation that DO NOT REPRODUCE), intelligent causation is a valid hypothesis as to how high levels of 'specified complexity' got there; for living things, NO (since evolution can produce and increase 'specified complexity'). You, for example, demonstrate that intelligence is not particularly required for writing blogs ...

I'm not trying to compute the value for SC for this or that, my only task has been to give a clear ;auyperson-level definition and description of SC and IC. That's been done. F

And your definition and descriptions of SC and IC can be produced by evolution; thus, there is no need to posit the intervention of ~~Magical Sky Pixies~~/'Intelligent Designers'.

FL · 21 February 2013

One more thing, Mr. Diogenes.

Looks like you are really obsessed with an arbitrary ad-hoc demand on YOUR part, (that computing SC is some sort of necessary "first step" to differentiating between design and non-design).

That's fine, but that's on you. There is nothing wrong, and nothing unscientific, with giving a qualitative description of how to differentiate between the two conditions.

Not to mention the fact that newspaper readers prefer the plain-English-please qualitative descriptions and definitions. Logarithm equations are fine, but there's a reason why you don't see them in your local newspaper. All you have to do is define and describe SC and IC in ordinary language, what people are used to.

Qualitative is okay here. You can get hysterical about it if you want to, but it won't change anything.

phhht · 21 February 2013

What's irrelevant about YOU EXPLAINING WHAT YOU CLAIM YOU KNOW? Your dodge is transparent, simple-minded, delusional sophistry, just like that of the man who insists that Lady Gaga is secretly in love with him. If you could say how to detect design, YOU WOULD DO SO. But you have not done so. You cannot do so. All you can do is to insist, flinging spittle, that you have too done so - but you have not. It's just like the vegesaurs. Anybody who is not a loony can see for himself that you have not said how to detect design, just by reading your posts. Your posts say only that it is possible, and provide no evidence whatever to back that up. I say you are a loony because of your obdurate denial of this reality, a reality that is evident to anyone who cares to look. There is nothing "beyond" reality except your delusional constructs, FL. You are an obsessive religious fanatic who not only cannot say how to detect design, but who cannot even tell the real from the imaginary. If it were possible to detect design, that would be world-shaking. It would make me doubt my atheism. But neither you nor anyone else can do it. You just insist you can because you are compelled to do so by your religious illness.

FL said:
We keep saying, we want you to tell us how to determine whether the following strings are designed
And I keep telling you Eric, that you guys have already made such a determination irrelevant to the issue of specified complexity being well-defined and empirically detectable. Indeed, Dr. Poland seems as intent as proving SC to be so, as Dr. Ken Miller was in regards to proving Behe's IC to be so. The truth remains that even this snip of your post I've quoted here, is an example of SC that's beyond naturalistic evolution as a causative agent. And yes, you did get a fuller explanation about how that's so from another source, so you can't blow it off anymore. You have no refutation for the SC in your quotation. ****
Why isn’t FL dumped to the BW every time he comes in here to stink up the place?
Here I am trying to respond to what posters are asking of me, and you're trying to interrupt THEIR conversations?? ****
What I said was that evolution can INCREASE specified complexity. That is not the same as saying that specified complexity is well-defined.
However, Diogenes, we've already seen that the concept of SC is well-defined, and your colleague Dr. Poland has already said that evolution can PRODUCE specified complexity, regardless of of what you said or not said. Like it or not, Diogenes, I've already provided you and readers with a clear definition and a clear example of Specified Complexity. In fact, I've not only provided a clear definition not only in my own words (based upon Dembski's 1999 lay-level book "Intelligent Design"), but a clear definition from ARN also. And not only have I provided a clear example of SC from the human language communication system, but I've ALSO pointed to the same kind of language system phenomenon thing occurring in a science-journal-published example occurring in the scientific arena of Origin of Life. Clear definition, clear example, clear description. You say, "What I said was that evolution can INCREASE specified complexity." But I am telling you that: (1) SC is well-defined and empirically detectable (and since you're claiming that SC can be INCREASED via evolution, you're just helping to corroborate (1) along with Dr. Poland who says evolution can produce SC), and (2) I'm saying that naturalistic evolution can NOT originate SC (and it can't produce IC either) from scratch. Specifically WRT specified complexity, if I ask you, "How can naturalistic evolution produce your posts or mine, how can naturalistic evolution produce that Genetic Algorithm Writing that Trevors and Abel wrote of, where it never existed before in the prebiotic world?", your ONLY answer is "I don't know at all" on both counts. You've been just ASSUMING that "Evolution Did It", because that's what the religion of evolution demands. But there's no support for that. Just as with your posts and mine, intelligent causation is the only known cause. I'm not trying to compute the value for SC for this or that, my only task has been to give a clear ;auyperson-level definition and description of SC and IC. That's been done. FL

phhht · 21 February 2013

FL said: SC is ... empirically detectable...

But you CANNOT SAY HOW TO EMPIRICALLY DETECT IT. You repeat this claim over and over as if it were true, but it is not. Nowhere - NOWHERE - in all your desperate, clouded, evasive, compulsive ejaculations, have you said how to do that. That's what I mean by denial of self-evident reality, FL. You're deluded.

diogeneslamp0 · 21 February 2013

FL has already been caught lying through his teeth at least once. FL told us he had a design detection algorithm. 1. Get a string. 2. Compute its SC. 3. Me stupid. Me no can compute SC. 4. Go on the internet and lie and pretend I have a design detection algorithm! What happened to your bullshit design detector, you lying fuck? Where'd it go, you lying fuck?

Hey, I know for a fact that I’m not trained nor qualified to do any such CSI computation… However… it honestly doesn’t mater at all whether you can or you can’t do one.

As I wrote before, and is more true now,

What a lying sack of shit! FL promised us a design detection algorithm. First step: compute SC. But, oops– FL can’t compute SC! No worries! FL now tells us “it honestly doesn’t mater at all whether you can or you can’t do an SC calculation!” Oh, when FL grandly announced he had a design detection algorithm, the ability to compute specified complexity was CRUCIAL, CRITICAL, RELEVANT, IMPORTANT! When we ask him to identify which of two simple, simple, simple, short strings is intelligently designed, NOW he tells us he never could detect design, but no probs gangstas, computing specified complexity is now IRRELEVANT, UNIMPORTANT, TRIVIAL! FUCK YOU, FL! COMPUTING SPECIFIED COMPLEXITY WASN’T “IRRELEVANT, UNIMPORTANT, TRIVIAL” WHEN YOU LIED TO US AND SAID YOU COULD DETECT DESIGN! Oh NO, computing SC only became “IRRELEVANT, UNIMPORTANT, TRIVIAL” after we caught you LYING about your bullshit “design detection algorithm” THAT DOESN’T EXIST!

Well you're too pig-ignorant to compute SC but we can, we did, we showed observed processes increase SC astronomically. So eat shit, choirfucker.

FL said: (2) I'm saying that naturalistic evolution can NOT originate SC

How the fuck would you know? You can't even handle times-ing you stupid choirfucking fascist! You're too pig-ignorant to compute SC but WE CAN, WE DID, we showed observed processes increase SC astronomically. Eat shit, choirfucker. Why should anyone believe a pig-ignorant choirfucker who can't compute SC, instead of we scientists, WE WHO CAN COMPUTE SC, AND WHO PROVED OVER AND OVER THAT EVOLUTION INCREASES SC ASTRONOMICALY? WE CAN COMPUTE SC, AND WE DID. YOU CANNOT COMPUTE SC, SO YOUR OPINION IS WORTH RAT-SHIT.

You've been just ASSUMING that "Evolution Did It"

How the fuck would you know? You can't even handle times-ing you dumb shit. YOU CANNOT COMPUTE SC. WE SCIENTISTS CAN COMPUTE SC, AND WE DID. YOU CANNOT COMPUTE SC, SO YOUR OPINION IS WORTH RAT-SHIT. You've been just ASSUMING "Evolution Didn't Do It" because your choirfucking religious authorities and hierophants tell you so. You believe them like a brainwashed mom in Jim Jones' compound. Here again is my calculation of SC. It proves you're lying. You think you can evade and Gish Gallop.

INCREASE IN SPECIFIED COMPLEXITY DUE TO OBSERVED EVOLUTIONARY PROCESSES: SC INCREASE = (SC After gene duplication) - (SC Before gene duplication) = [6000 - w * 17.93] - [3000 - w * 17.93] = 3000 More bits of SPECIFIED COMPLEXITY Motherfucker!

This calculation proves you're lying. WE SCIENTISTS CAN COMPUTE SC, AND WE DID. YOU CANNOT COMPUTE SC, SO YOUR OPINION IS WORTH RAT-SHIT.

co · 21 February 2013

****
Why isn’t FL dumped to the BW every time he comes in here to stink up the place?
Here I am trying to respond to what posters are asking of me, and you're trying to interrupt THEIR conversations?? ****

Yes. You're a troll. You lie, and get caught doing it repeatedly, and blithely carry on. You're childish and -- by this point -- boring. You being dumped to the BW wouldn't necessarily interrupt the conversations, but move them to a more appropriate place. It would limit the splash damage you're doing out here, trolling around. It's at least what I would prefer, but by no means am I much of an influence. So long as you stop lying, and start being interesting, I'll reverse my opinion on you. Thus far, the BW is where I think you belong.

eric · 21 February 2013

FL said:
We keep saying, we want you to tell us how to determine whether the following strings are designed
And I keep telling you Eric, that you guys have already made such a determination irrelevant to the issue of specified complexity being well-defined and empirically detectable.

The "SC" you've defined has none of the important properties you claim it does. What can be detected is a property that can be produced naturally. It doesn't require intelligence or design. So if you want to say "aha! You admit there is such a thing as SC" be my guest. But keep in mind that the SC you have defined provides absolutely no credible argument for design.

Like it or not, Diogenes, I've already provided you and readers with a clear definition and a clear example of Specified Complexity.

You keep saying its clear, but you don't actually show you can use it on novel examples. You only paste in canned examples someone else did. This indicates to me that it is not clear to you at all. If it was clear, you could apply it. If someone says "algrebra is clear to me" then I expect them to be able to do algebra, not just copy out someone else's solved problem. You cannot do design detection. You keep refusing to - even when we do the math for you and present you with the answer for you qualitative judgement. So IMO it is not clear to you at all.

(2) I'm saying that naturalistic evolution can NOT originate SC (and it can't produce IC either) from scratch.

Sure it can. According to your definition, this requires producing an arrangement of stuff into a recongizable pattern which is highly improbable to have occurred randomly. this contains a recognizable pattern which was extremely unlikely to occurr randomnly. And in fact past peoples did attribute it to design, at least colloquially.

Specifically WRT specified complexity, if I ask you, "How can naturalistic evolution produce your posts or mine...your ONLY answer is "I don't know at all" on both counts.

Pure baloney. If posts descended with modification, and if they underwent selection, then that would provide the how for how naturalistic evolution could produce them. The reason we don't believe evolution is responsible for them is (1) posts don't replicate themselves, (2) posts rarely mutate, (3) posts don't undergo any type of selection, nad (4) we have indpendent corroborating evidence that the source is a person.

I'm not trying to compute the value for SC for this or that, my only task has been to give a clear ;auyperson-level definition and description of SC and IC. That's been done.

Your definition and description of SC does not have the properties you claim it has. Its like you've claimed to know how to build a faster-than-light spaceship, and when someone asks you to describe how, you give them instructions for building a dinghy. You SC - the concept as you, FL, have defined it - does not have the properties you claim it has.

DS · 21 February 2013

co said:
****
Why isn’t FL dumped to the BW every time he comes in here to stink up the place?
Here I am trying to respond to what posters are asking of me, and you're trying to interrupt THEIR conversations?? ****
Yes. You're a troll. You lie, and get caught doing it repeatedly, and blithely carry on. You're childish and -- by this point -- boring. You being dumped to the BW wouldn't necessarily interrupt the conversations, but move them to a more appropriate place. It would limit the splash damage you're doing out here, trolling around. It's at least what I would prefer, but by no means am I much of an influence. So long as you stop lying, and start being interesting, I'll reverse my opinion on you. Thus far, the BW is where I think you belong.

Well he's discussing the topic of the thread. What was that again, oh yea, the Montana creationism bill. So I guess as long as he stays on topic... Wait a minute, he hasn't posted anything on topic in thirteen pages. Now I wonder why that is? I told you it was worthless to respond to the asshole. All he will do is lie, then lie about lying, then lie about lying about lying. All the while he chuckles and thinks about how much attention he is getting from really smart people. He must be really important for people to get so upset about little old him and his lies. Yea that's right, he's really an impotent person.

eric · 21 February 2013

FL said: There is nothing wrong, and nothing unscientific, with giving a qualitative description of how to differentiate between the two conditions.

Your qualitative description does not match your claims. The description is of something that can be produced naturally. You claim otherwise. Your claim is wrong if its based on that description. But worse, you keep asserting that things have SC while you tell us you can't actually follow your own procedure. For example, you claimed here that DNA and human language have SC. You claimed here again that language has SC. Now, on what do you base those assertions? Are you taking someone's word for it or do you, personally, detect SC in DNA strings and human language? Look, whatever process you used to detect design in DNA at 5:17pm three days ago, I want to know what that process is. Was it an appeal to authority? Did you jsut read someone else's assertion and say to yourself "that sounds right, I'll believe that." Or, did you take the negative log of the probability of something occurring randomly? What did YOU, FL, do, a mere three days ago, to arrive at the conclusion that DNA and language has SC?

Qualitative is okay here. You can get hysterical about it if you want to, but it won't change anything.

Qualitative vs. quantitative is somewhat of a red herring. You have claimed that DNA and human language have SC in them. I want you to tell me how you came to that determination. If it was qualitative, you can still tell me how. I will even help you out. "I looked at this string. I detected a regular repeating pattern, so I determined it had specificity. Then, step two, I looked at the large number of charcters in the string, and thought, that's too many to have assembled randomly. It is complex. Then, step three, I said, it has both S and C, so it must be designed." That is a qualitative determination. And if you can do that for DNA and human language, you can certainly do it for the much much smaller and easier problems that Diogenes and I have repeatedly asked to you analyze. Of course you and I both know the truth, don't we FL? You didn't do any such process at all, did you? You just read some cdesign proponentists assetion that there was SC in these things, and quoted it back. Your method isn't really 'determine specificity; determinne complexity, determine design.' Its 'fundie said it; I believe it; that settles it.'

DS · 21 February 2013

I would like to propose a new quantity - SSC - subjectively specified complexity. Only creationists can detect it. Only creationists can calculate it. How do they know it's real? They can see it whenever they need to.

eric · 21 February 2013

DS said: I would like to propose a new quantity - SSC - subjectively specified complexity. Only creationists can detect it. Only creationists can calculate it. How do they know it's real? They can see it whenever they need to.

Excellent. Yes, I'd say that what FL is detecting is SSC. "I can't measure it. You can't either. But I tells ya, its there."

prongs · 21 February 2013

diogeneslamp0 said to FL: {Very funny}

I laughed til I cried. It is so completely true. Like teaching partial differential equations to a donkey. Sad thing is, FL doesn't get it. He doesn't want to get it. He lives for responses like this, so he can be judgemental. Nevertheless, I also like eric's comment to FL:

"You cannot do design detection."

I have asked FL repeatedly, and politely, to explain why my quartz crystal is designed, according to my determination, but a snowflake is not designed according to Prometheist. I have told him he need only use words. I don't expect any math. He ignores me, because he has no idea, but also probably because I don't get upset and swear at him. In which case he'd respond but not answer. Such is FL. We know you well.

j. biggs · 21 February 2013

Hey Floyd, I have three more strings and I promise that using your criteria at least one is designed. Please use your non-mathematical method to determine which one(s) are designed and explain how you arrived at your conclusion.

DDURVIERSCOREENZEVENJAARGELEDENONZEVADERENBRACHTFORTHOPDITC
ONTINENTEENNIEUWENATIEONTWORPENINVRIJHEIDVZ

PRQLVOAVLEEZRTKTQEHSETEANONOSSOSPAISTROUXERAMFORTHNESTECONT
INENTEUMANOVANACAOCONCEBIDANALIBERDADEFEIE

IRBNKDOEORJYNVNDKSOWKRNTYIYIOMXCMSKSKNRKIFKFNDKSIOJGNMDKSKL
FJBZJVUEYQLOKIFUDYNWHRHFJMTIJKIQJNMWENYVHSK

diogeneslamp0 · 21 February 2013

DS said: I would like to propose a new quantity - SSC - subjectively specified complexity. Only creationists can detect it. Only creationists can calculate it. How do they know it's real? They can see it whenever they need to.

Yes, I used to call it "Info Shminfo." Nowadays I call it "Ooga Booga Information", or OBI for short.

Richard B. Hoppe · 21 February 2013

There's also the Sensuous Curmudgeon's "Oogity Boogity."

Let's see if we can keep this semi-family friendly, folks.

Henry J · 21 February 2013

Hey Floyd, I have three more strings and I promise that using your criteria at least one is designed. Please use your non-mathematical method to determine which one(s) are designed and explain how you arrived at your conclusion. DDURVIERSCOREENZEVENJAARGELEDENONZEVADERENBRACHTFORTHOPDITC ONTINENTEENNIEUWENATIEONTWORPENINVRIJHEIDVZ PRQLVOAVLEEZRTKTQEHSETEANONOSSOSPAISTROUXERAMFORTHNESTECONT INENTEUMANOVANACAOCONCEBIDANALIBERDADEFEIE IRBNKDOEORJYNVNDKSOWKRNTYIYIOMXCMSKSKNRKIFKFNDKSIOJGNMDKSKL FJBZJVUEYQLOKIFUDYNWHRHFJMTIJKIQJNMWENYVHSK

Those are too complicated. Maybe a shoe string, or string from a yo-yo. Or from a musical instrument. Henry

apokryltaros · 21 February 2013

Lying Liar For Jesus whined:
Again, evolution can indeed generate ‘specified complexity’ and ‘irreducible complexity’
So indeed you've made the claim that answers your own statement in the very same post:
...if you define your terms enough, evolution can be shown to answer the question.
Your first statement means absolutely that the terms are indeed "defined enough" according to your second statement. And thanks for the corroboration! FL

And yet, you still refuse to explain to us exactly how "evolution can not do it," while simultaneously refusing to explain to us exactly how Intelligent Design/Creationism can explain it. That is, beyond making lies, inane insults, totally evidence-less assertions, and childish threats of Hell.

phhht · 21 February 2013

j. biggs said: Hey Floyd, I have three more strings and I promise that using your criteria at least one is designed. Please use your non-mathematical method to determine which one(s) are designed and explain how you arrived at your conclusion. DDURVIERSCOREENZEVENJAARGELEDENONZEVADERENBRACHTFORTHOPDITC ONTINENTEENNIEUWENATIEONTWORPENINVRIJHEIDVZ PRQLVOAVLEEZRTKTQEHSETEANONOSSOSPAISTROUXERAMFORTHNESTECONT INENTEUMANOVANACAOCONCEBIDANALIBERDADEFEIE IRBNKDOEORJYNVNDKSOWKRNTYIYIOMXCMSKSKNRKIFKFNDKSIOJGNMDKSKL FJBZJVUEYQLOKIFUDYNWHRHFJMTIJKIQJNMWENYVHSK

It's no use. FL cannot tell the designed from the non-designed. Even if you give him all afternoon. Even if you let him look up the answers in the back of the book. He still can't do it. Oh, he'll claim he can do it, or at least somebody can, no really, there must be somebody who can say how to tell the designed from the non-designed. There must be somebody somewhere on the internet who knows how, who can say how, that FL can cut'n'paste into place, there MUST be! But there isn't. Poor old FL is huffin' and puffin' and chasin' the old invisible McGuffin, but he'll never catch it. It doesn't exist. He's just one more breathless old loony, panting after hallucination he thinks is real.

apokryltaros · 21 February 2013

phhht said: It's no use. FL cannot tell the designed from the non-designed. Even if you give him all afternoon. Even if you let him look up the answers in the back of the book. He still can't do it. Oh, he'll claim he can do it, or at least somebody can, no really, there must be somebody who can say how to tell the designed from the non-designed. There must be somebody somewhere on the internet who knows how, who can say how, that FL can cut'n'paste into place, there MUST be!\

Correction: FL will lie about having given us an example and explanation of having told the difference between design and "non-designed"

phhht · 22 February 2013

apokryltaros said:
phhht said: It's no use. FL cannot tell the designed from the non-designed. Even if you give him all afternoon. Even if you let him look up the answers in the back of the book. He still can't do it. Oh, he'll claim he can do it, or at least somebody can, no really, there must be somebody who can say how to tell the designed from the non-designed. There must be somebody somewhere on the internet who knows how, who can say how, that FL can cut'n'paste into place, there MUST be!\
Correction: FL will lie about having given us an example and explanation of having told the difference between design and "non-designed"

Oh yes, he'll lie, but he cannot do it. He cannot tell the designed from the non-designed, he cannot tell anyone else how to do it, he, like his gods, can't do shit. He DOES NOT KNOW HOW. He's like a kindergartner faced with his first computer. He knows some of the words, he kind of knows what he needs to know, but HE DOES NOT KNOW IT. He can talk about apps and bytes, but when his fingers hit the keys, it's nothing but noise. No objective test for design comes up, no matter how many pet monkeys he has to help him. And everybody can see it. And laugh.

fnxtr · 22 February 2013

Really, guys?

You're arguing with Floyd!?

Still?

eric · 22 February 2013

diogeneslamp0 said:
DS said: I would like to propose a new quantity - SSC - subjectively specified complexity. Only creationists can detect it. Only creationists can calculate it. How do they know it's real? They can see it whenever they need to.
Yes, I used to call it "Info Shminfo." Nowadays I call it "Ooga Booga Information", or OBI for short.

I propose Panda's Law (of design detection): "Any sufficiently irreproducible methodology is indistinguishable from appeal to authority."

FL · 22 February 2013

Really, guys? You’re arguing with Floyd!? Still?

They cain't help it, Mr. Fnxtr. If they don't keep repeating the same thing over and over, (especially after it's been answered already, they got nothing to say anymore. But I would like to discuss that article Dr. Poland brought up. Interesting article, really. Remember, Dr. Poland says that this article shows that evolution can produce specified complexity (and irreducible complexity for that matter.)

Nature. 2001 Apr 5;410(6829):715-8. Functional proteins from a random-sequence library. Keefe AD, Szostak JW. Abstract “Functional primordial proteins presumably originated from random sequences, but it is not known how frequently functional, or even folded, proteins occur in collections of random sequences. Here we have used in vitro selection of messenger RNA displayed proteins, in which each protein is covalently linked through its carboxy terminus to the 3’ end of its encoding mRNA, to sample a large number of distinct random sequences. Starting from a library of 6 x 10^12 proteins each containing 80 contiguous random amino acids, we selected functional proteins by enriching for those that bind to ATP. This selection yielded four new ATP-binding proteins that appear to be unrelated to each other or to anything found in the current databases of biological proteins. The frequency of occurrence of functional proteins in random-sequence libraries appears to be similar to that observed for equivalent RNA libraries.”

**** Okay, so what is that article saying? You probably already guessed it from the highlighted hints. Dr. Poland's article isn't a display of naturalistic evolution at all. This thing is chock full of intelligent design -- or as Thaxton Bradley and Olson would less charitably put it, Investigator Interference. This is NOT naturalistic evolution producing specified complexity or irreducible complexity. This is INTELLIGENT HUMANS doing INTELLIGENT DESIGN with goal-directness, that is teleology (which evolution is not supposed to have). Here's a summary of their 2001 gig from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute:

Starting with a pool of 400 trillion random DNA sequences, the researchers first removed those DNA sequences that contained stop codons that would otherwise halt protein synthesis. They next manipulated the library to yield DNA sequences that would yield proteins that were 80 amino acids long—a length that is sufficient to produce a protein that can fold into a stable three-dimensional shape. Keefe and Szostak then produced from the DNA sequences the corresponding messenger RNA (mRNA)—the molecule that carries genetic information from DNA to the protein-making machinery. They engineered these mRNA segments in a way that would ensure that the proteins produced would remain attached to their mRNAs. http://www.hhmi.org/news/pdf/szostak.pdf

This is NOT naturalistic evolution producing specified complexity or irreducible complexity. This is INTELLIGENT HUMANS doing INTELLIGENT DESIGN. Again, here's how Biology News described the 2001 thing:

Jack Szostak and Anthony Keefe first made the parental protein in 2001. To achieve their feat, they STACKED THE ODDS of finding just one or two new proteins and generated a library of random amino acid sequences so vast — 400 trillion — that it dwarfs the number of items in the entire Library of Congress (134 million). (emphasis mine on "stacked the odds".) They started with a small protein stretch 80 amino acids long. This basic protein segment acts as a protein scaffold that can be selected for the ability to strongly clutch its target molecule, ATP.

And, in addition to all that Intelligent Design by evolutionists Szostak and Keefe, the two evolutionists uncovered a .BIG problem at the end of it all, which clearly messes up Dr. Poland's claim of "Evolution-Did-It" (on top of the fact that naturalistic evolution, with no intelligent intervention, did NOT do what Dr. Poland said it did.

There was only one problem, the parental protein could bind ATP, but it wasn’t very stable without it. "It turns out that protein stability is a major problem in biology," said (John) Chaput. "As many as half of the 30,000 genes discovered from the human genome project contain proteins that we really don’t know what their structure is or whether or not they would be stable. "So for our (2007 study with Szostak, six years after the 2001 gig that Dr. Poland has cited) goal, we wanted to learn more about the evolution of protein folding and stability." http://www.biologynews.net/archives/2007/05/23/a_new_wrinkle_in_evolution_manmade_proteins.html

**** So there you have it. "Evolution in a Test Tube", heh heh. Just like Ken Miller's shoutin' Evolution Hallelujah over Barry Hall's apparent defeat of Behe's Irreducible Complexity, only to discover a bootleg bottle of Intelligent Intervention (which brand? IPTG, of course!). Any time a person mentions a Test Tube, you better go check it out because somebody just might have -- what was that one term? -- ENGINEERED something instead of relying on unguided evolution alone. At any rate, Dr. Poland's example is now defeated on the counts mentioned above. FL

eric · 22 February 2013

FL said: But I would like to discuss that article Dr. Poland brought up.

Of course you would. It distracts from the fact that in the last four days, you have posted multiple messages saying you know that DNA and human language contains SC, and then posted other messages saying you don't know how to calculate the SC of anything. Which tells me your earlier claim is just baloney. You don't know these things have SC because you can't figure out what has SC and what doesn't. You also don't know whether a natural process can increase SC because you can't calculate whether the SC of some product is higher than the SC of the reactants. What's really going on here is that you are cutting and pasting answers from someone else's commentary with no real understing of what they are saying or what it means.

PA Poland · 22 February 2013

FL said:
Really, guys? You’re arguing with Floyd!? Still?
They cain't help it, Mr. Fnxtr. If they don't keep repeating the same thing over and over, (especially after it's been answered already, they got nothing to say anymore. But I would like to discuss that article Dr. Poland brought up. Interesting article, really. Remember, Dr. Poland says that this article shows that evolution can produce specified complexity (and irreducible complexity for that matter.)
Nature. 2001 Apr 5;410(6829):715-8. Functional proteins from a random-sequence library. Keefe AD, Szostak JW. Abstract “Functional primordial proteins presumably originated from random sequences, but it is not known how frequently functional, or even folded, proteins occur in collections of random sequences. Here we have used in vitro selection of messenger RNA displayed proteins, in which each protein is covalently linked through its carboxy terminus to the 3’ end of its encoding mRNA, to sample a large number of distinct random sequences. Starting from a library of 6 x 10^12 proteins each containing 80 contiguous random amino acids, we selected functional proteins by enriching for those that bind to ATP. This selection yielded four new ATP-binding proteins that appear to be unrelated to each other or to anything found in the current databases of biological proteins. The frequency of occurrence of functional proteins in random-sequence libraries appears to be similar to that observed for equivalent RNA libraries.”
**** Okay, so what is that article saying? You probably already guessed it from the highlighted hints. Dr. Poland's article isn't a display of naturalistic evolution at all. This thing is chock full of intelligent design -- or as Thaxton Bradley and Olson would less charitably put it, Investigator Interference.

Wow - you ARE a festering f*ckwit, aren't you FL ? The 'investigator interference' was NOTHING BUT SETTING UP THE CONDITIONS SO THAT ** IF ** A PROTEIN WITH THE FUNCTION UNDER INVESTIGATION COULD ARISE, THEY COULD DETECT IT ! After all, by IDiot numerology, the 'odds' of a functional protein arising AT ALL would be on the order of 1 in 20^80. They got resuls at around 1 in 10^15. About 90+ orders of magnitude BETTER than expected ! You seem to be under the common delusion that ANYTHING done in a lab is magically different than what can happen in nature. This is, of course, a spectacularly STUPID idea, for if it were true, THERE WOULD BE NO POINT IN DOING LAB EXPERIMENTS TO TEST ANYTHING AT ALL !

This is NOT naturalistic evolution producing specified complexity or irreducible complexity. This is INTELLIGENT HUMANS doing INTELLIGENT DESIGN with goal-directness, that is teleology (which evolution is not supposed to have).

Again, simpleton : THEY ONLY ARRANGED CONDITIONS SO THAT ** IF ** A PROTEIN WITH A SELECTABLE FUNCTION AROSE, THEY COULD CAPTURE IT. There was no designing. In nature, if having a protein with a selectable function granted a reproductive advantage, critters with that sequence would become more common in the population (at the expense of the less effective). End result - just a few, very effective proteins. Again, buffoon : 'specified complexity' is a RESULT of multiple rounds of selection ('artificial' or 'natural' is IRRELEVANT in this case).

Here's a summary of their 2001 gig from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute:
Starting with a pool of 400 trillion random DNA sequences, the researchers first removed those DNA sequences that contained stop codons that would otherwise halt protein synthesis. They next manipulated the library to yield DNA sequences that would yield proteins that were 80 amino acids long—a length that is sufficient to produce a protein that can fold into a stable three-dimensional shape. Keefe and Szostak then produced from the DNA sequences the corresponding messenger RNA (mRNA)—the molecule that carries genetic information from DNA to the protein-making machinery. They engineered these mRNA segments in a way that would ensure that the proteins produced would remain attached to their mRNAs. http://www.hhmi.org/news/pdf/szostak.pdf
This is NOT naturalistic evolution producing specified complexity or irreducible complexity. This is INTELLIGENT HUMANS doing INTELLIGENT DESIGN.

Again, twit : THEY DID NOT DESIGN THE PROTEINS. They merely arranged conditions so that ** IF ** a protein with selectable functions could arise, they could detect it. Again, blatherskite : by YOUR 'calculations', the 'odds' of the experiment EVEN WORKING would be 1 in 20^80. REALITY SHOWS THAT SUCH CALCULATIONS ARE WRONG ! What you call 'specified complexity' can indeed be generated and increased by multiple rounds of variation filtered by selection. The reason they stuck the mRNA onto the end of the protein WAS SO THEY COULD DIRECTLY CLONE THE mRNA ! As there is no reverse translase (an enzyme that converts an amino acid string into an mRNA), and only the protein had function, they needed a way to keep the mRNA with the protein. THAT FACT IN NO WAY HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER OR NOT THE PROTEIN PART COULD BIND ! You have no idea of what the experiment was about, so you're just farting out facts you can't understand, assuming everyone is as willfully stupid as you are.

Again, here's how Biology News described the 2001 thing:
Jack Szostak and Anthony Keefe first made the parental protein in 2001. To achieve their feat, they STACKED THE ODDS of finding just one or two new proteins and generated a library of random amino acid sequences so vast — 400 trillion — that it dwarfs the number of items in the entire Library of Congress (134 million). (emphasis mine on "stacked the odds".) They started with a small protein stretch 80 amino acids long. This basic protein segment acts as a protein scaffold that can be selected for the ability to strongly clutch its target molecule, ATP.
And, in addition to all that Intelligent Design by evolutionists Szostak and Keefe, the two evolutionists uncovered a .BIG problem at the end of it all, which clearly messes up Dr. Poland's claim of "Evolution-Did-It" (on top of the fact that naturalistic evolution, with no intelligent intervention, did NOT do what Dr. Poland said it did.
There was only one problem, the parental protein could bind ATP, but it wasn’t very stable without it. "It turns out that protein stability is a major problem in biology," said (John) Chaput. "As many as half of the 30,000 genes discovered from the human genome project contain proteins that we really don’t know what their structure is or whether or not they would be stable. "So for our (2007 study with Szostak, six years after the 2001 gig that Dr. Poland has cited) goal, we wanted to learn more about the evolution of protein folding and stability." http://www.biologynews.net/archives/2007/05/23/a_new_wrinkle_in_evolution_manmade_proteins.html
**** So there you have it. "Evolution in a Test Tube", heh heh. Just like Ken Miller's shoutin' Evolution Hallelujah over Barry Hall's apparent defeat of Behe's Irreducible Complexity, only to discover a bootleg bottle of Intelligent Intervention (which brand? IPTG, of course!).

You seem to have this pathological need to demonstrate just how frecking STUPID you are. The 'parental protein' - one of the first in the initial pool - could bind ATP (which is what they were selecting FOR); that it IMPROVED binding and stability after multiple rounds of mutation and selection shows that evolution can indeed increase 'specified complexity', and puts the lie to the silly idea that 'mutations are ALWAYS harmful !!!' Again, simpleton : by YOUR 'calculations', the odds of the experiment even working would be 1 in 20^80. It worked at 1 in 10^12. About 90+ orders of magnitude better. No flatulating about experimental conditions you OBVIOUSLY know nothing about will change that. As for

"It turns out that protein stability is a major problem in biology," said (John) Chaput. "As many as half of the 30,000 genes discovered from the human genome project contain proteins that we really don’t know what their structure is or whether or not they would be stable"

- THOSE PROTEINS EXIST IN THE HUMAN GENOME ! Trying to determine the exact structure of a protein based SOLELY on its amino acid sequence is a daunting task - computers to this day can only make really good approximations. So not knowing the exact structure of a protein THAT EXISTS is not really news. And the whole quote is IRRELEVANT to the evasion you are attempting.

Any time a person mentions a Test Tube, you better go check it out because somebody just might have -- what was that one term? -- ENGINEERED something instead of relying on unguided evolution alone. At any rate, Dr. Poland's example is now defeated on the counts mentioned above.

Only in your fetid imagination Frantic Loon. Again, simpleton : the only thing the researchers did was set up conditions so that ** IF ** the protein with the properties they were looking for arose, they could find it. THEY DID NOT DESIGN ANYTHING; in fact, they didn't KNOW WHAT THE SEQUENCE OF THE PROTEINS WERE UNTIL THEY CLONED THEM ! These NOVEL proteins were zinc-finger proteins - AND NO KNOWN ATP BINDING PROTEIN IN THEIR DATABASE WAS A ZINC FINGER PROTEIN. Had they designed the protein, they would have used something from the database. Evolution has a 'guide' - life long enough to reproduce. It is a very short term 'goal', but since selection is NOT RANDOM, it works. Mutations generate variations (the creative part), while selection filters out the worst performers. End result after many generations of mutation/selection - some very effective variants. If you are incapable/unwilling to understand a concept THAT simple, you have no business blubbering against evolution. You seem to have the ridiculous idea that lab experiments are somehow magically DIFFERENT than what can happen in nature. Which is a STUPID idea, for if lab experiments had no relation to what could happen in nature, THERE WOULD BE NO POINT IN DOING THE EXPERIMENTS !

DS · 22 February 2013

It's no use. his ears are plugged and there is nothing between them. He will say any damn thing he wants just to get a reaction, no matter how stupid, self contradictory or divorced form reality. Arguing with him is like arguing with soup, it never learns anything. Don't waste your time on the emotionally exhausted and morally bankrupt.

FL · 22 February 2013

Which tells me your earlier claim is just baloney.

Or maybe it says that the science teachers told me about working with qualitative and quantitative descriptions (as part of doing science) in *my* science classes -- but some how FORGOT to give you the same explanation in *your* science classes. FL

PA Poland · 22 February 2013

DS said: It's no use. his ears are plugged and there is nothing between them. He will say any damn thing he wants just to get a reaction, no matter how stupid, self contradictory or divorced form reality. Arguing with him is like arguing with soup, it never learns anything. Don't waste your time on the emotionally exhausted and morally bankrupt.

Oh, I know all that. I'm just using him like a punching bag to sharpen up my rhetoric. And I was doing some bacterial transformations and had some time to kill before the heat shock, so why not slap a vainglorious buffoon around a bit ? I find it hilariously funny that he actually 'thinks' he debunked anything with his bout of explosive logorrhea; it may be quite 'interesting' to see how he evades. Will it be a picture of barbeque sauce ? Threats of eternal damnation ? Bible blubbering ? Or something even less relevant ?

DS · 22 February 2013

PA Poland said:
DS said: It's no use. his ears are plugged and there is nothing between them. He will say any damn thing he wants just to get a reaction, no matter how stupid, self contradictory or divorced form reality. Arguing with him is like arguing with soup, it never learns anything. Don't waste your time on the emotionally exhausted and morally bankrupt.
Oh, I know all that. I'm just using him like a punching bag to sharpen up my rhetoric. And I was doing some bacterial transformations and had some time to kill before the heat shock, so why not slap a vainglorious buffoon around a bit ? I find it hilariously funny that he actually 'thinks' he debunked anything with his bout of explosive logorrhea; it may be quite 'interesting' to see how he evades. Will it be a picture of barbeque sauce ? Threats of eternal damnation ? Bible blubbering ? Or something even less relevant ?

Well as long as you are amused. Good luck with the transformations.

phhht · 22 February 2013

eric said:
FL said: But I would like to discuss that article Dr. Poland brought up.
Of course you would. It distracts from the fact that in the last four days, you have posted multiple messages saying you know that DNA and human language contains SC, and then posted other messages saying you don't know how to calculate the SC of anything. Which tells me your earlier claim is just baloney. You don't know these things have SC because you can't figure out what has SC and what doesn't. You also don't know whether a natural process can increase SC because you can't calculate whether the SC of some product is higher than the SC of the reactants. What's really going on here is that you are cutting and pasting answers from someone else's commentary with no real understing of what they are saying or what it means.

Yup. It's FL's old trick of dodge 'em, duck 'em, got no answer so fuck 'em.

FL · 22 February 2013

...evolution can indeed increase ‘specified complexity'

But, as we have seen here from your 2001 article, that claimed "increase" happens ONLY if intelligent humans "STACK the odds", "MANIPULATE the library", (and btw, that library itself was a human-generated creation), and "ENGINEER the mRNA segments" as Szostak and Keefe did. Dr. Poland, that kind of stuff is NOT naturalistic evolution any more than DeKalb Corporation intelligently manipulating and genetically engineering the best Corn on the Cob. A statement in a recent Evolution News & Views story, explains why you're wrong (or more specifically, why your 2001 article clearly FAILED to support your "evolution can produce SC and IC" claim):

Artificial selection implies intelligent minds selecting roses, cattle, dogs or any other living organisms for a "desired function." It doesn't matter if the intelligent agent works by creating a random pool to select from, or outlines a carefully planned sequence of rational steps: selection by a mind for a purpose is intelligent design.

And that's it right there. That paragraph describes the 2001 Szostak and Keefe article to a primordial T. Artificial selection. Intelligent design. Not evolution. Please understand, I'm not trying to be overly argumentative. It's just that I'm taking this thread seriously, and so (despite real-life delays) I wanted to be sure that I had given you an answer to your 2001 article. But it seems so clear now that your article doesn't work for what you're claiming. You gave us a 2001 journal article about ARTIFICIAL SELECTION, an article about intelligent design being performed by intelligent evolutionists. And even that effort uncovered a big protein problem by the time the experiment was done, which is another roadblock for naturalistic evolution. FL

phhht · 22 February 2013

FL said:
...evolution can indeed increase ‘specified complexity'

So FL, I take it you concede that you cannot say how to distinguish the designed from the non-designed. I take it that you cannot tell the difference in any way at all, including looking. I take it that your claims to the contrary are based on your hallucinations, just like your claims of TV evidence for miraculous healing, just like your claims of Biblical support for vegesaurs and non-living plants, just like your claim that the Bible says Jesus was the curtain-ripper, just like your sicko psycho threats of eternal torture. None of your contentions are based on evidence, are they, FL. They're all based on your delusional conviction that gods exist. Of course, you haven't got a single shred of evidence for that delusion, either. You cannot say why you are so certain gods exist; you just are. And since gods don't exist, all your fulminations about evil evolution and the great designer in the ether and the evils of homosexuality and in fact, everything else you have ever posted here. See FL, nobody here believes a word you say, because your looniness is plain to everyone. Why should anybody believe you? Because of your repetitions? Your incredulity? Your denial? How's Lady Gaga, by the way?

phhht · 22 February 2013

phhht said: And since gods don't exist, all your fulminations about evil evolution and the great designer in the ether and the evils of homosexuality and in fact, everything else you have ever posted here...

Add, "are futile, empty, and false."

FL · 22 February 2013

(Dr. Poland) Mutations generate variations (the creative part), while selection filters out the worst performers.

I know, I know, that's the usual standard bargain-basement sales-pitch for "Evolution-Did-It." Therefore (and this is for Phhht because I know DS wouldn't dare tackle it) here's my challenge to that: Take Dr. Poland's little sales-pitch there, and please explain how the very first ATP nano-motor, (an excellent example of Irreducible Complexity and Intelligent Design), originated and started working, the whole system all at once, via prebiotic-evolution and selection, from scratch (nonliving materials or chemical). (With no outside intelligent intervention at all.) My guess is that you cannot explain, you simply don't know. You ASSUME "evolution did it" but you have no basis for your assumption on this one. The ATP nano-motor defies you and your religion of evolution. Szostak and Keefe can't explain it either, but more importantly for this forum, YOU can't do it. Not even the good Dr. Poland can explain it (watch and see!). Your own ATP inside your cells, refutes you. Intelligent Design is your own rational choice. **** The scientific arena of Origin-Of-Life (which appears in both the high school biology textbooks and the university biology textbooks, right near the chapters on biological evolution), is an excellent and wide-open arena in which to show the general public that Specified Complexity and Irreducible Complexity: 1) plainly exist, 2) are well-defined and empirically detectable 3) cannot be explained by prebiotic nor postbiotic evolution. 4) leaving only the amazing hypothesis of Intelligent Design, which those who are rational and pro-science will accept as part of their body of scientific and biological knowledge. FL

PA Poland · 22 February 2013

FL said:
...evolution can indeed increase ‘specified complexity'
But, as we have seen here from your 2001 article, that claimed "increase" happens ONLY if intelligent humans "STACK the odds", "MANIPULATE the library", (and btw, that library itself was a human-generated creation), and "ENGINEER the mRNA segments" as Szostak and Keefe did.

And again, you chiromaniacal gongoozler, THEY DID NOT DESIGN THE FINAL PROTEIN. All they did was arrange conditions so that ** IF ** a protein with the qualities they were selecting for arose, they could find it. They 'manipulated the library' TO ADJUST FOR SIZE, NOT SPECIFIC SEQUENCE (which WOULD be an example of 'investigator interference' and 'intelligent design'). That the library was a human creation is IRRELEVANT - again : by IDiot numerology, the 'odds' that a protein with a selectable function could arise AT ALL was 1 in 20^80. (about 1 in 10^104) Szostak got results at 1 in 10^12. Pretty much demonstrates that IDiot numerology is irrelevant, AND that 'specified complexity' is easy to create and generate. Again, twit : they engineered the mRNA to stick on the ends of the proteins produced so they could clone them. This was a technical trick to make cloning easier and is NOT an example of designing the final protein.

Dr. Poland, that kind of stuff is NOT naturalistic evolution any more than DeKalb Corporation intelligently manipulating and genetically engineering the best Corn on the Cob.

But it does demonstrate the FACT that the process of evolution can indeed create and increase 'specified complexity', since that requires selection; whether it is 'artificial' or 'natural' is IRRELEVANT. For example, the ability to digest atrazine (an irreducibly complex system of 3 different enzymes) EVOLVED NATURALLY with no human intervention driving it. Again, simpleton : by IDiot numerology, Keefe and Szostak's experiment SHOULD NOT HAVE WORKED ! The 'odds' of a protein with selectable function was 1 in 20^80 (or 1 in 10^104), and they only samples 6 x 10^12 colonies. Which is 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 % of the potential sequence space.

A statement in a recent Evolution News & Views story, explains why you're wrong (or more specifically, why your 2001 article clearly FAILED to support your "evolution can produce SC and IC" claim):
Artificial selection implies intelligent minds selecting roses, cattle, dogs or any other living organisms for a "desired function." It doesn't matter if the intelligent agent works by creating a random pool to select from, or outlines a carefully planned sequence of rational steps: selection by a mind for a purpose is intelligent design.
And that's it right there. That paragraph describes the 2001 Szostak and Keefe article to a primordial T. Artificial selection. Intelligent design. Not evolution.

Wrong yet again twit, for there is no magical difference between 'artificial' and 'natural' selection other than speed. In nature, a mutation that grants an advantage tends to become more common; it is relative fitness that is doing the selecting in this case. Thus, 'specified complexity' and arise and increase as long as there is selection (artificial, natural or otherwise).

Please understand, I'm not trying to be overly argumentative. It's just that I'm taking this thread seriously, and so (despite real-life delays) I wanted to be sure that I had given you an answer to your 2001 article. But it seems so clear now that your article doesn't work for what you're claiming.

Actually, it does indeed disprove IDiot numerolgy (the FACT they succeeded against such 'staggering odds' pretty much castrates such gibbering IDiocy). It does indeed show that SELECTION can create and increase 'specified complexity'; blubbering that 'the results are invalid because human researchers were involved !!' just shows how pathetic, desperate and ignorant you truly are. You seem to have this psychotic fixation of a false dichotomy : "If not chance, then ~~Magical Sky Pixie~~/'Intelligent Designer DIDIT !!!!"

You gave us a 2001 journal article about ARTIFICIAL SELECTION, an article about intelligent design being performed by intelligent evolutionists. And even that effort uncovered a big protein problem by the time the experiment was done, which is another roadblock for naturalistic evolution. FL

Nope - I presented an article that SHOWED THAT SELECTION CAN CREATE AND INCREASE 'SPECIFIED COMPLEXITY', and you've been vomiting up lame rationalizations ever since. There was no intelligent design used by Keefe and Szostak to design the protein - the set up conditions so that ** IF ** a protein with a selectable function arose, they could find it. WHICH function they were looking for was arbitrary - they used ATP binding because it was an easy assay. Researchers have generated DNA ligases and DNA polymerases from random sequence libraries using the same methodology - which should not work if IDiot numerology were valid. The methodology was 'generate random variation', then 'filer through selection', then repeat. Pretty much the same as what happens in real world evolution. In nature, relative fitness does the selecting; in lab/artificial selection, humans do the selecting. Therefore, SELECTION CAN OCCUR WITHOUT A MIND/INTELLIGENCE GUIDING IT. 'Specified complexity' is generated and increased via selection; thus whether the selection was 'natural' or 'artificial' is irrelevant. Nothing more than a crimson whale vomited out by desperate twits with a pathological need to see ~~Magical Sky Pixies~~/'Intelligent Designers' under every rock and behind every tree. By intellectually lazy poseurs who prefer to glorify their ignorance instead of reducing it. Again, simpleton : had they intelligently designed the protein, they would've used one already in the database. The results of the experiment were NOVEL structures. What 'big protein problem' ? Given your astronomical ignorance of real-world biology, what you 'think' is an unsurmountable problem is most likely nothing of the sort. BTW - which Barry Hall paper were you blubbering about earlier ? IPTG only lets lactose enter bacterial cells (it activates the lac operon to keep the transporter lacY present); if the bacteria lacked lacZ, they still couldn't digest it even if it was present. So how, EXACTLY, would it disqualify the formation of an IC system because of 'investigator inteference' ? Oh, THAT'S RIGHT - IT WOULDN'T ! You desperately need to believe it does so you have a gap to shove your ~~Magical Sky Pixie~~/'Intelligent Designer' into.

phhht · 22 February 2013

FL said: Specified Complexity and Irreducible Complexity 2) are... empirically detectable

Sure they are, loony, sure they are. It's just that neither you nor any of your fellow religious nuts can say how to empirically detect them. You just repeat, over and over and over and over, that they are. But they are not. There's no getting around that, FL. You're just making shit up again, just like you did with Unsolved Mysteries, just like you did with vegesaurs and non-living plants and Jesus the curtain-ripper and all the rest of the delusional nonsense you post here. Has Lady Gaga sent you any love-notes through the ninth dimension today, FL?

phhht · 22 February 2013

FL said: ... please explain how the very first ATP nano-motor, (an excellent example of Irreducible Complexity and Intelligent Design), originated and started working, the whole system all at once, via prebiotic-evolution and selection, from scratch (nonliving materials or chemical). My guess is that you cannot explain, you simply don't know.

You don't have to guess, loony. Remember this?

phhht said: Trying your damnedest to change the subject, aren't you, Flawd. C'mon. Flawd, we already know what a psycho sicko sadomasochist you are. We know that you get off on talking about eternal torture. Why don't you address my points instead? Could it be because you are incompetent?
phhht said:
FL said:
Science can and does provide such explanations.
Really? Well I'm waiting, (and Stanton's waiting too). You and I are being powered by ATP rotary nano-motors right this very minute. Where, naturalistically, did the very first one on Earth come from? There's NO evidence at all, (in fact not even any explanation period), that natural selection and evolution can build and activate one from pure non-living scratch. So, please provide us one of those "such explanations", Mr. Phhht?
I don't know how it happened, Flawd. I DO NOT KNOW HOW IT HAPPENED. Neither does anyone else. In particular, YOU DO NOT KNOW HOW IT HAPPENED, either. Were you there? All we know with good certainty is that IT DID HAPPEN. Once there was no life. Now there is life. QED. What science can and does provide are possible explanations for how life first arose. I DO NOT KNOW WHAT THEY ARE, because I am not an expert in origin-of-life biochemistry. You could, of course, consult experts and find out for yourself, but that's just not possible for a guy with your mental handicaps, is it, Flawd? And see, Flawd, I know your illness keeps you from grasping this fact, but not knowing, not being sure, DOES NOT MEAN THAT GODDIDIT. We know a great deal about organic chemistry and learn more every day, but suppose we NEVER have an explanation for how life could have arisen from non-life. SO FUCKING WHAT? THAT DOES NOT MEAN GODDIDIT, Flawd. That tired old god-of-the-gaps fallacy is pretty much all you've got when it comes to "rational" debate. What you need, Flawd, is EVIDENCE that goddidit.

Mike Elzinga · 22 February 2013

PA Poland said: Oh, I know all that. I'm just using him like a punching bag to sharpen up my rhetoric. And I was doing some bacterial transformations and had some time to kill before the heat shock, so why not slap a vainglorious buffoon around a bit ? I find it hilariously funny that he actually 'thinks' he debunked anything with his bout of explosive logorrhea; it may be quite 'interesting' to see how he evades. Will it be a picture of barbeque sauce ? Threats of eternal damnation ? Bible blubbering ? Or something even less relevant ?

If you would like to see a quantitative example of FL’s tactics, head over to the panels 132 through about 140 over on the Bathroom Wall where FL pretends to know all about entropy and thermodynamics. He is slapped down with a quantitative calculation that he claims he knows everything about but can’t do; just like his claims about CSI on this thread. He swaggers in all cocky on panel 132 in order to interrupt the conversation and gloat about a paper by Granville Sewell. He continues to taunt and get cocky until he finally has his ass handed to him. He doesn’t know how to read a formula, and has no idea how to do a set of calculations with it; but on panel 138 he claims he is using the same formula and says it is about disorder; and then he doubles down on that claim on panel 139. One of the onlookers by the name of Wareyn notes that FL keeps getting his ass handed to him while he keeps crowing victory. Wareyn is also content to see experts mopping the floor with FL. It’s a hilarious read. If you go back farther up the Bathroom Wall, you will find FL pompously proclaiming that the television program Unsolved Mysteries proves faith healing. FL is simply doing what all ID/creationists do; namely, trying get a free ride on the back of an expert. His sole purpose in life is to be THE turd in the punch bowl and simply piss people off while posturing as an expert himself. The same thing is going on over at the Unimaginably Dense website at the moment. Those IDiots are quivering, peeing their pants, and slobbering all over themselves in order to get a free ride on the back of Nick Matzke. It has mushroomed into four threads, with all the characters over there in pretentious posturing mode “refuting” Nick and crowing victory.

Just Bob · 22 February 2013

I was so hoping that the turd could tell me how to tell if my rough diamond was man-made (designed) or natural (undesigned), since design and SC and all that stuff are so obvious to him. (But I would have to read about it in someone else's post because I never read posts by bigoted turds.)

phhht · 22 February 2013

Just Bob said: I was so hoping that the turd could tell me how to tell if my rough diamond was man-made (designed) or natural (undesigned), since design and SC and all that stuff are so obvious to him. (But I would have to read about it in someone else's post because I never read posts by bigoted turds.)

It's no use. FL cannot tell the designed from the non-designed, much less explain how one would do that. He's nothing but a drooling bull-goose loony. Say FL, how do you get along with Lady Gaga's other lovers?

diogeneslamp0 · 22 February 2013

FL, you lied. We caught you. You said you had a design detection algorithm. You had none. You said evolution can never increase specified complexity. How the f--- would you know? You can't even handle times-ing you dumbass. YOU CANNOT COMPUTE SC. WE CAN COMPUTE SC, WE DID, WE SHOWED EVOLUTION INCREASES SC so your opinion is not worth a rat's ass. Now you try to change the subject and Gish gallop us! NO. First you admit that evolution increases specified complexity! Here is my calculation once again.

INCREASE IN SPECIFIED COMPLEXITY DUE TO OBSERVED EVOLUTIONARY PROCESSES: SC INCREASE = (SC After gene duplication) - (SC Before gene duplication) = [6000 - w * 17.93] - [3000 - w * 17.93] = 3000 More bits of SPECIFIED COMPLEXITY Motherfucker!

FL: Address this calculation as shown above. DO NOT CHANGE SUBJECT. DO NOT GISH GALLOP.

diogeneslamp0 · 22 February 2013

FL said: Dr. Poland's article isn't a display of naturalistic evolution at all. This thing is chock full of intelligent design... This is NOT naturalistic evolution producing specified complexity or irreducible complexity. This is INTELLIGENT HUMANS doing INTELLIGENT DESIGN... This is INTELLIGENT HUMANS doing INTELLIGENT DESIGN. ...Any time a person mentions a Test Tube, you better go check it out because somebody just might have -- what was that one term? -- ENGINEERED something instead of relying on unguided evolution alone.

ID creationists are amazingly audacious in trying to cite lab experiments of de novo protein evolution via Darwinian methods, as an example of "Intelligent Design"! Creationists have been pooping their pants for decades each time a study like that comes out, where new complexity and new function and new sequences and new INFORMATION are CREATED by Darwinian algorithms. Response: like many losers, they just change the rules. They redefine the scientific method itself. Here's creationist logic. Creationist: "Evolution is disproven, because new complexity and new function NEVER appear by random mutation and selection in lab experiments!" Scientist: "Here are a dozen experiments where new complexity and new function appeared by random mutation and selection in lab experiments." Creationist: "Evolution is disproven, because because new complexity and new function OFTEN appear by random mutation and selection in lab experiments! After all, all lab experiments are intelligently designed." Or as FL puts it:

FL said: Any time a person mentions a Test Tube, you better go check it out because somebody just might have -- what was that one term? -- ENGINEERED something instead of relying on unguided evolution alone.

Hmm. That's not what creationists said before the 1960's, before the time when scientists had many examples, in vitro, in silico, and in nature, of evolution of new complexity. The creationists have now totally redefined every part of the scientific method. In the 1950's, before we had so many examples of new complexity and new function evolving in lab experiments, creationists cited that to DISPROVE evolution. The creationist argument, up to about, say, late 1960's, was: "If something happens reproducibly in the lab, that proves it is a NATURAL process. Evolution of new complexity CANNOT be seen in lab experiments, therefore evolution is disproven." But starting from the 1970's onward, creationists started pooping their pants as scientists produced example after example of evolution of new complexity. The creationist argument then became: "If something happens reproducibly in the lab, that proves it is an INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED process. Evolution of new complexity CAN be seen in lab experiments, therefore evolution is disproven." Now the first step in this sort of experiment, typically, is to add a mutagen to increase the rate of totally random mutations. Explain to me, creationists, how increasing the rate of random mutations is "intelligent design"? So creationists demand the evolution be proven by: 1. an experiment done in a lab, while at the same time 2. NOT done in a lab. Yes, you creationists sure understand the scientific method!

stevaroni · 22 February 2013

FL said: "If something happens reproducibly in the lab, that proves it is a NATURAL process. Evolution of new complexity CANNOT be seen in lab experiments, therefore evolution is disproven."...... "If something happens reproducibly in the lab, that proves it is an INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED process. Evolution of new complexity CAN be seen in lab experiments, therefore evolution is disproven."

Um... so.. there are, supposedly, creationist scientists. Are you saying creationist scientists don't use test tubes because their experimental results would be invalid, or that they don't do experiments, because their results would be invalid? Or that creationist scientist don't exist because anything they might find would be automatically suspected to be... well... invalid? In which case, FL, you and I finally agree.

PA Poland · 22 February 2013

FL said:
(Dr. Poland) Mutations generate variations (the creative part), while selection filters out the worst performers.
I know, I know, that's the usual standard bargain-basement sales-pitch for "Evolution-Did-It."

I find that REALITY is the best sale-pitch. And now, FL will attempt the Blubbering Behe routine (ie, demand we account for every single electron in every single protein in every single cell for 4.5 billion years - then claim that since we can't provide an infinite level of detail, ~~Magical Sky Pixie~~/'Intelligent Designer' DIDIT !!!!) :

Therefore (and this is for Phhht because I know DS wouldn't dare tackle it) here's my challenge to that: Take Dr. Poland's little sales-pitch there, and please explain how the very first ATP nano-motor, (an excellent example of Irreducible Complexity and Intelligent Design), originated and started working, the whole system all at once, via prebiotic-evolution and selection, from scratch (nonliving materials or chemical). (With no outside intelligent intervention at all.) My guess is that you cannot explain, you simply don't know. You ASSUME "evolution did it" but you have no basis for your assumption on this one. The ATP nano-motor defies you and your religion of evolution.

Firstly, evolution is NOT a religion. Secondly, given the FACT that not everything was preserved along the way, the MOST any sane or rational person could request is a general mechanism. You, of course, want a perfect accounting of every single mutation. Thirdly, the 'requirement' that it fall together ALL AT ONCE is stupid, given the FACT that parts can be added to or subtracted from a system, and systems can change function. Fourthly, 'IC' systems have been shown to have evolved, so finding them does not support Magical Skymanism one bit. Fifthly, you keep confusing 'function' with 'purpose'. 'Function' is what something does; 'purpose' presumes an external entity had a need to be fulfilled. Sixthly, evolution enables us to make TESTABLE GUESSES about what happened in the distant past. "IF this system evolved, we'd EXPECT TO SEE features X, Y, and Z in other organisms if we look." Seventhly, we do not ASSUME evolution did it; we DEDUCE that 'evolution did it' via many KNOWN mechanisms. It is known that complex organic molecules can be generated via abiotic means - lipids capable of forming bubbles etc. Nucleotides can be created abiotically (seems the presence of some common minerals makes them more stable). Functional sequences can arise rather often; a proto-critter with a sequence that grants some advantage relative to others of its kind will tend to become more common; 'specific complexity' increases as a result of selection. Multimeric proteins are rather common, so the presence of them is not overly surprising. Part of the ATP synthase complex has great resemblance to DNA helicases - these proteins 'consume' nucleotide triphosphates for energy, and release a H+. Having some 'misplaced' to the cell membrane instead of hanging with DNA is not that hard to imagine - they may still retain their nucleotide hydrolase activity. (kinda what ATP synthase can do). Linking up to a different protein to form a novel structure merely requires formation of a chimeric gene - MANY ways to do that. With many different mutations going on in parallel, eventually one will provide a benefit. This FUNCTION will, billions of years later, be called its 'purpose' by willfully ignorant buffoons.

Szostak and Keefe can't explain it either, but more importantly for this forum, YOU can't do it. Not even the good Dr. Poland can explain it (watch and see!). Your own ATP inside your cells, refutes you. Intelligent Design is your own rational choice.

Only if you're an intellectually lazy simpleton with a pathological need to glorify your ignorance. The ONLY thing sane and rational people can deduce from 'evolution cannot explain X' is 'evolution cannot explain X'; the leap to 'therefore, Magical Sky Pixies DIDIT !!1!!1!!!' requires positive EVIDENCE that 1) Magical Sky Pixies actually exist, and 2) that the MSMs have the ABILITY to do what you assert they did. After all this time, IDiots, creationuts and theoloons can't even do Step 1 ! Initiating standard pompous bafflegab in 3.. 2.. 1.. :

The scientific arena of Origin-Of-Life (which appears in both the high school biology textbooks and the university biology textbooks, right near the chapters on biological evolution), is an excellent and wide-open arena in which to show the general public that Specified Complexity and Irreducible Complexity: 1) plainly exist, 2) are well-defined and empirically detectable

'Defined' maybe, but 'detectable' ? Only if you PRESUME that present systems were the target; given the FACT that evolution is demographics and isn't looking for anything in particular, such calculations are irrelevant. Again, twit : evolution can explain the presence of 'specified complexity' and the formation of 'irreducible complexity', so there is no need to invoke the unknowable whim of unknowable beings that somehow did something.

3) cannot be explained by prebiotic nor postbiotic evolution.

Been clearly false for quite some time.

4) leaving only the amazing hypothesis of Intelligent Design, which those who are rational and pro-science will accept as part of their body of scientific and biological knowledge.

That is the FALLACY of the false dichotomy : "Not evolution, therefore MY evidence-free Magical Skymanism !!" Rational and pro-science folk would accept intelligent design IF ONE OF YOU POSTURING TWITS WOULD PROVIDE EVIDENCE FOR IT. (and no, blubbering "I can't see how evolution could explain this, therefore, MSM DIDIT !!!!" doesn't count)

FL · 22 February 2013

Suppose, just for fun, I mentioned that NOBODY so far has even slightly demonstrated (nor come up with any articles) that supposed even halfway show that the specified complexity shown in the genetic algorithm writing mentioned by Trevors and Abel 2004, can come about via UNDIRECTED prebiotic evolution or selection, with no outside intervention or manipulation whatso ever.

Would you agree? Would you disagree? Would you remain silent and hope the issue go away? Hmm?

FL · 22 February 2013

Are you saying creationist scientists don’t use test tubes.

I didn't deny that either evolutionist scientists or creationist scientists used test tubes. Where did you get that from?

PA Poland · 22 February 2013

FL said: Suppose, just for fun, I mentioned that NOBODY so far has even slightly demonstrated (nor come up with any articles) that supposed even halfway show that the specified complexity shown in the genetic algorithm writing mentioned by Trevors and Abel 2004, can come about via UNDIRECTED prebiotic evolution or selection, with no outside intervention or manipulation whatso ever. Would you agree? Would you disagree? Would you remain silent and hope the issue go away? Hmm? FL

I would disagree, since people HAVE shown it can happen. Trevor and Abel know it can happen easily, but they do what you are doing - PRESUME there is some magical difference between 'artificial' and 'natural selection', and so handwave all those examples away. They PRESUME that an enzyme's FUNCTION is it PURPOSE (ie, assume someone created it for a reason). What they call FSC (for 'functional sequence complexity') arises from SELECTION; since selection (or differential reproductive success) does not require a mind guiding it, their rationalizations are (much like you) irrelevant and ridiculous.

FL · 22 February 2013

evolution can explain the presence of ‘specified complexity’ and the formation of ‘irreducible complexity’

Yes, we don't want to leave out the latter category from the discussion. Please explain how naturalistic evolution explains the formaation of the first ATP nano-motor, (which is irreducibly complex), where none has existed before. (Origin of Life category). http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/01/spectacular_new_1068501.html FL

phhht · 22 February 2013

FL said:
evolution can explain the presence of ‘specified complexity’ and the formation of ‘irreducible complexity’
Yes, we don't want to leave out the latter category from the discussion. Please explain how naturalistic evolution explains the formaation of the first ATP nano-motor, (which is irreducibly complex), where none has existed before. (Origin of Life category). http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/01/spectacular_new_1068501.html FL

Of course it can be explained, FL. Not by me, but it can be explained. But suppose it could not be explained. SO FUCKING WHAT?

FL · 22 February 2013

Trevor and Abel know it can happen easily, but they do what you are doing - PRESUME there is some magical difference between ‘artificial’ and ‘natural selection’, and so handwave all those examples away.

While I obviously disagree with words like "presume" and "handwave", your paragraph is worth noting, Dr. Poland, because it does identify an important central disagreement in the way we view and talk about things. There IS a difference between artificial selection and natural selection (and it's clear that I'm in line with scientists live Trevors and Abel and well-known ID sources like ENV), so I'm not just "Making It Up" as Phhht would claim. But you disagree with that claim and say it's really handwaving. Heh. But at least we're identifying a key area, common to both Trevors/Abel and Szostak/Keefe, where we at least clearly know the point we're centrally disagreeing about. And at least you agreed that SC is "defined", which still is better than some Pandas. FL

phhht · 22 February 2013

FL said: Suppose, just for fun, I mentioned that NOBODY so far has even slightly demonstrated (nor come up with any articles) that supposed even halfway show that design is empirically detectable. Would you agree? Would you disagree? Would you remain silent and hope the issue goes away? Hmm?

phhht · 22 February 2013

But you are just making it up, Flawd. Despite your utter incapacity to say how to empirically detect design, you continue to hallucinate that someone, somewhere, can do that. No matter that you've scoured the internets and come up dry. No matter that none of your fellow religious nuts can do it either. You simply insist, over and over and over and over again, that design is empirically detectable. That's not a common-or-garden, everyday misconception, Flawd. That's a persistent delusion.

FL said:
Trevor and Abel know it can happen easily, but they do what you are doing - PRESUME there is some magical difference between ‘artificial’ and ‘natural selection’, and so handwave all those examples away.
While I obviously disagree with words like "presume" and "handwave", your paragraph is worth noting, Dr. Poland, because it does identify an important central disagreement in the way we view and talk about things. There IS a difference between artificial selection and natural selection (and it's clear that I'm in line with scientists live Trevors and Abel and well-known ID sources like ENV), so I'm not just "Making It Up" as Phhht would claim. But you disagree with that claim and say it's really handwaving. Heh. But at least we're identifying a key area, common to both Trevors/Abel and Szostak/Keefe, where we at least clearly know the point we're centrally disagreeing about. And at least you agreed that SC is "defined", which still is better than some Pandas. FL

phhht · 22 February 2013

FL said:
Trevor and Abel know it can happen easily, but they do what you are doing - PRESUME there is some magical difference between ‘artificial’ and ‘natural selection’, and so handwave all those examples away.
While I obviously disagree with words like "presume" and "handwave", your paragraph is worth noting, Dr. Poland, because it does identify an important central disagreement in the way we view and talk about things. There IS a difference between artificial selection and natural selection (and it's clear that I'm in line with scientists live Trevors and Abel and well-known ID sources like ENV), so I'm not just "Making It Up" as Phhht would claim. But you disagree with that claim and say it's really handwaving. Heh. But at least we're identifying a key area, common to both Trevors/Abel and Szostak/Keefe, where we at least clearly know the point we're centrally disagreeing about. And at least you agreed that SC is "defined", which still is better than some Pandas. FL

FL · 22 February 2013

But suppose it could not be explained. SO FUCKING WHAT?

Good question. It works like this, Phhht: If a biological something displays Irreducible Complexity and naturalistic evolution/selection cannot account for it in some area, such as the first ATP nano-motor WRT Origin-Of-Life and the first living cell.... ....then, even if you say that "Evolution-Did-It" for everything else in the world, you MUST rationally concede that the Intelligent Design hypothesis is real, scientific, and most of all CONFIRMED for that one biological something. And if that one item appears on, say, page 252 of your biology classes's textbook, then you'll need to man up or woman up or "metro" up (eww!), and tell the school-kids the scientific truth, right there in class, that the biological something originated from INTELLIGENT DESIGN instead of naturalistic evolution. And that's the answer to your question, quite honestly. FL

phhht · 22 February 2013

No, Flawd, I don't have to concede any such thing. You've given NO REASON WHATSOEVER to think that you can empirically detect and measure design. You just say IF, IF, IF. With the help of an if, I can put Paris in a bottle. You're trying to defend your god-of-the-gaps argument with your bullshit pseudo-science. You CANNOT DO WHAT YOU SAY YOU CAN, Flawd. You're flat-out making shit up. And what's this biological crap? Aren't you supposed to be able to empirically detect and measure design in ANY object? Like, say, a pocket watch?

FL said:
But suppose it could not be explained. SO FUCKING WHAT?
Good question. It works like this, Phhht: If a biological something displays Irreducible Complexity and naturalistic evolution/selection cannot account for it in some area, such as the first ATP nano-motor WRT Origin-Of-Life and the first living cell.... ....then, even if you say that "Evolution-Did-It" for everything else in the world, you MUST rationally concede that the Intelligent Design hypothesis is real, scientific, and most of all CONFIRMED for that one biological something. And if that one item appears on, say, page 252 of your biology classes's textbook, then you'll need to man up or woman up or "metro" up (eww!), and tell the school-kids the scientific truth, right there in class, that the biological something originated from INTELLIGENT DESIGN instead of naturalistic evolution. And that's the answer to your question, quite honestly. FL

prongs · 22 February 2013

Gee FL, I'm sittin' here with my quartz crystal in my hand hopin' you'll give me your opinion about whether it's designed (like I think), or not (like Prometheist thinks).

Please help

N.O. (Need Opinion)

PA Poland · 22 February 2013

FL said:
Trevor and Abel know it can happen easily, but they do what you are doing - PRESUME there is some magical difference between ‘artificial’ and ‘natural selection’, and so handwave all those examples away.
While I obviously disagree with words like "presume" and "handwave", your paragraph is worth noting, Dr. Poland, because it does identify an important central disagreement in the way we view and talk about things.

Given how toxic REALITY is to you, it is no surprise you disagree with the entirely accurate words 'presume' and 'handwave'. Trevor and Abel MENTIONED ribozyme work, and actually stated it is not relevant because they are examples of artificial selection. Again : 'specified complexity' arises due to selection (differential reproductive success). What precisely is CAUSING the differential in reproductive success is not relevant to the FACT that the differential exists. Given the FACT that selection can exist without a mind to govern it, the "your example that guts my IDiotic ideas doesn't count because it is artificial selection !!!!" routine is thus shown to be silly.

There IS a difference between artificial selection and natural selection (and it's clear that I'm in line with scientists live Trevors and Abel and well-known ID sources like ENV), so I'm not just "Making It Up" as Phhht would claim. But you disagree with that claim and say it's really handwaving.

Would you care to STATE what the relevant difference between artificial and natural selection IS in this context ? Or don't you know of any, and are just bluffing ? Trevor and Abel KNOW about research that DEMONSTRATES that ribozymes can gain 'specified complexity' and improved function (which pretty much castrates their 'argument' that only intelligence can create FSC), but handwave it away with 'those are merely examples of artificial selection !!'

Heh. But at least we're identifying a key area, common to both Trevors/Abel and Szostak/Keefe, where we at least clearly know the point we're centrally disagreeing about. And at least you agreed that SC is "defined", which still is better than some Pandas. FL

There is a definition of 'specified complexity', but since it relies on the PRESUMPTION of a specific target, it is WORTHLESS in the general sense. Which is why no one can calculate the 'specified complexity' of a string of symbols unless they ASSUME it was the target. For example, the string 'youareabrainlessfool' has tremendous 'SC' if you ASSUME it could ONLY be generated by pulling tiles out of a Scrabble bag all at once purely by chance (the SC is roughly 1 in 26^20, or about 1 in 1.9 x 10^28). Since evolution is not pure chance, the calculation is meaningless for proteins, and DNA, and RNA, and, well, pretty much everything. Again : by your 'logic', if a raindrop hit you on the end of your nose, you could calculate the 'SC' of it by determining the odds of THAT specific raindrop hitting YOU specifically on that SPECIFIC spot at that SPECIFIC time. It would be a HUGE number. As large as it was utterly irrelevant. But you would conclude that since the result was so unlikely, that raindrop MUST have been guided by an Intelligent Rainer ! Here's an example to illustrate the utter foolishness of ID : Assume three methods of getting a royal flush from a deck of cards : Method 1 : pick five cards at random (ie, the Chance Method). Method 2 : sort through the deck and pick the needed cards (ie, the ID Method). Method 3 : keep the highest cards of the same suit, return the unwanted cards to the deck, shuffle it, then draw back to five cards. Repeat until you get a royal flush. (ie, the Evolution Method). I was alone for half an hour with a deck of cards before I left. Upon the table is a royal flush. Now - WHICH METHOD DID I USE TO GET IT ? Even if we both agree that I didn't use Method 1, you cannot tell just from the results whether I used Method 2 or Method 3. In order for ID to be of ANY relevance whatsoever, you MUST find a way to determine which method I used from just the results. Modern day IDiots look at pure improbability - they PRESUME that a particular protein or system had to fall together EXACTLY as it is now, all at once PURELY by chance, and calculate the 'odds' of that happening (even if they have to pull numbers out of their nether regions). Reality-based evolutionists know that life has a long history, and would not make such ridiculous assumptions.

eric · 22 February 2013

FL said: Suppose, just for fun, I mentioned that NOBODY so far has even slightly demonstrated (nor come up with any articles) that supposed even halfway show that the specified complexity shown in the genetic algorithm writing mentioned by Trevors and Abel 2004,

How do you know there is SC in there? Tell us your qualitative method if you can't do it quantitatively. You keep telling us things have SC but you never say how you decided that. Because you and I both know you just copy the writings of others and don't actually do any design detection. Isn't that right?

eric · 22 February 2013

FL said: If a biological something displays Irreducible Complexity and naturalistic evolution/selection cannot account for it in some area, such as the first ATP nano-motor WRT Origin-Of-Life and the first living cell.... ....then, even if you say that "Evolution-Did-It" for everything else in the world, you MUST rationally concede that the Intelligent Design hypothesis is real, scientific, and most of all CONFIRMED for that one biological something.

Bzzzt. False dichotomy. You might as well say that if Newtonian Mechanics can't explain Mercury's orbit, angels are confirmed. How'd that work out for Christians, FL?

And that's the answer to your question, quite honestly.

Its an answer courts found the flaw in 30 or so years ago. You guys just keep pretending nobody found it. You're like a Mel Brooks extra. Hump, what hump?

Malcolm · 22 February 2013

Floyd has finally managed to explain what the DI spends that massive research budget on; They are trying to develop a method of doing experiments that doesn't involve an input from the researchers. After all, according to that crap he linked to, any experimental design whatsoever thoroughly invalidates your experiment.

Mike Elzinga · 22 February 2013

From the abstract of the Trevors and Abel paper:

Where and how did the complex genetic instruction set programmed into DNA come into existence? The genetic set may have arisen elsewhere and was transported to the Earth. If not, it arose on the Earth, and became the genetic code in a previous lifeless, physical-chemical world. Even if RNA or DNA were inserted into a lifeless world, they would not contain any genetic instructions unless each nucleotide selection in the sequence was programmed for function. Even then, a predetermined communication system would have had to be in place for any message to be understood at the destination. Transcription and translation would not necessarily have been needed in an RNA world. Ribozymes could have accomplished some of the simpler functions of current protein enzymes. Templating of single RNA strands followed by retemplating back to a sense strand could have occurred. But this process does not explain the derivation of ‘‘sense’’ in any strand. ‘‘Sense’’ means algorithmic function achieved through sequences of certain decision-node switch-settings. These particular primary structures determine secondary and tertiary structures. Each sequence determines minimum-free-energy folding propensities, binding site specificity, and function. Minimal metabolism would be needed for cells to be capable of growth and division. All known metabolism is cybernetic - that is, it is programmatically and algorithmically organized and controlled.

The rest of the paper is just speculation and assertions. How are Trevors and Abel justified in dictating how the origin of life should have occurred; and why do they think “algorithms” push atoms and molecules around? How does an “algorithm” do that? I have mentioned this before, but ID/creationist trolls never get it because it requires the ability to do high school level chemistry/physics calculations. Here is a little exercise that makes a crucial point about the interactions among atoms and molecules. Scale up the charge-to-mass ratios of protons and electrons to macroscopic masses on the order of kilograms separated by distances on the order of meters. (I’m not going to tell FL how to do this because I already know he can’t.) Energies of interaction at the atomic/molecular level (e.g., between two protons) are on the order of electron volts or less, with separations on the order of nanometers. Scaling up to kilogram-sized masses separated by distances on the order of meters produces energies of interaction on the order of 10¹⁰ megatons of TNT. From just this little exercise, one can play around with different distances and charges to get estimates of scaled-up energies for molecular systems bound together by energies on the order of a few hundredths to a few tenths of an electron volt. No matter how you cut it, complex molecules interact strongly with their environment and within themselves. Those interactions are constrained by quantum mechanical rules and by constraints developing within their increasingly complex structures and with their environment. There is nothing “cybernetic” going on. Many complex structures are formed in energy cascades with strong gradients into environments where molecules anneal and become stable. This is all stuff one can get from high school chemistry and physics; something no ID/creationist has ever demonstrated he (almost always a testosterone-hyped he) has done. Imagine what one could learn if one went on to college or university; yet ID/creationists who have done so still don’t get it.

apokryltaros · 22 February 2013

Liar for Jesus whined:
But suppose it could not be explained. SO FUCKING WHAT?
Good question. It works like this, Phhht: If a biological something displays Irreducible Complexity and naturalistic evolution/selection cannot account for it in some area, such as the first ATP nano-motor WRT Origin-Of-Life and the first living cell.... ....then, even if you say that "Evolution-Did-It" for everything else in the world, you MUST rationally concede that the Intelligent Design hypothesis is real, scientific, and most of all CONFIRMED for that one biological something. And if that one item appears on, say, page 252 of your biology classes's textbook, then you'll need to man up or woman up or "metro" up (eww!), and tell the school-kids the scientific truth, right there in class, that the biological something originated from INTELLIGENT DESIGN instead of naturalistic evolution. And that's the answer to your question, quite honestly. FL

But the facts remain that A) Evolutionary Biology still is the only set of explanations to explain the diversities of life, B) no one has been able to explain how or why Intelligent Design, aka GODDIDIT, is supposed to be an explanation, let alone a scientific explanation magically superior to Evolutionary Biology, and C) FL, you do not know science, you are totally incapable of explaining anything (let alone honestly), and all of your posts, in this thread alone, clearly demonstrate that you have neither the skill, intelligence, stomach, honesty, or even desire to discuss anything scientific, as you're far too busy lying and taunting/insulting/threatening us because we are not stupid enough to believe your inane confabulations.

apokryltaros · 22 February 2013

Anyhow, as FL clearly demonstrates, all supporters of Intelligent Design are incapable of demonstrating why Intelligent Design is a science, incapable of demonstrating why or how Intelligent Design is supposed to be an explanation, and are only interested in having it taught in science classrooms so they can brainwash/lie to children on behalf of Jesus.

Dave Luckett · 22 February 2013

Have a look at this. This is how FL reasons:

If a biological something displays Irreducible Complexity and naturalistic evolution/selection cannot account for it in some area, such as the first ATP nano-motor WRT Origin-Of-Life and the first living cell.… .…then, even if you say that “Evolution-Did-It” for everything else in the world, you MUST rationally concede that the Intelligent Design hypothesis is real, scientific, and most of all CONFIRMED for that one biological something. And if that one item appears on, say, page 252 of your biology classes’s textbook, then you’ll need to man up or woman up or “metro” up (eww!), and tell the school-kids the scientific truth, right there in class, that the biological something originated from INTELLIGENT DESIGN instead of naturalistic evolution.

(Ellipses in the original.) IF something has the qualities FL mentions, one of which only FL can detect by using a method that he can't explain, and the other of which is demonstrably produced without intelligent intervention, and IF in every case the exact process by which this something was naturally produced is not known in perfect detail, THEN the hypothesis of intelligent design is confirmed (confirmed, yet! In caps, even) AND THAT MEANS that this hypothesis is "scientific truth" and must be taught "instead of naturalistic evolution". Not even "as well as". Instead of. To this shambolic parody of thought, he adds:

And that’s the answer to your question, quite honestly.

It's the last word that gets me. I mean, the rest of it is irrationality on steroids, but man, that "honestly" really is the last word.

Malcolm · 22 February 2013

I assume that Floyd is refering to ATP-synthase. If so, then the first living cell probably didn't have any.

Scott F · 23 February 2013

Mike Elzinga said: I have mentioned this before, but ID/creationist trolls never get it because it requires the ability to do high school level chemistry/physics calculations. Here is a little exercise that makes a crucial point about the interactions among atoms and molecules. Scale up the charge-to-mass ratios of protons and electrons to macroscopic masses on the order of kilograms separated by distances on the order of meters. (I’m not going to tell FL how to do this because I already know he can’t.) Energies of interaction at the atomic/molecular level (e.g., between two protons) are on the order of electron volts or less, with separations on the order of nanometers. Scaling up to kilogram-sized masses separated by distances on the order of meters produces energies of interaction on the order of 10¹⁰ megatons of TNT. From just this little exercise, one can play around with different distances and charges to get estimates of scaled-up energies for molecular systems bound together by energies on the order of a few hundredths to a few tenths of an electron volt. No matter how you cut it, complex molecules interact strongly with their environment and within themselves. Those interactions are constrained by quantum mechanical rules and by constraints developing within their increasingly complex structures and with their environment. There is nothing “cybernetic” going on. Many complex structures are formed in energy cascades with strong gradients into environments where molecules anneal and become stable. This is all stuff one can get from high school chemistry and physics; something no ID/creationist has ever demonstrated he (almost always a testosterone-hyped he) has done. Imagine what one could learn if one went on to college or university; yet ID/creationists who have done so still don’t get it.

Hi Mike. Yes, you have brought this up before, and I'm still not sure what point you're trying to make. I know I could have done these calculations back in college, but that was some time ago. I'll assume you're right, or at least in the ball-park. But what's the point of the scaling-up part? Is it, as you say, just to put the relative energies and masses of the atomic particles into perspective? If so, going from one extreme at the sub-molecular scale up to another extreme at the 10¹⁰ megaton scale, goes from one incomprehensible scale to another. I'm not sure the exercise helps all that much. For example, I've read about the flagellum, and how it is characterized as an outboard motor. But, at the atomic scale, small collections of individual water molecules simply don't respond in the same way as large amounts of water (like rain drops) do. At the molecular scale, the environment in which an individual cell "lives" is more like being immersed in a sea of strongly interacting bags of jello that are constantly moving and bombarding you. In such an environment, our macroscopic notion of how an "outboard motor" would work at that scale is not just naive, it's also wrong. We just don't have the perspective to appreciate at a gut level how atoms and molecules interact with each other and with living cells. In particular, just as with quantum physics, our "gut level" ideas about such interactions can mislead us to make incorrect assumptions. Is that the point you're trying to make?

Mike Elzinga · 23 February 2013

Scott F said: Hi Mike. Yes, you have brought this up before, and I'm still not sure what point you're trying to make. I know I could have done these calculations back in college, but that was some time ago. I'll assume you're right, or at least in the ball-park. But what's the point of the scaling-up part? Is it, as you say, just to put the relative energies and masses of the atomic particles into perspective? If so, going from one extreme at the sub-molecular scale up to another extreme at the 10¹⁰ megaton scale, goes from one incomprehensible scale to another. I'm not sure the exercise helps all that much.

This little exercise is often done in beginning physics and/or chemistry classes when students begin to compare the relative magnitudes of the gravitational and electromagnetic interactions in matter. It usually occurs when the course gets to electricity and magnetism in physics, or when discussing the energies in typical chemical reactions in chemistry. It is a fairly easy exercise that compares the potential energies between gravitationally interacting masses and the potential energies between charged particles. ID/creationists are always calculating the probabilities of complex assemblies of atoms and molecules as though you just sample them from a random soup of atoms and molecules, toss them up in the air, and then watch them come down into various random arrangements. They then calculate the odds of a specified assembly. They frequently use examples of coins, alphabets, marbles, or junkyard parts tossed together randomly. The tornado-in-a-junkyard has an infinitesimal probability of assembling a 747 aircraft; therefore the probability of atoms forming things like DNA, RNA, amino acids, proteins, etc. is also infinitesimal. Evolution is therefore so improbable it can’t happen in the lifetime of the universe. But if those junkyard parts have charge-to-mass ratios like those of protons, electrons, and charged molecules, and if they obey similar quantum mechanical rules, kilogram masses separated by distances on the order of meters would be interacting with enormous energies on the order of 10¹⁰ megatons of TNT. There is no possibility that they would just randomly assemble. And a tornado would be puny in comparison to the energies of interaction. So the ID/creationist calculations are completely bogus; they try to imply that probabilities computed using inert objects are the same as probabilities computed for objects that are strongly interactive. Then the ID/creationists also use the second law of thermodynamics to make the equally bogus claim that everything tends toward disorder and that the universe comes all apart spontaneously. With this double whammy, they then proclaim that we in the scientific community have no clue about where ID/creationist are coming from; and that ID/creationists fully understand that, because of the laws of thermodynamics, evolution – especially the origins of life – is so improbable that all the combinations of atoms and molecules taking place couldn’t take place fast enough to produce anything like life during the entire age of the universe. Therefore evolution is impossible without intelligent intervention. But it is the ID/creationists who are making bogus analogies and implying that they are the ones who have exposed the dirty secrets of the scientists. Yet not one of them can do a basic high school level physic/chemistry calculation. Instead, they quote mine and copy/paste advanced topics as they try to leave the impression that they have a sophisticated understanding of science. But they don’t; and they always flunk every elementary test. They end up avoiding any such challenge and simply double down on their copy/paste routines. This little scaling-up exercise demonstrates what the student would experience if he/she were small enough to be the size of atoms and molecules and sitting among atoms and molecules whizzing around and interacting among themselves. Those interactions are not trivial.

Mike Elzinga · 23 February 2013

Scott F said: Hi Mike. Yes, you have brought this up before, and I'm still not sure what point you're trying to make. I know I could have done these calculations back in college, but that was some time ago. I'll assume you're right, or at least in the ball-park. But what's the point of the scaling-up part? Is it, as you say, just to put the relative energies and masses of the atomic particles into perspective? If so, going from one extreme at the sub-molecular scale up to another extreme at the 10¹⁰ megaton scale, goes from one incomprehensible scale to another. I'm not sure the exercise helps all that much.

Mike Elzinga · 23 February 2013

Weird double post. I don't have a clue about why that happened.

TomS · 23 February 2013

FL said:
evolution can explain the presence of ‘specified complexity’ and the formation of ‘irreducible complexity’
Yes, we don't want to leave out the latter category from the discussion. Please explain how naturalistic evolution explains the formaation of the first ATP nano-motor, (which is irreducibly complex), where none has existed before. (Origin of Life category). http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/01/spectacular_new_1068501.html FL

Please explain how "intelligent design" explains the formation of the first ATP nano-motor. Here are some helpful hints: Who, what, where, when, why, how. For example: Give a description of the change that took place, from some sort of thing that did not have an ATP nano-motor, to the sort of thing that had one. Explain where the motor-less thing came from, how it survived, why the designer(s) changed their minds about the desirability of motor-less things, etc. Tell us enough about those designers, so that we can tell what it is about them that led them to make those designs rather than something else. (Why did they resort to ATP rather than helium or gold?) And: If it is a flaw in evolutionary biology, were it not to give an account of the appearance of the first ATP nano-motor, isn't it also a flaw in "intelligent design"?

Scott F · 23 February 2013

Mike Elzinga said: But if those junkyard parts have charge-to-mass ratios like those of protons, electrons, and charged molecules, and if they obey similar quantum mechanical rules, kilogram masses separated by distances on the order of meters would be interacting with enormous energies on the order of 10¹⁰ megatons of TNT. There is no possibility that they would just randomly assemble. And a tornado would be puny in comparison to the energies of interaction.

Thank you, Mike. Your explanation helps quite a bit. What I've always found amazing is that such relative energies are simply absorbed and reemitted (apparently losslessly) every time there is a chemical reaction. (I say losslessly, not because energy isn't liberated, but because it seems to be liberated "elastically". That is, exactly the same amount of energy that went into creating the bond is released when the bond is broken, and vice versa, without apparent "loss".) The fact that the binding energies are a significant proportion of the total mass of the objects (and a more significant proportion of their kinetic energy) and where gravity is a trivial force just isn't something that is part of our experience on a macroscopic scale.

Scott F · 23 February 2013

TomS said: If it is a flaw in evolutionary biology, were it not to give an account of the appearance of the first ATP nano-motor, isn't it also a flaw in "intelligent design"?

Bingo! Of course, there's always Dembski's non-answer:

ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it’s not ID’s task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories. If ID is correct and an intelligence is responsible and indispensable for certain structures, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots. True, there may be dots to be connected. But there may also be fundamental discontinuities, and with IC systems that is what ID is discovering.

Shorter Dembski: I don't have to follow the same rules that I want to impose on you. Because. Because Evolution tries to answer the more interesting questions of "what", "when", "where", "why", and "how". ID only pretends to ask the question "who". Because Evolution (ie Science) often can't answer (today) all the questions that it asks, that somehow magically invalidates the answers that Evolution (and Science) can provide. ID doesn't even answer its own non-question. "Look. I say this object was intelligently designed." That's the sum total of ID. No answer, not even a question. Just an unsupported (and false) assertion with a lot of mathy sounding hand wavy argument thrown in to give it that sciency sheen (not even a veneer) that the rubes (like FL) associate with "smart people". It's like telling a basketball player, "See? See? You missed that basket from across the court. That means that you didn't really make those first 20 free-throw shots that we all saw you make. You just faked all those. Or something. Therefore, despite your years of practice, you aren't a real basketball player. I don't even have to get up out of my chair in the back row to prove I'm better at baseball than you are."

FL · 23 February 2013

So Eric says,

How do you know there is SC in there? Tell us your qualitative method if you can’t do it quantitatively.

Ummm, I did, remember? First I gave you the everyday SC example of your sentences and mine. Gave you my qualitative explanation, gave you ARN's qualitative explanation. Then, with that in mind, I showed you how (via Trevors and Abel's own words) you're getting the same SC thing in the OOL world at a very specific point -- so called "natural" genetic algorithm writing -- SC which isn't being accounted for by naturalistic prebiotic evolution/selection at all, just like the everyday example isn't. And if you compare what Trevors/Abel specifically said (remember, I gave you the quotations) to what Mike said, you'll see that NOPE, Mike hasn't addressed that part of the show at all. He seems far more comfortable talking about "tornado-in-a-junkyard", which is not what I gave you from Trevor/Abel. **** Actually, Mike really hasn't done much at all here. I'm not where Mike is in terms of science and math, that's easily admitted, but it's absolutely clear that Mike is nowhere near where scientists Drs. Trevor and Abel are regarding journal-published OOL research One thing is already: Mike would even have to show, as Step One, how his "scaling up" stuff even addresses what they actually wrote (and what I quoted) in their 2004 journal paper, because right now it doesn't, quite honestly.) For example, when Trevors Abel write in their 2004 journal article, "Minimal metabolism would be needed for cells to be capable of growth and division. All known metabolism is cybernetic -- that is, it is programmatically and algorithmically organized and controlled," how can Mike even THINK he's refuting all that merely by ad-hoc asserting out of the blue, "There is nothing 'cybernetic' going on"? That's silly of Mike to think that he can say something like that without supporting it -- and no, a high school chemistry and physics "scaling up" exercise does NOT provide that level of support, which Mike didn't show anyway. **** And while I'm at it, what is mere "speculations and assertions" (Mike's phrase) about the following items?

"Thus far, no paper has provided a plausible mechanism for natural-process algorithm writing."

How did 20 specific tRNA, aminoacyl tRNA synthetases, and amino acides self-organize into a holistic translative operating system? The origin of translation defies natural-process modelling as a holistic system. The ribosome is only one aspect of translation. Yet we do not even know how ribosomes formed to provide such sophisticalted translation machinery."

"The four known forces of physics know nothing of the phenomenon of linguistic translation. The laws of physics and chemistry cannot explain why each tRNA just happens to have the correct anticodon and links up with the correct amino acid and the correct aminoacyl tRNA synthesase. Cause-and-effect physicality has no ability to anticipate or devise a conceptual system that employs symbolic representationalism. Bot the semantics and syntax of codonic language must translate into appropriate semantics and syntax of protein language."

It's been nine years now since Trevors and Abel said this. If Mike thinks it's wrong, it should be NO problem for him to come up with a peer-review journal article by scientists as qualified as Trevors Abel, to disprove these specific statements. But you know he can't. FL

FL · 23 February 2013

ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it’s not ID’s task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories. If ID is correct and an intelligence is responsible and indispensable for certain structures, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots. True, there may be dots to be connected. But there may also be fundamental discontinuities, and with IC systems that is what ID is discovering.

Dembski's right. Evolutionists always get a little riled up when they get reminded of Dembski's reminder. But that's the way the ID hypothesis goes, and it's not going to change, not going to go away. FL

stevaroni · 23 February 2013

prongs said: Gee FL, I'm sittin' here with my quartz crystal in my hand...

Um.. this isn't some weird double entendre' is it?

stevaroni · 23 February 2013

FL said: And while I'm at it, what is mere "speculations and assertions" (Mike's phrase) about the following items?
"Thus far, no paper has provided a plausible mechanism for natural-process algorithm writing."

Wrong. As usual. Non directed algorithms were first solidly demonstrated 14 years ago. Genetic Evolution of Machine Language Software Ronald L. Crepeau NCCOSC RDTE Division San Diego, CA 92152-5000 July 1999

phhht · 23 February 2013

FL said: So Eric says,
How do you know there is SC in there? Tell us your qualitative method if you can’t do it quantitatively.
Ummm, I did, remember?

No, Flawd, you did not. You simply asserted, over and over and over, that is is possible to empirically detect and measure design, but you NEVER showed how to do that. NEVER. The fact that you are convinced that you did is just one more nail in your mental-handicap coffin. You NEVER showed how to determine whether a simple string of characters exhibits "specified complexity," much less design. You NEVER EVEN ADDRESSED the problem of determining the "specified complexity" in a pocket watch. That's because you can't find anybody on the internets who can do that, so you can't do it either. You're not even able to distinguish the designed from the non-designed yourself. It's only your compulsive religious disorder that compels you to insist that you can and have.

stevaroni · 23 February 2013

FL said: Dembski's right. Evolutionists always get a little riled up when they get reminded of Dembski's reminder. But that's the way the ID hypothesis goes, and it's not going to change, not going to go away. FL

Apparently, it's never going to improve, either.

DS · 23 February 2013

Floyd seems to be about twenty years behind the time. There are literally hundreds of good scientific references on the evolution of translation. Here is a good tutorial on amino acyl tRNA synthases:

http://www.scs.illinois.edu/schulten/tutorials/evolution/class-I_tutorial.pdf

Here is a good tutorial on the evolution of ribosomes:

http://www.scs.illinois.edu/schulten/tutorials/evolution/ribosome_tutorial.pdf

All you have to do is put your hands over your ears and scream "I don't believe it" and all of the last twenty years of good scientific research goes away. At least for you.

DS · 23 February 2013

Let me try that second one again:

http://www.scs.illinois.edu/schulten/tutorials/ribosome/ribosome_tutorial.pdf

DS · 23 February 2013

Actually, her is the link to lots of good tutorials on the evolution of translation.

http://www.scs.illinois.edu/schulten/tutorials/

Seems like we actually know quite a lot about this topic. Big surprise.

Maybe some day Floyd will actually learn some science. Maybe not. Who cares?

Just Bob · 23 February 2013

stevaroni said:
FL said: Dembski's right. Evolutionists always get a little riled up when they get reminded of Dembski's reminder. But that's the way the ID hypothesis goes, and it's not going to change, not going to go away. FL
Apparently, it's never going to improve, either.

Or ever going to actually, you know, DO anything.

phhht · 23 February 2013

So Flawd, I'm no biologist, much less a creationist, so I need a really simple example of how to tell design from non-design.

You assert that you can tell just by looking. You assert that there is an objective method to distinguish the two which applies to strings.

Here are two character strings. One is designed, and one is random.
How can I tell which is which?

The strings:

1. A

2. B

DS · 23 February 2013

Well, according to subjectively specified complexity, they are obviously both designed, or not. Wait, what was the answer that will disprove evolution again?

Mike Elzinga · 23 February 2013

FL is doing the typical ID/creationist shtick of pretending to “disagree” with a real scientist in order to make himself appear to be an expert.

But as I already said, he doesn’t have even a middle school grasp of science to be able to vet a “paper” by Trevors and Abel, or any other paper for that matter.

Real scientists can read that “paper” and know it is bullshit. FL can’t.

By the way; Trevors and Abel aren’t real scientists. Abel in particular is a fake. FL doesn’t know it, but I have read their papers; and I know exactly how they operate. FL doesn’t.

As usual, FL is full of shit; and proud of it.

Mike Elzinga · 23 February 2013

DS said: Actually, her is the link to lots of good tutorials on the evolution of translation. http://www.scs.illinois.edu/schulten/tutorials/ Seems like we actually know quite a lot about this topic. Big surprise. Maybe some day Floyd will actually learn some science. Maybe not. Who cares?

It can’t happen with the likes of people like FL. He doesn’t have a clue about what is wrong with the stuff he just copy/pasted. He simply doesn’t have the knowledge. He is taunting and trying to piss people off. He really wants to be the big turd in the punch bowl. It’s a form of mental illness. This character has some real demons and pent up hatreds; and he seems to like having them. One has to wonder why he doesn’t get any social satisfaction from that cult he belongs to. Maybe it really is a bigoted hate group.

prongs · 23 February 2013

stevaroni said:
prongs said: Gee FL, I'm sittin' here with my quartz crystal in my hand...
Um.. this isn't some weird double entendre' is it?

Sometimes a quartz crystal is just a quartz crystal!

apokryltaros · 23 February 2013

Moron For Jesus Quotes Another Moron For Jesus:
ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it’s not ID’s task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories. If ID is correct and an intelligence is responsible and indispensable for certain structures, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots. True, there may be dots to be connected. But there may also be fundamental discontinuities, and with IC systems that is what ID is discovering.
Dembski's right. Evolutionists always get a little riled up when they get reminded of Dembski's reminder. But that's the way the ID hypothesis goes, and it's not going to change, not going to go away. FL

Except that, if Intelligent Design proponents are going to whine that Intelligent Design ~~Theory~~ does not explain anything, let alone explain how GODDIDIT is supposed to explain better than Evolutionary Biology, then it is not a science, and you and all other Creationists have absolutely no right to waste people's time or money demanding that your favorite religiously inspired anti-science propaganda should be taught in science classrooms, in place of actual science, at taxpayers' expense.

apokryltaros · 23 February 2013

If Intelligent Design proponents like Dembski and FL are going to whine that Intelligent Design ~~Theory~~ is not obligated to match explanation for explanation like Evolutionary Biology does just so they can worm their way out of having to show everyone how to do science using ~~GODDIDIT~~ Intelligent Design, then they have lost entirely before they even begun, and everything they say is useless posturing in the hope that their audience is too dumb to realize that Intelligent Design was not even meant to be an explanation, let alone a magic replacement science to magically replace Evolutionary Biology.

Scott F · 23 February 2013

DS said: Actually, her is the link to lots of good tutorials on the evolution of translation. http://www.scs.illinois.edu/schulten/tutorials/ Seems like we actually know quite a lot about this topic. Big surprise. Maybe some day Floyd will actually learn some science. Maybe not. Who cares?

Dang! Just take a look at the graphics of some of those "proteins". Sheeze. No person not on some psychoactive drug could look at a picture of a Ribosome and claim it was "designed".

Ray Martinez · 23 February 2013

diogeneslamp0 said: For example. Consider Houston Stewart Chamberlain, perhaps the most important ideological influence on Adolf Hitler, and an implacable enemy of Darwinism. In his books like "Foundations of the Nineteenth Century" he attacked Darwinism and Darwinists. In his book "Immanuel Kant" (written 1905, translated to English 1914) in Chapter 6 he launches into a long, extended attack on Darwinism and the intellectual inferiority of Darwinists.

Here we have a false implication that Hitler and the Nazis were anti-Darwinism. Let us listen to Professor of Modern History at Cambridge University, Richard J. Evans, writing in the widely available "The Third Reich In Power" (2005): "Nazism's use of quasi-religious symbols and rituals was real enough, but it was for the most part more a matter of style than substance. 'Hitler's studied usurpation of religious functions,' as one historian has written, 'was perhaps a displaced hatred of the Christian tradition: the hatred of an apostate.' The real core of Nazi beliefs lay in the faith Hitler proclaimed in his speech of September 1938 in science - a Nazi view of science - as the basis for action. Science demanded the furtherance of the interests not of God but of the human race, and above all the German race and its future in a world ruled by the ineluctable laws of Darwinian competition between races and between individuals" (p.259; boldfacing added). Many years before, however, one can identify the true origin for this "basis for action." Mein Kampf or "My Struggle," Hitler's infamous autobiography title was inspired by natural selection or the struggle for survival that Darwin emphasized. Moreover, as the Darwinists ratified natural selection during the synthesis of the 1930 and 40s, Hitler and the Nazis were in the field selecting their perceived enemies for extinction. Darwinian evolution was the Nazi "basis for action" now that science had finally dispensed with the God of Christianity.

Just Bob · 23 February 2013

Not conceding, but SO WHAT if the Nazis adopted "darwinism"?

Would that have any effect on whether evolutionary theory was valid or not?

The Nazis also made important pioneering strides in rocket development, jet-propelled flight, and high-speed highways. Does it follow that we should then abandon the principles and practices in those fields, just because the science behind them was used to further the Nazi cause?

Richard B. Hoppe · 23 February 2013

We're not going off into 'Darwin was a proto-Nazi' territory, folks.

Just Bob · 23 February 2013

Richard B. Hoppe said: We're not going off into 'Darwin was a proto-Nazi' territory, folks.

What you mean "we", Kemo Sabe? Ray's already there.

W. H. Heydt · 23 February 2013

Just Bob said: The Nazis also made important pioneering strides in rocket development...

Of course, when asked where they got the ideas and early development data on liquid fueled rockets, the Germans all cited...American Robert Hutchins Goddard (who the US had been ignoring all along). Name dropping time...I met his widow once.

diogeneslamp0 · 23 February 2013

Outright lying from the fascist right, whose authoritarian values and anti-rationalist worldview are indistinguishable from the Anti-Darwinist, anti-Semitic Nazi leaders:

Ray Martinez said: Here we have a false implication that Hitler and the Nazis were anti-Darwinism.

I don't imply anything. I state directly that Hitler and the Nazis were religious and anti-Darwinist, just like the Intelligent Design movement and American creationists, who by the way were fervent supporters of Hitler in the 1930's because they agreed with his treatment of the Jews. The US government prosecuted much of the Christian right in America for sedition during WWI because they supported Hitler. As for Hitler being a Darwinist, many historians have proven "obviously NOT", for example historian Robert J. Richards in "Was Hitler a Darwinian?" Short answer: no, duh.

Ray Martinez said: Many years before, however, one can identify the true origin for this "basis for action." Mein Kampf or "My Struggle," Hitler's infamous autobiography title was inspired by natural selection or the struggle for survival that Darwin emphasized. Moreover, as the Darwinists ratified natural selection during the synthesis of the 1930 and 40s, Hitler and the Nazis were in the field selecting their perceived enemies for extinction. Darwinian evolution was the Nazi "basis for action" now that science had finally dispensed with the God of Christianity.

Oh really? You've never read Mein Kampf, have you? "Kampf" in the title is the noun version of "kampfen", which means "to argue", "to fight" and for the Nazis, "struggle" had a religious, specifically Christian meaning: their exemplars of "struggle" were Jesus Christ and Martin Luther, as I'll prove below. No major Nazi ever mentioned Darwinism except to denounce it and ban it, as it was denounced by Hans Schemm in 1933 and banned by the Nazi Party in 1935. No creationist including Richard Weikart has ever found a quote in which Hitler or any other major Nazi, with control over ideology, praises Charles Darwin or Darwinism. On the rare occasions they mentioned Darwinism, they called it the basis of their arch-enemy, Marxism. But by contrast, Hitler and other Nazis frequently stated that Jesus their Savior was the greatest Jew-fighter of all time, and they frequently stated that Nazism was the completion of the revolution of Martin Luther, infamous author of "Against the Jews and their Lies", in which he said, "We are at fault in not slaying them [Jews]." But since Ray brought up the word "struggle", HERE'S A LOOK AT HOW NAZIS SAY THEIR "STRUGGLE" IS BASED ON CHRISTIAN HEROES. Here's how Hitler says "struggle"/kampf in Mein Kampf:

From Mein Kampf: "Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting [kämpfe] for the work of the Lord." [Mein Kampf, Manheim transl., p.65]

Hitler said it again in a speech at the Reichstag in 1938. Here is Walter Buch, devout Lutheran Nazi, Supreme Party Magistrate, head of the Nazi Party court and Martin Bormann's father-in-law, on what Nazis mean by "struggle".

Buch: "When Point 24 of our program says the party stands for a positive Christianity, here above all is the cornerstone of our thinking. Christ preached struggle as did no other. His life was struggle for his beliefs, for which he went to his death. From everyone he demanded a decision between yes or no.. That is the necessity: that man find the power to decide between yes and no." "Just as Christianity only prevailed through the fanatical belief of its followers, so too shall it be with the spiritual movement of National Socialism." [Speech to the Nazi Student League, Steigmann-Gall, p.23-4]

Newspapers of the Stormtroopers [Sturmabteilung, or SA] described what "struggle" meant to Nazis.

From an SA article titled "Under the Cross": "To us Christianity is not an empty phrase, but a glowing life. It lives through us and in us… Thus is the strength of the nation gathered under the sign of the cross. When the red beast threatens us, or the well-behaved philistine [sittsame Spießer]... sneers at us, we look up to the Cross and receive the doctrine of struggle." From another SA article titled "Christ's Spirit - SA [Stormtrooper] Spirit!": "We interpret in the Gospel not the word, but the spirit. We see in the seed, in the model of our Savior not only that he does good and shuns evil, but also that he struggles... Jesus was not locked up in a church, waiting for the throng… What SA man has not surprised himself with the thought that the orator in a meeting, the man of the people, says exactly what a minister would preach?" [cited in Steigmann-Gall, p.145]

Is that what Darwin meant by "struggle"? Erich Koch was a devout Lutheran Nazi elected president of his provincial church synod, also a powerful Nazi who murdered perhaps a million people in the Ukraine and the enslavement of the rest.

Koch: "Externally, much has changed. But in our church the Word of Christ according to the doctrine of Luther remains Righteousness, truth and love should guide us, not only at the level of charity but also in the joyful and active struggles for our Protestant confession of faith." [cited in Steigmann-Gall, p.145]

Is that what Darwin meant by "struggle"? Alfred Baumler, Nazi philosopher, tells us what "struggle" means in Nazi language.

Baumler: "Protestantism is strong when it finds itself engaged in struggle, when it does what its name implies. It is strong when the heroic key of Luther, who mercilessly fought for God's Kingdom against the Devil's Kingdom, prevails in it. Outside the context of struggle Protestantism degenerates very quickly into brittle orthodoxy or effeminate pietism." [cited in Steigmann-Gall, p.106]

Baldur von Schirach, the head of the Hitler Youth, explains who is his model for struggle in a 1934 poem called "Christ."

von Schirach: "If today he descended from Heaven, the great warrior who struck the moneychangers/ You would once again shout 'crucify!'/ And nail him to the cross that he himself carried/ But he would gently laugh at your hatred/ 'The truth remains even when your bearers are passed/ Faith remains, because I give my life…’ / And the fighter of all the world towers on the cross." [Baldur von Schirach, Christ (1934), cited in Steigmann-Gall, p.143]

Hitler, on the day the Enabling Act was passed giving him dictatorial power, described his struggle as against materialism, just like the struggle of creationists and Intelligent Designers, who struggle against materialism.

Hitler: “While the regime is determined to carry through the political and moral purging of our public life, it is creating and ensuring the prerequisites for a really deep inner religiousity. Benefits of a personal nature, which might arise from compromise with atheistic organizations, could outweigh the results which become apparent through the destruction of general basic ethical-religious values. The national regime seeks in both Christian confessions the factors most important for the maintenance of our folkdom... The national regime will safeguard to the Christian confessions the influence due them, in school and education. It is concerned with the sincere cooperation of church and state. The struggle against a materialistic philosophy and for the creation of a true folk community serves the interests of the German nation as well as our Christian belief.” [Hitler, Reichstag speech, 23 March 1933; in Cuno Workenbach, Das Deustsche Reich von 1918 bis Heute (1935), p.133, cited in William Donovan’s Nuremberg Report; compare Steigmann-Gall, p.116]

So when Darwin said "struggle", did he mean struggling against "materialistic philosophy", as Hitler says above?

Hitler: "Along with the fight for a purer morality we have taken upon ourselves the struggle against the decomposition of our religion... We have therefore taken up the struggle against the Godless movement, and not just with a few theoretical declarations; we have stamped it out. And above all we have dragged the priests out of the lowlands of the political party struggle and have brought them back into the church." [Speech in Berlin, October 24, 1933. Cited in Steigmann-Gall, p.117]

So when Darwin said "struggle", did he mean struggling against atheism, as Hitler says above?

Hitler: "There has been no interference, nor will there be any, with the teachings or religious freedom of the confessions. To the contrary, the state protects religion, though always under the condition that that it will not be used as a disguise for political purposes... I know that there are thousands of priests who are not merely reconciled with the present state, but who gladly cooperate with it... Where can our interests be more convergent than in our struggle against the symptoms of degeneracy in the contemporary world, in our struggle against cultural bolshevism, against the Godless movement, against criminality, and for a social conception of community... These are not anti-Christian, but rather Christian principles!" [Speech at the Ehrenbreitstein fortress in Koblenz, 26 August 1934, cited in Steigmann-Gall, p.118]

So when Darwin said "struggle", did he mean struggling against atheism, and equate atheism with criminality, as Hitler says above?

Hitler: “...of all the tasks which we have to face, the noblest and most sacred for mankind is that each racial species must preserve the purity of the blood which God has given it... there is one error which cannot be remedied... namely the failure to recognize the importance of conserving the blood and the race free from intermixture and thereby the racial aspect and character which are God's gift and God's handiwork. It is not for men to discuss the question of why Providence created different races, but rather to recognize the fact that it punishes those who disregard its work of creation... ...my first feeling is simply one of thankfulness to our Almighty God... He has blessed our labors and has enabled our people to come through all the obstacles... Today I must humbly thank Providence, whose grace has enabled me, who was once an unknown soldier in the War, to bring to a successful issue the struggle for the restoration of our honor and rights as a nation.” [Hitler, speech to the Reichstag, 30 Jan. 1937]

Here's Goebbels describing what the Nazi struggle was about.

Goebbels: “The struggle we are now waging today until victory or the bitter end is, in its deepest sense, a struggle between Christ and Marx.” [Joseph Goebbels, Michael (1929), p.66, cited by Steigmann-Gall, Holy Reich, p. 13]

Is that what Darwin meant by "struggle"? Ray doesn't know shit about the history of the anti-Darwinist, anti-atheist, Nazi movement.

apokryltaros · 23 February 2013

diogeneslamp0 eloquently summarized: Ray doesn't know shit about the history of the anti-Darwinist, anti-atheist, Nazi movement.

That's because Ray Martinez is actually a stupid troll who pretends to be an Old Earth Creationist who is the world's only Christian, and tries his hardest to try and shock us by accusing other Creationists, with the stark exception of the other Creationist trolls here at Panda's Thumb, of actually being evil undercover Atheists. That is, when he is not pounding his chest and screeching some truly inane lie, i.e., that Hitler and the Nazis were fervent Darwinists.

Just Bob · 24 February 2013

diogeneslamp0: A tour de force. Thanks.

Ray Martinez · 24 February 2013

diogeneslamp0 said: [....] Ray doesn't know shit about the history of the anti-Darwinist, anti-atheist, Nazi movement.

It appears the Moderator has allowed your reply, but he won't allow anymore exchanges. Rest assured, I could easily refute your counter-claims. And you failed to address the Professor Evans quote. If you really mean business then travel over to the Talk.Origins Usenet/Google Groups. We can have a widely read discussion. And there are no Moderators to save Evolutionists. RM (student of history)

phhht · 24 February 2013

Why don't you go back there and wait on us, Ray.

Ray Martinez said:
diogeneslamp0 said: [....] Ray doesn't know shit about the history of the anti-Darwinist, anti-atheist, Nazi movement.
It appears the Moderator has allowed your reply, but he won't allow anymore exchanges. Rest assured, I could easily refute your counter-claims. And you failed to address the Professor Evans quote. If you really mean business then travel over to the Talk.Origins Usenet/Google Groups. We can have a widely read discussion. And there are no Moderators to save Evolutionists. RM (student of history)

Doc Bill · 24 February 2013

Good ole Ray Martinez! Another creationist Black Knight!

diogeneslamp0 · 24 February 2013

Ray Martinez said:
diogeneslamp0 said: [....] Ray doesn't know shit about the history of the anti-Darwinist, anti-atheist, Nazi movement.
Rest assured, I could easily refute your counter-claims.

The fuck you could! I call bullshit. Creationists are always doing this-- saying, 'Oh, I've got authorities who have refuted your claims!' Well where is their evidence then? 'My authorities have it' Well copy it here, you stupid fuck! 'Rest assured I could.' I rest assured you're a bullshitter. Like we've been arguing with FL for a week-- 'I have a design detector algorithm'-- well where is is then? 'My authorities have it.' We read your authorities; they don't. 'You haven't explained the Big Bang.' Oh, fuck you! Ray, if you could "easily" refute my counter-claims, you would have done so. You did not refute anything, because we have all the evidence on our side. Last time you asserted that "Kampf" in Mein Kampf meant Darwinian selection. You did not produce any quotes from any Nazis mentioning Charles Darwin nor Darwinism-- not one; and you ignored my dozen-plus quotes on how Nazis interpret "Struggle", "Kampf" in terms of Christian heroes and the Protestant Reformation. We have the evidence to to prove Nazism was anti-atheist and anti-Darwinist. Anti-atheism was in particular central to Nazi ideology, because Nazis accused the Jews of being closet atheists. No anti-atheism, no Holocaust. I notice you did not attempt to refute my link to Coels Blog, "Nazism was Religious and Creationist." You did not attempt to refute my link to historian Robert J. Richards, "Was Hitler a Darwinian?" You ignored the fact that the Nazi Party banned the "false scientific enlightenment of Darwinism" in 1935.

And you failed to address the Professor Evans quote.

Indeed, because Evans' statements, as usual with Evan's opinions, are his opinions not supported by evidence, and therefore may be refuted without evidence. You did not make any attempt to refute "Nazism was Religious and Creationist" or Richards' "Was Hitler a Darwinian?" or the Nazi Party banning Darwinism in 1935, and you ignored the dozen-plus quotes which refuted your bullshit about the "Kampf" in Mein Kampf meaning Darwinian selection. Whereas we cited primary sources, and actual evidence, you by contrast cite APPEAL TO AUTHORITY. If appeal to authority were valid, then we win, because 99.9% of scientists believe evolution is real and creationism is a fraud. If regarding the history of the Third Reich, you cite APPEAL TO AUTHORITY, we can then cite historical authorities who stated that Nazis opposed Darwinism: Richards, Alfred Kelly, Werner Maser, etc. But this is not much fun; I find it more fun to cite primary sources rather than authorities. As for Evans quote: you presented no evidence at all that Nazis were pro-Darwinist. Where is your evidence that Nazis were pro-Darwinist? Here is your Evans quote:

Evans wrote: The real core of Nazi beliefs lay in the faith Hitler proclaimed in his speech of September 1938 in science - a Nazi view of science - as the basis for action. Science demanded the furtherance of the interests not of God but of the human race, and above all the German race and its future in a world ruled by the ineluctable laws of Darwinian competition between races and between individuals” (p.259; boldfacing added).

Right-- where does Hitler mention Darwinism? He doesn't. Hitler invokes "science" for his authoritarianism just as creationists says they're on the side of "science", anti-global-warming people say they're on the side of "science"-- everyone invokes science. At no point does Hitler praise Darwinism or define the scientific method or say science has disproven God's existence. Evans reads Darwinism into Hitler when it isn't there. This is Evan's problem, and proves he is an unreliable source. This and Evans' other works prove he is biased against science and wishes to indict science in general for the brutal crimes of Christian anti-Semites. Christians murdered Jews and lied about them for 1,900 years. Charles Darwin NEVER bad-mouthed the Jews. Hitler and the Nazis ban Darwinism, never praise Darwin, constantly praise Jesus and Martin Luther and cite them as their authorities, and kill the Jews like Martin Luther ordered them to. Then creationists blame Darwin. They're fucked. Evans may not be creationist, but I've read his stuff, he's anti-science. Evans ignores thousands of statements from Nazis where they say their racism, values etc. are a return to Christian tradition, and he plucks out a quote where Hitler talks of "science", the same way every creationist does.

Evans wrote: Nazism’s use of quasi-religious symbols and rituals was real enough, but it was for the most part more a matter of style than substance.

"More a matter of style than substance"? How is this not true of all religion? How is it different than the fake Christ-love of the creationists? Continuing:

‘Hitler’s studied usurpation of religious functions,’ as one historian has written, ‘was perhaps a displaced hatred of the Christian tradition: the hatred of an apostate.’

This is begging the question: neither Evans nor his unnamed 'historian' provide evidence that Hitler hated Christianity. Re-stating your hypothesis and presenting it as evidence for your hypothesis. Here's real evidence: Hitler speaking in private to a meeting OF NAZIS, and ONLY TO NAZIS, not to the general public. This is what Evans calls "hatred of the Christian tradition":

Hitler said: “My feelings as a Christian point me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter [tumultuous, prolonged applause from all-Nazi audience]. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before, the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice… And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.” [Hitler, speech in Munich, April 12, 1922]

Evans calls that "hatred of the Christian tradition", so fuck him, he's a liar. Hitler called the Jews Christ-Killers. Julius Streicher's rag Der Sturmer had cartoons of Jews chortling at the crucifixion. Last time, when you asserted that "Kampf" in Mein Kampf meant Darwinian selection, you portrayed it as CRITICAL, CRUCIAL, RELEVANT, IMPORTANT because you thought you could lie and we'd let you get away with it. But now you act as if your falsehood is IRRELEVANT, UNIMPORTANT, TRIVIAL. When did it become trivial? When we proved you were lying?

phhht · 24 February 2013

This is so far off-topic that I hesitate to post it, but I would
appreciate the informed advice and criticism of anyone here who cares to give it for a short paragraph of science fiction I am working on.

It's intended to be a Wikipedia article, but four hundred years from now. It's about the technology of teleology. I'll put it on the Wall, and anybody who wants to can respond there.

Thanks in advance.

Ray Martinez · 25 February 2013

diogeneslamp0 said: [snip all material....]

I am prevented from responding due to a Moderator warning just upthread. Why not travel over to Talk.Origins Usenet like I suggested? Mostly evos post there; you'll have a strong peanut gallery to support your rhetoric. Again, there are no Moderators to save the Evolutionist. Perhaps this is why you have evaded answering? Or perhaps we could take this to the Bathroom Wall?

j. biggs · 26 February 2013

j. biggs said: Hey Floyd, I have three more strings and I promise that using your criteria at least one is designed. Please use your non-mathematical method to determine which one(s) are designed and explain how you arrived at your conclusion. DDURVIERSCOREENZEVENJAARGELEDENONZEVADERENBRACHTFORTHOPDITC ONTINENTEENNIEUWENATIEONTWORPENINVRIJHEIDVZ PRQLVOAVLEEZRTKTQEHSETEANONOSSOSPAISTROUXERAMFORTHNESTECONT INENTEUMANOVANACAOCONCEBIDANALIBERDADEFEIE IRBNKDOEORJYNVNDKSOWKRNTYIYIOMXCMSKSKNRKIFKFNDKSIOJGNMDKSKL FJBZJVUEYQLOKIFUDYNWHRHFJMTIJKIQJNMWENYVHSK

OK, I've given Floyd plenty of time to complete this task. The fact that he can't or won't demonstrates just how useless his qualitative design detection algorithm is. Floyd's claim is that he can recognize CSI qualitatively. He also claims that our comments represent specified complexity. The first two strings are translations of the example of CSI Floyd gave earlier. His sample string was translated into Danish and Portuguese with some noise added at the front and back ends to make the strings equal in length. The last string was just random gibberish. Here is Floyd's original string with his sources commentary on it.

Imagine that a friend hands you a sheet of paper with part of Lincoln’s Gettysburg address written on it: FOURSCOREANDSEVENYEARSAGOOURFATHERSBROUGHTFORTHONTHIS CONTINENTANEWNATIONCONCEIVEDINLIBERTY Your friend tells you that he wrote the sentence by pulling Scrabble pieces out of a bag at random. Would you believe him? Probably not. But why? One reason is that the odds against it are just too high. There are so many other ways the results could have turned out–so many possible sequences of letters–that the probability of getting that particular sentence is almost nil.

Also according to Floyd's source:

But there’s more to it than that. If our friend had shown us the letters below, we would probably believe his story. ZOEFFNPBINNGQZAMZQPEGOXSYFMRTEXRNYGRRGNNFVGUMLMTYQ XTXWORNBWIGBBCVHPUZMWLONHATQUGOTFJKZXFHP Why? Because of the kind of sequence we see. The first string fits a recognizable pattern: It’s a sentence written in English, minus spaces and punctuation. The second string fits no such pattern.

So obviously, Floyd's qualitative method fails because he didn't recognize two recognizable patterns. The top two strings contained only slightly less CSI than the English one because of the extra added to make the strings the same length but that's no excuse because if I added a small random strings before and after the English string Floyd would still have recognized the pattern. The problem here is that Floyd didn't recognize human language patterns using his qualitative method, so what makes him thing his method is any good for detecting patterns supposedly created by a non-human designer?

eric · 26 February 2013

FL said: So Eric says,
How do you know there is SC in there? Tell us your qualitative method if you can’t do it quantitatively.
Ummm, I did, remember? First I gave you the everyday SC example of your sentences and mine.

That's merely an assertion, you aren't explaining anything by citing something as an "example" of SC. Describe the thinking process you went though to come to that conclusion. Then, use the same qualitative thinking process to assess the SC-ness of the seven strings I and Diogenes gave to you. No math, no quantification needed: since you keep claiming you can do this qualitatively, do it qualitatively on our examples.

Then, with that in mind, I showed you how (via Trevors and Abel's own words)

Yes, I am aware that you are very good at copying and pasting other peoples' answers to publicly available test questions. That does not show that you know what you're doing. Show your work on on questions for which there is no handy cut-and-paste response, or I call bulls**t.

He [Mike Elzinga] seems far more comfortable talking about "tornado-in-a-junkyard", which is not what I gave you from Trevor/Abel.

The paper criticizes some assumptions that I presume some biologists make (I presume they aren't just strawmanning, but its not my area). But you still have the false dichotomy problem. Saying evolution doesn't yet explain some phenomenon does not imply design must be the answer, because there could be many things we haven'th thought of yet. Again, think Newton's mechanics, the orbit of Mercury, and whether this was proof of design or angels. It wasn't.

eric · 26 February 2013

DS said: Well, according to subjectively specified complexity, they are obviously both designed, or not. Wait, what was the answer that will disprove evolution again?

Disproof is probably an unscientific request. However doing this... 1. Getting all 9 strings (Phhhts 2 + my 5 + Diogenes 2) right. 2. Describing a reproducible methodology that gets them right AND implies some biological things were designed. ...would certainly support the notion that there is some such trait that would interest both creationists and mainstream scientists, and that would be reasonably objectively determined.