Friday, September 12, 2014

The logic of lawyers

Barry Arrington is a lawyer from Colorado [Encyclopedia of American Loons]. Here's an example of the logic of lawyers posted on Uncommon Descent [Not Merely False].
The following statements are so obvious as to be considered truisms.

1. The primordial datum: I am subjectively self-aware.

2. It is not possible even in principle to account for mental facts, such as the primordial datum, on the basis of physical facts. They are different sorts of things; therefore one cannot account for the other. Trying to account for subjective self-awareness by suggesting it is an epiphenomenon of the electro-chemical process of the brain is like saying the color blue can be reduced to its constituent banana peels.

3. It follows that a reductionist materialism is not merely false but obviously false.

4. Just as obviously, it does not follow that committed materialists will admit that reductionist materialism is false, for they have reasons to put their faith in their metaphysical commitments that have nothing to do with the evidence and logic of the matter.
I would not want him to defend me if I were innocent. On the other hand, he might be a good choice if I were guilty because I could easily fool him into thinking that I was innocent.


218 comments :

  1. As a lawyer, I say...y'know, I really can't think of anything. The "reasoning" is something out of a children's book, if kids knew big words. (Maybe that's the way to think of Barry Arrington - as someone with the reasoning ability of an 8-year-old who knows lots of big words?)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Judging from the results, I'm not sure he's convinced me of his first point.

    But I must concede his second point (which does do most his work,) is widely accepted. Scientia Salon has been running what seems to be an interminable series of essays against "scientism." Arrington's second point is possibly too forthright for the philosophical types. Sounding reasonable is their touchstone for reason, or at least so it seems. Isn't the real problem trying to explain how genuinely unreasonable point two really is?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Omitted sentence! "The second point is more or less a commonplace there."

      Delete
    2. BA77 is a mind-brain dualist, like Egnor and Dense O'Dreary. His Point 2 is simply wrong. What BA77 calls "mind" is an emergent property of the brain. It's not a separate thing. But, then, BA77 wouldn't have a soul, he'd be a monkey and things go downhill for him from there.

      Delete
    3. Beal the Tooter,

      Maybe BA77 is another Tooter like you...?

      Delete
  3. #2 is a truism? It's barely even coherent.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Water flows to the ocean to reunite with it. Fire travels up to reunite with the sun. Obviously things try to unite their similar essences. This is why men are naturally attracted to men and women are........er......nevermind.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ah ha ha ha ha.

      And when you put sodium chloride in water and slowly evaporate it, sodium is attracted to sodium, and chloride is attracted to chloride. Checkmate, atheists.

      Delete
  5. His rebuttal to people who question these truisms is classic. Here are a few:

    "#21: 20 comments in and A-B finally stops whining and makes an argument. Atta boy A-B; atta boy."

    "#35: I have seen it many times, but I am nevertheless amazed afresh each time I see it — someone stamping their feet and getting red in the face as the absolutely insist they do not exist and neither does the person they are addressing."

    "#48: Wonderful! Thank you Graham2. I knew this was coming, but that you would jump in with it right up front is a treat.
    What does a materialist do when he has no good argument? Very often he resorts to the “me no speaka the English” distraction.
    Thanks for the illustration."


    And some pearls of wisdumb from some of his other posts:

    "Duck and dodge is on full display. In fairness Mark is not the only materialist who employs these tactics. Personally, I suspect it is part of their coping mechanisms for dealing with the dissonance caused by, on the one hand espousing a materialist metaphysics, and on the other hand living their everyday lives as if their core metaphysical beliefs are false. Just a guess."

    Here is one of Barry's favourite strategies, if you can't convince them of your argument, accuse them of not being able to see the obvious.

    "I am saddened by Mark Frank’s refusal to acknowledge the obvious.

    "BTW, when you deny the obvious I will always call you on it. And as we have already observed in our previous discussion of “obvious things materialists must deny” you have to do that a lot."

    "WJM, you are taking Mark’s words at face value and that is a mistake. He took the position you ascribed to him only to maintain his absurd “an ethicist does not bring his ethical viewpoint to the table” position, and he took that position to in order to dodge the question I posed to him in the OP. And he dodged the question in the OP because the obvious answer to the question makes him very uncomfortable."

    "MF @ 38. When you make absurd statements (e.g., an ethicist does not make ethical judgments) you are either stupid or dishonest. You insist you are not dishonest. OK."

    This is one of my favourites. I have been called a liar repeatedly on UD. I then saw a comment from Barry that someone was in moderation because the person called Barry a liar. I then asked him what the UD policy for banning was. This was his response.
    "A_B, perhaps I should clarify the moderation policy for you. Banning may occur if someone FALSELY accuses another participant of being a liar." But I guess that only applies to non-creationists.

    But as a result of the OP described by Larry, and the handful of people who disagreed with these truisms, Barry has decided to add a new item to the Weak Argument Corrective section of the web site (whatever that is). Basically, he considered it a weak argument to have the OP author, or the ID community, to define terms that they use to prove their truisms.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Barry has decided to add a new item to the Weak Argument Corrective section of the web site

      Note the acronym for Weak Argument Corrective is "WAC." Not usually one to attribute meaning to suggestive coincidences, but in this case....

      Delete
    2. BA: [...]I suspect it is part of their coping mechanisms for dealing with the dissonance caused by, on the one hand espousing a materialist metaphysics, and on the other hand living their everyday lives as if their core metaphysical beliefs are false

      Hee hee! I wonder if there is any dissonance entailed by believing you are essentially Spirit but living your daily life as if it matters that you try not to die, feel compelled to find and keep a human partner and maintain your physical children, or get upset when another physical entity looks at you a bit funny?

      Delete
  6. I can just imagine his defense of a client:

    Your honour, the epiphenomenon of the electro-chemical process of the brain of my client are in no way responsible for the mental facts that let up to my client bludgeoning me to death with banana peels and the color blue.

    I think you would be just fine Larry.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Shorter Barry Arrington - accounting for self awareness is really, really hard work therefore god did it.

    I swear to god that if it were up to the Arringtons of the world we would still be applying the ordeal by water for suspected witches.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Just a follow-up to Barry's post asking for people to submit wording for what he calls the “me no speaka the English distraction” that us Darwinists use when arguing with the Creationists. The link is below.
    http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/request-for-comments/
    In short, they don't think that it is fair to ask the creationists to define terms that they use when stating claims such as 'self aware', mental fact', superior', etc.

    DK commented on this post disagreeing with the original truisms Barry had stated. His comment was removed and then he re-entered it, mentioning that it had accidentally been removed. I responded to him that it was probably just Barry removing the comment because the post wasn't asking for discussion, only for wording to explain why defining terms is not necessary when making an argument.

    Both of our comments were subsequently removed and replaced by a reprimand from Barry:
    "DK and A_B, this post has a specific purpose. We are not interested in your sadly all-too-predictable attempts to defend the indefensible."

    I wonder how much longer before I am banned.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't know if it will eventually be possible to account for mental facts on the basis of physical facts. Right now I have to assume it will be possible because there's no other explanation that makes any sense.

      Barry Arrington is making the extraordinary claim that it is impossible and, therefore, something that's not material must be involved. It seems to me that the burden of proof is on him. He needs to provide evidence that it will always be impossible to explain mental facts using a materialist explanation.

      He should be providing extraordinary evidence to support his claim but any evidence will do. I can't even imagine how he obtained evidence that a materialistic explanation will always and forever be impossible. History is not on his side.

      I've never understood the dualist position. Can anyone tell me how he thinks my mind works? Does he believe that there's a little devil inside my head? What is this magical nonmaterial stuff that makes me want to write blog posts and argue with IDiots? If you can't touch it, feel it. smell it, etc. them how does he know that it's in my head?

      He doesn't. This is just a massive argument from ignorance and an over-active imagination.

      The mind-body problem is one of those issues that philosophers should have settled a long time ago if they are going to maintain any credibility.

      Delete
    2. Acartia, how DARE you talk back to Barry, the Judge Dredd of Intelligent Design!

      Delete
    3. Prof Moran,

      I'm sorry but your post doesn't make a lot sense... when you are awake and in the right frame of mind, please rewrite it....
      I'm surly the one to comment on this issue...

      Delete
    4. Quest: "I'm surly the one to comment on this issue..."

      I never thought that you were surly.

      Larry's post makes perfect sense. It demonstrates that Barry Arrington wouldn't know logic if his knuckles dragged across them. And that he is a dick.

      Delete
    5. Another update. Apparently I will never be banned:

      "Barry Arrington responds: DK, you write that as if I should care that you are preserving your adolescent blitherings for posterity. Here’s a clue: I don’t. You and A_b are obviously trying to goad me into banning you, so you can run and tell all your friends, “look Barry is poopyhead.” I won’t. I will just keep deleting your off topic rantings. So go ahead. Waste as much of your time writing them as you like."

      I guess that I won't be able to use my Poophead argument anymore. Damn. I don't know how many arrows I have left in my quiver

      Delete
    6. When I referred to him as someone who might have the reasoning capacity of an 8 year old, I was unaware he actually ran around saying things like "poopyhead."

      Delete
    7. Barry Arrington responds ...

      You won't be banned. You will just find that your posts may or may not see the light of day. Thereby the charge of 'censorship' is evaded. That's logic, that is.

      Delete
    8. Some years ago Egnor wrote a piece on mind-brain dualism where he likened the brain to a cell phone and God to ATT.

      So, you see, Larry, your meat brain is like a cell phone (I'd say an iPhone 6 Plus fully loaded) and ATT is God that lets your thoughts fly around like magic.


      Come to think about it, Egnor might be on to something with his ATT analogy.

      Delete
    9. Yet another update. Barry inserted the following text into one of my comment:

      "[BKA responds: A-b, you are always welcome to participate in the debate in good faith. When all you want to do is whine or show your ass, your comments are liable to get deleted.]

      The words show your ass was a hyperlink to a definition for ass. It was:

      "to make a complete idiot of oneself"

      Oh, the irony.

      Delete
    10. LM: “I don't know if it will eventually be possible to account for mental facts on the basis of physical facts. Right now I have to assume it will be possible because there's no other explanation that makes any sense.”

      Reasonable…

      With hat in hand, may I respectfully suggest that you have mellowed since these two exchanges:

      http://sandwalk.blogspot.ca/2014/02/the-real-war-is-between-rationalism-and.html

      http://sandwalk.blogspot.ca/2014/03/what-do-intelligent-design-creationists.html

      Larry let’s be clear here – You and I agree far more than we disagree!

      LM: “Barry Arrington is making the extraordinary claim that it is impossible and, therefore, something that's not material must be involved.”


      Yes indeed – Barry Arlington is very confused. A first year philosophy student should have little difficulty in slaying his shibboleths.

      Barry Arlington’s so-called “The primordial datum: I am subjectively self-aware” is patently false! He “begs the question” in the restricted sense of that oft misused term!

      Let’s presume that thought indeed is occurring, on what basis can the first person singular as the agent of said thought be unquestioningly presumed? Many alternatives come to mind… segue to Leibniz’s monads as just one for example… I happen to like Spinoza’s take…. there happen to be others…

      To continue with Barry Arrington’s scribbles:

      “Trying to account for subjective self-awareness by suggesting it is an epiphenomenon of the electro-chemical process of the brain is like saying the color blue can be reduced to its constituent banana peels.

      It follows that a reductionist materialism is not merely false but obviously false.”


      LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL!

      Oh dear – where to begin! Clearly Arlington is unaware of the Locke vs. Berkely debate on materialism vs. immaterialism.

      I digress:

      It is conceivable that that the experience of consciousness could result by entirely materialistic means while, at the same time, claiming that it may still be impossible to explain consciousness in materialistic terms.

      Perhaps physical states are necessary for conscious experience but a complete explanation of physical states may not constitute a complete explanation of mental states. How about – “Brains States” are necessary for “Mental States” but there is more to a “mental state” than whirling electrons.

      Perhaps (as suggested by some, I am not so sure) mental states are an emergent property that cannot be reduced to physical or chemical properties of the biological system being examined.

      This is not the same as an elementary version of “Dualism” which is an unworthy Tar Baby that does not merit consideration.

      Larry, please remember that I am not at all certain that "emergence" is indeed the case with mental states vs. brain states. Just understand that a rejection of Reductionism does NOT constitute a rejection of Rationalism or Empiricism. Please don’t commit the same category of error as mregnor and Barry Arrington

      For a quick précis here is that link again:

      http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/reduction-biology/#4

      …and here is a brief over-view of emergent properties:

      http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/properties-emergent/

      How about what Wikipedia says about emergent properties: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence.

      Delete
    11. My second undergraduate year was spectacular! I remember in particular my favorite professor, Jonathan Bennett who taught an introductory course in Epistemology. It changed my life forever.

      Jonathan Bennett is in the news as of late…
      http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/woman-commits-suicide-facing-dementia-article-1.1910731

      My heart breaks at reading his wife’s final words…
      http://www.deadatnoon.com/

      Back to Lawrence Moran’s :
      The mind-body problem is one of those issues that philosophers should have settled a long time ago if they are going to maintain any credibility.

      I will honor my alma mater (UBC) and my former philosophy professor (Jonathan Bennett) by recalling his lectures some 4 decades ago. (I am amazed how vivid his lectures still resonate in my cranium even though I cannot recall where I just placed my car keys)

      Jonathan Bennett sharpened our philosophical teeth with a quick introduction to Descartes discourses and the mind body problem…

      He then asked us to read passages from (I still can’t believe how vividly I can still remember this all… for crying out loud I have forgotten the names of many of my former professors much less their lectures) Gilbert Ryle’s seminal 1949 opus The Concept of Mind.

      I also remember that we discussed “category mistakes” when considering Gilbert Ryle’s The Concept of Mind.

      Here is the relevant quote from Stanford University’s Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

      http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ryle/

      Ryle is thought to have accomplished two major tasks. First, he was seen to have put the final nail in the coffin of Cartesian dualism. Second, as he himself anticipated, he is thought to have argued on behalf of, and suggested as dualism's replacement, the doctrine known as philosophical (and sometimes analytical) behaviourism… Philosophical behaviourism has long been rejected; what was worth keeping has been appropriated by the philosophical doctrine of functionalism, which is the most widely accepted view in philosophy of mind today.”

      Bottom line - the silly scribbling spouted by Barry Arrington and his ilk have indeed been “settled a long time ago” by philosophers! … in fact Gilbert Ryle pounded the final nail into the falsely conceived coffin of Arrington’s mind-body dichotomy as far back as 1949.

      Epistemology has moved on since… the devil is in the details.

      Delete
    12. Here is a quick wikipedia precis of Ryle's contribution under the moniker "the Ghost in the Machine"

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

      Delete
  9. In the old days, I think the 90's, Arrington used to be an abortion ambulance chaser. He targeted Planned Parenthood and tried to shut them down by encouraging women who asked for abortions there to sue PP for X millions.

    I'd love to have seen his TV commercials.

    "Hello, my name is Barry Arrington. Did you go to Planned Parenthood in a state of desperation and plead with them to please give you an abortion? Were you desperate? Were you needy? Did they do as you pleaded with them to do? Then let's sue them for 100 million dollars.

    Did you suffer complications from your Planned Parenthood abortion? No? Don't let that be an obstacle, we can make something up. Call me, Barry Arrington, and let's get rich for Jesus."

    ReplyDelete
  10. Would someone please explain how IDiots "explain" the color blue by hypothesizing invisible spooks? What is the property of invisible spooks that explain the color blue? Or that "I am objectively self-aware"? If there are spooks in an alternate universe basically pushing and pulling levers which (in some unexplained fashion) cause our brain states to change, what properties of the spooks explain self-awareness or the color blue or whatever?

    What evidence is there that spooks actually have those properties?

    Arrington the Abortion Ambulance Chaser writes: "It is not possible even in principle to account for mental facts, such as the primordial datum, on the basis of physical facts. They are different sorts of things..."

    Right. One is material and the other is a property, specifically an emergent property, of material substances.

    Now explain to me how hypothesizing invisible spooks explains "mental facts", or anything. What are spooks made of, if not matter? They're made of ectoplasm. Or cheesecloth in the old days, or something.

    We can adapt Arrington's logic:

    "It is not possible even in principle to account for mental facts, such as the primordial datum, on the basis of spooks made of ectoplasm. They are different sorts of things..."

    What properties of ectoplasm are different from matter, such that they may explain "mental states" but matter can't? What are the unique properties of ectoplasm that enable it to do this? What evidence is there that ectoplasm has those properties?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But Barry evidently believes that his mental states are made of ectoplasm. He's got a wisp of ectoplasm where other people have grey matter. Don't tell me it doesn't explain anything.

      Delete
    2. It's ineffable. Which is the only polite f-word you can use amongst people with high moral standards.

      Delete
    3. Ineffable? Reminds me of when I was an undergraduate. :(

      Piotr, there's a new big post on my blog and at Panda's Thumb on the topic of Jason Lisle's ASC and creationist failures to solve the Starlight Problem. I chop Jason Lisle into little pieces.

      Delete
    4. Congrats, Diogenes, a nice job! (Not that Lisle is likely to notice he's been pulverised.)

      Delete
  11. Following the iron-clad logic of Barry Arrington, Esq., I have found the True(isms):

    The following statements are so obvious as to be considered truisms.

    1) The primordial datum: all heavenly bodies obey Newton's Laws of Motion and Gravitation.

    2) It is not possible even in principle to account for these laws on the basis of physical facts. They are different sorts of things; therefore one cannot account for the other.
    Trying to account for a law of nature by suggesting it is an epiphenomenon of matter is like saying the color blue can be reduced to its constituent banana peels.

    3) It follows that a reductionist materialism is not merely false but obviously false.

    4) Just as obviously, it does not follow that committed Newtonists will admit that reductionist materialism is false, for they have reasons to put their faith in their metaphysical commitments that have nothing to do with the evidence and logic of the matter.

    ReplyDelete
  12. A typographical error: I meant to type Einsteinists, instead of Newtonists.

    ReplyDelete
  13. In my opinion Barry Arrington is only talking about the modern scientific controversy over consciousness, where the yet scientifically unexplained "qualia" is sometimes overlooked while explaining how such things as the conscious experience of love works. This url should bring up a few pages of the debates I have seen, in a good forum for those with an interest in cognitive science (AI, neurobiology, psychology, etc.) and like to think big.

    http://www.kurzweilai.net/forums/search.php?search=qualia

    The theory I defend does not have this problem. In the introduction it's made clear that consciousness is considered to be something in addition to intelligence, that's beyond the scope of the theory to (at least at this time) explain.

    Forums for dwelling on "creationists" and ID compound consciousness related issues by disagreeing (with what essentially makes sense in another forum) just because someone like Barry Arrington said so. One thing for sure is he used enough well baited hooks, line and sinkers to reel in blogs worth of big fish, with that lure. Or that's what it looks like to me. I'm certainly now in suspense, to see what happens next.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. One thing for sure is he used enough well baited hooks, line and sinkers to reel in blogs worth of big fish, with that lure.

      He didn't reel in any big fish...people like to comment on such matters and they do so voluntarily because they like doing so. And Arrington's comments are not merely opining upon interesting matters that we do not yet understand. They are what IDers comments always are, apologetics for religious explanations, and not just a generic spirituality, but almost always specific christian dogma. Scratch the surface of every ID proponent and you find a religionist underneath. You may be an exception, but I wouldn't bet on it.

      Delete
    2. Again, he didn't reel in any big fish. UD bans almost all critics of ID sooner or later. They banned Febble twice. They banned me, never explained why. There's a whole blog, "Skeptical Zone", devoted to people banned from UD. When they want to ban an evolutionist, sometimes they just say "X is no longer with us" and give no explanation. From time to time Arrington has a Napoleonic mental breakdown and bans dozens of people at once.

      Another dick move they pull when they want to ban somebody is this: first they pick out an evolutionist's random comment for ridicule. Arrington or somebody starts a new top-level post quoting this evolutionist's random comment, and invites IDiots like Joe Gallien and Mung and BA77 to engage in some ad hominems, which they then do. Then the evolutionist gets one comment in that thread-- they let her get one comment-- then BAM you're banned.

      After they ban somebody, they make up stories about the reasons why they banned the person, after the person can no longer respond. For example, "Oh, X used obscene language and engaged in personal attacks." Riiiight.

      It's a power trip, they get off on it. The power trip is the whole reason Uncommon Descent exists. It's not like they're solving scientific problems.

      Delete
    3. Gary, about this theory you defend -
      Since you've shown yourself to be adept at accessing wikipedia, I'd suggest you look up "Emergence" next. In particular, pay attention to the opening sentence:
      In philosophy, systems theory, science, and art, emergence is conceived as a process whereby larger entities, patterns, and regularities arise through interactions among smaller or simpler entities that themselves do not exhibit such properties. (emphasis added)

      Now look at the introduction you have pasted here a few times:

      The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause whereby in biology (behavior of matter self-assembles) a collective of intelligent entities at the molecular level (self-replicating genetic systems) combine to cause emergence of intelligence at the cellular level, which combine to cause the emergence of intelligence at the multicellular level, to create us who are thereby a trinity of self-similar intelligence levels at different size scales each systematically and behaviorally in their/our own image, likeness.

      I'll eagerly await your explanation for the discrepancy.

      Delete
    4. CatMat you are missing the obvious, while reading way too much into a Wikipedia article that does not even cover the emergence of intelligence at any intelligence level:

      In philosophy, systems theory, science, and art, emergence is conceived as a process whereby larger entities, patterns, and regularities arise through interactions among smaller or simpler entities that themselves do not exhibit such properties. (emphasis added)

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

      The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause whereby in biology (behavior of matter self-assembles) a collective of intelligent entities at the molecular level (self-replicating genetic systems) combine to cause emergence of intelligence at the cellular level, which combine to cause the emergence of intelligence at the multicellular level, to create us who are thereby a trinity of self-similar intelligence levels at different size scales each systematically and behaviorally in their/our own image, likeness.

      There is no discrepancy other than emergence not yet having been fully scientifically explained yet, by anyone, therefore the Wikipedia article needs decades works of revisions before being complete enough for your purposes.

      There are now fractal based models even "Fractal Universe" theory that disagrees with you, and what you found in Wikipedia that is easy to take out of context.

      Delete
    5. Right. Sailed right past.

      The point about emergerce, and the point of the sentence I suggested you read and even quoted for you, is that if intelligence is emergent on the multicellular level, it was not exhibited on the cellular level. If it was emergent on the cellular level, it was not exhibited on the molecular level. If it was emergent on the moleculars level it was not exhibited as the cause, which is what you have labeled "the intelligent cause."

      This, of course, is just emergence as it is conceived in philosophy, systems theory, science, and art but if your theory doesn't land in any of those then who cares.

      Delete
    6. In, hopefully, before yet another accusation of being anti-science.

      There is no mystery in the emergence of the dissipative friction term in the Navier-Stokes equations despite the underlying kinematic equations being time-symmetric. The friction term, unlike the kinematics, is scale-dependent in both time and space.

      There is no mystery if the emergence of wind despite the interactions between two gas molecules being time symmetruc. The flow, unlike the underlying kinematics, is scale-dependent in both time and space.

      There is no mystery in the emergence of transparency or the refractive index despite the spatial symmetry of the electromagnetic field of an atom. The interaction with a field of electromagnetic radiation is scale-dependent in both space and phase.

      There is no mystery in the emergence of intelligence that would require an intelligent cause. Guess why?

      Delete
    7. It's like this (from Conclusion)

      This theory has explained why we are a product of intelligent design that contains a trinity of emergent levels of biological intelligence, as follows:

      (1) Molecular Intelligence: Behavior of matter is a self-assembling behavioral cause of molecular intelligence, where RNA and DNA genome-based biological systems learn over time by replication of their accumulated genetic knowledge through a lineage of successive offspring. This intelligence level controls basic growth and division of our cells, is a primary source of our instinctual behaviors, and causes molecular level social differentiation (i.e. speciation).

      (2) Cellular Intelligence: Molecular intelligence is the intelligent cause of cellular intelligence. This intelligence level controls moment to moment cellular responses such as locomotion/migration and cellular level social differentiation (i.e. neural plasticity).

      (3) Multicellular Intelligence: Cellular intelligence is the intelligent cause of multicellular intelligence. In this case a multicellular body is controlled by an intelligent neural brain expressing all three intelligence levels at once, resulting in our complex and powerful paternal (fatherly), maternal (motherly) and other behaviors. This intelligence level controls our moment to moment multicellular responses, locomotion/migration and multicellular level social differentiation (i.e. occupation).


      The scientific theory explains how "intelligence" (not school of fish and flock of birds type examples) emerged, not Wikipedia, which does not even explain that yet.

      The scientific method you are using assumes that Wikipedia knows everything and all not yet explained is scientifically impossible, all research that goes beyond that must be stopped by declaring it pseudoscience and anything else it takes to unfairly discredit a scientific theory.

      Delete
    8. Gary,

      So you chose to answer none of the questions stated so far. Not that surprising but somewhat disapponting anyway

      Could you at least answer these questions based directly on what you just posted:

      1) How, exactly or in outline, does "this intelligence level control basic growth and division of our cells, be a primary source of our instinctual behaviors, and cause molecular level social differentiation (i.e. speciation).

      It would seem that bare biochemistry would not suffice here but I'd be very interested to see the signaling gateways you've discoverd so far, especially the ones keyed to intelligence. I also wasn't aware that speciation was supposed to happen in individual cells of a single specimen, do you have any source material on that?

      2) How, exactly or in outline, [t]his intelligence level controls moment to moment cellular responses such as locomotion/migration and cellular level social differentiation (i.e. neural plasticity).

      As far as I know, the cellular responses to anything has been controlled by the concentration and distribution of RNA transcriptase products and byproducts but I'm sure you have some new research results on this. Care to share a link?

      3) How, exactly or in outline, [t]his intelligence level controls our moment to moment multicellular responses, locomotion/migration and multicellular level social differentiation (i.e. occupation).

      I don't even have a counterquestion for that, I thought this was what our central nervous system does. Citation sorely needed.

      Delete
    9. Since you asked, CatMat, for illustrations and footnote references see the following text of this theory at:
      http://theoryofid.blogspot.com
      Or direct PDF link:
      https://sites.google.com/site/theoryofid/home/TheoryOfIntelligentDesign.pdf

      Unimolecular Intelligence

      Clues to the origin of intelligent living things are found in rudimentary molecular systems such as self-replicating RNA. Since these are single macromolecules that can self-learn they are more precisely examples of “Unimolecular Intelligence”, as opposed to “Molecular Intelligence”, which may contain millions of molecules all working together as one, to self-replicate.

      REQUIREMENT #1 of 4 - SOMETHING TO CONTROL

      The catalytic (chemically reacts with other molecules without itself changing to a new molecular species) ability of ribonucleotide (A,G,C,U) bases combine to form useful molecular machinery. Where properly combined into strands 100 or more bases in length they become a rapidly moving molecule that can control/catalyze other molecules in their environment, and each other, including to induce each others replication. Unlike RNA that exists inside a protective cell membrane these RNA's are directly influenced by the planetary environment, which they are free to control. Modern examples include viruses that over time learned how to control the internal environment of their host to self-assemble protective shells with sensors on the outside for detecting suitable host cells to enter and control. After invading the cells other sensors detect when conditions are right to simultaneously reproduce, thereby overwhelming the immune system of their hosts, which would otherwise detect then destroy them.

      REQUIREMENT #2 of 4 – SENSORY ADDRESSED MEMORY

      The ribonucleotide sequences are a memory system that also acts as its body. On it are molecular sites, which interact with nearby molecules to produce repeatable movements/actions. Its shape can include hairpin bends that are sensitive to the chemical environment, which in turn changes the action responses of its code/memory to nearby molecules, and to each other. Their activity also changes their molecular environment, much the same way as living things have over time changed the atmosphere and chemistry of our planet. This suggests self-organization of a complex collective molecular self-learning system involving diverse molecular systems, which both compete with and sustain each other.

      REQUIREMENT #3 of 4 - CONFIDENCE TO GAUGE FAILURE AND SUCCESS

      Molecular species that can successfully coexist with others in the population and the environmental changes they cause are successful responses, which stay in the collective memory. Molecular species that fail are soon replaced by another more successful (good guess) response. The overall process must result in collective actions/reactions that efficiently use and recycle the resources available to multiple molecular species, or else there is an unsustainable chemical reaction, which ends when the reactants have consumed each other, resulting in an environmental crash.

      REQUIREMENT #4 of 4 - ABILITY TO TAKE A GUESS

      For such a rapidly replicating molecule RNA editing type mechanisms can become a significant source of guesses. Also, molecular affinity, which is in part measured by the hydropathy index, will favor assimilation of complimentary ribonucleotides. Where these are in limited abundance the next best fitting molecule may replace them, or cause other changes to its structure, which may work as well or better, for their descendants. This makes it possible for these complex molecules to automatically try something new, when necessary.

      Delete
    10. Molecular Intelligence

      Molecular intelligence (a living thing, life) is emergent from naturally occurring machine-like molecules which together build and maintain cells like we together build and maintain cities. This form of intelligence is sustained by a “replication cycle” that keeps it going through time. Biologically, our thought cycles exist as a brain wave/cycle rhythm but (where physics willing) the system would still work as well by replicating itself (and stored memories) on a regular cycle, as does molecular intelligence. If our brain worked this way then it would replicate/replace itself upon every new thought we have, could this way sustain itself nearly forever. Without cellular intelligence (discussed in next section) to add moment to moment awareness molecular intelligence is at the mercy of the environment, has no way to efficiently forage for food, but they still soon enough can control the planet’s surface/atmospheric chemistry.

      Chromosomal subsystems may be separately modeled. The flowchart becomes:



      Since cells of multicellular organisms can reconfigure even eliminate parts of their genome in order to “differentiate” into many cell types only our germ cells (which produce egg/sperm) would be fully representative of the memory contents of a molecular intelligence system. With all of the memory cycles before the one that made us is included, our molecular intelligence is currently estimated to be over 3.4 billion years old.

      Delete
    11. REQUIREMENT #1 of 4 - SOMETHING TO CONTROL

      In some bacteria and later in time plants, molecular intelligence systems could likely control the Reverse Krebs Cycle (also known as the Reverse TriCarboxylic Acid Cycle (TCA cycle), Reverse Szent-Györgyi–Krebs Cycle or Reverse/Reductive Citric Acid Cycle). This cycle is the center of cellular metabolism, consuming carbon dioxide while providing energy and molecular intermediates that are used to build amino acids and other vital biomolecules needed to sustain its growth.


      A dozen or so catalytic molecules form an assembly line that makes an increasing complex molecule from the molecule it started with. Upon completion of the cycle the molecule breaks in half resulting in an additional molecule required for biosynthesis, while the other half is what it started with, which can then go through the cycle all over again. At any stage through the assembly cycle one of the various molecules may be drawn by molecular forces into a nearby biosynthesis reaction. At least part of the Reverse Krebs Cycle can be catalyzed by volcanic clay/dust/mineral in sunlight making it possible that the cycle was once a common feature of planetary chemistry. Other clay/minerals are useful for the self-assembly of protocells.

      Animals cannot produce their own food and must instead consume plants and their liberated oxygen to run the cycle in the opposite direction to gain food and energy by disassembling what was previously assembled. There is here a balance between the producers (plants) and consumers (animals) which together maintain a relatively constant oxygen level in the atmosphere.

      Additional molecular systems which exploit these metabolic cycles could emerge in environments where the cycle already exists as an uncontrolled reaction. If true then we can here predict self-assembly of a precellular starter mechanism that metabolically produces all that is needed to produce a living genome from scratch, instead of a nonliving/nonfunctional genome first needing to establish this metabolic cycle. Where the energy to power the cycle is from sunlight, the system would have already been light sensitive, the first step toward a more complex sense of vision.

      Self-assembly and disassembly of cellular organelles is also easily controlled by molecular intelligence. For example, before division of complex cells the nuclear membrane must automatically self-disassemble to allow access to the chromosomes so they can be pulled by spindle fibers to opposite sides. After division of the chromosomes, internal environmental conditions change causing a nuclear membrane to automatically reassemble around each of the two sets so there are then two nuclei inside the cell. With there then being essentially two cells inside one, the outer cell membrane has two nuclei to self-assemble around which causes them to separate so each can go their separate ways.

      Delete
    12. Coacervates can resemble living cells, and can appear intelligent, but they only demonstrate uncontrolled (non-intelligent) propulsion. They are not even protointelligence (where it is then at least almost intelligent). When molecularly controlled by a “cell” these forces can power spinning flagella motors and other forms of locomotion, but coacervates meet the first requirement only. We can say that coacervates are a twitching body with no brain/intelligence to control it.

      Microscopic coacervates can be made by adding red-cabbage pH indicator solution with egg yolk that provides membrane forming phospholipid molecules that form vesicles around other components of yolk. Indicator solution is made by slowly adding fresh leaves from a grocery store red-cabbage to around 1/3 pan (around twice the volume of whole head before pulling each leave) of boiling water that should just cover after leaves soften down and lose coloration. Use large basket strainer to remove liquid (can follow with finer mesh as from plastic fabric or stainless steel coffee maker basket), refrigerate. Remaining solids will eventually settle to bottom. For more pure supernatant you can later pour clear liquid into another container, or centrifuge.

      Delete
    13. REQUIREMENT #2 of 4 – SENSORY ADDRESSED MEMORY

      In living things molecular intelligence cycles through time by continual replication of genetic Addressable Memory (chromosomes) where output actions are stored as coded genes (addressed by regulatory elements) that catalyze production of many kinds of proteins that control and maintain the cell. This memory core is always made of RNA or DNA (threadlike crystal) that can be extracted then sequenced.

      In a biological memory system data elements include genes that are addressed by one or more species of sensor molecules, which the gene is sensitive to. What is sensed by sensors addresses corresponding data elements that store appropriate action to be taken in response. The Data at that address is coded on the gene that gets turned into a protein molecule able to perform some Action somewhere in the cell. The Addressing turns a gene (or any data location) on or off (or analog value of throttle).

      Molecular streams and conveyors of different kinds inside the cell help transport sensor and data molecules to their proper destination. In 3D systems made of matter, many Data locations can be performing Data Actions and all at the same time yet there is plenty of space for Addressing and Data flow to the rest of the circuit.

      Duplication of existing memory is how a new memory location is often added to a DNA based RAM system. Single gene duplication is not the only way to increase information in some cases (not normally humans) it is also possible to duplicate a whole chromosome or all of them in the cell one or more times (polyploidy). Duplication of one gene (data element) adds a single functional new Data location to memory, but there can be more than one gene in each duplication event. In all cases there is a more reliable way for memory to increase in size, than random single base insertions and other additions that would just keep scrambling the information already there.

      Delete
    14. When studying duplication events it becomes important to understand how genes moved to a new location in a chromosome (or to another). Where after replication the strand unwound to occupy the same chromosome territory6 it would have been duplicated to an adjacent strand that ends up in a different place after the chromosome supercoils just before separation to one of two sides of cell. The chromosome later unwinds then starts protein production again. It here important to have a 3D understanding of what the chromosome territories look like when genes are in full production inside the nucleus where there are molecular streams forming genetic circuits, which places genes that otherwise appear to be far apart in close proximity to each other. One or more genes can also be pinched out of a territory, or have other secondary function (such as recall of past experience somehow useful for producing a good-guess) even though it is not used as a protein production gene anymore. Where duplication included a change in gene coding, what produced the change becomes important. We cannot assume they are all random copy errors, where there may be a mechanism that works with experience stored in nearly all of its active and inactive genes it has in memory.

      One way of specifically adding a new memory at a given address is homing endonuclease genes (HEGs) that home in on a particular portion of the DNA, inactivate a gene and insert a copy of itself in the deactivated gene. This homing/addressing occurs in the sperm cells, is passed on to successive generations.

      Molecularly Addressed regulation sites turn genes on when they are needed, then metabolic pathway molecular feedback turns off before they start overproducing. Replicating additional genes would help it build up levels of mRNA (for manufacture of their respective protein product) faster, but not necessarily change the amount present in the cell because of production rate of each gene being controlled to only produce what is needed. There are then more than enough viable copies to replace ones that may go bad. Not producing anything useful could make it prone to being chemically switched off or eliminated by the epigenetic success gauging part of the mechanism not finding that useful to it anymore.

      Chromosomes arrange into a network of independently addressable areas of molecular flow inside themselves called chromosome territories. There is here an organization present that allows each compartment to specialize in a certain gene driven function, a localized form of addressing where there are routes to travel to reach any given address.

      Delete
    15. REQUIREMENT #3 of 4 - CONFIDENCE TO GAUGE FAILURE AND SUCCESS

      In molecular intelligence the confidence levels are gauged as in cybernetics the interdisciplinary study of the structure of regulatory systems, including molecular systems that are required for basic growth and division of cells where most rudimentary confidence levels are as in homeostasis.

      Where confidence in conditions being suitable for replication are great enough another replication cycle can be initiated. Or where a dry spell threatens survival, some cells can take evasive action by becoming a spore (seed) with hard watertight shell around the most vital molecular intelligence (only) part of the system. The next level cellular intelligence that once controlled flagella and other motor systems ceases to exist, until conditions improve and its cellular intelligence can again emerge from its molecular intelligence, to once more become a swimming/migrating cell.

      Delete
    16. REQUIREMENT #4 of 4 - ABILITY TO TAKE A GUESS

      Complex forms of molecular intelligence have sensory receptors on their surface membrane for different morphogenetic proteins (substance that evokes differentiation). Interaction of the protein with the receptor initiates a cascade of events that eventually turns on some genes and turns off others, aiding differentiation of the cell into brain, muscle and other unique cells. Successful actions to take in response to environmental conditions are recalled from its RNA/DNA memory. New memories can be formed as in the classic example of the origin of nylonase7 whereby a successful response to environmental chemistry conditions is the result of a good guess that leads to a new action to be taken.

      At the molecular intelligence level, good guesses are taken using mechanisms such as crossover exchange, chromosome fusion/fission, duplications, deletions and transpositions (jumping genes) whereby a coded region of DNA data physically moves to another location to effectively change its address location. Information shared by conjugation may possibly include good guesses which are incorporated into its genome. Somatic hypermutation occurs when immune cells are fighting a losing battle with germs. The cell then responds by searching for a solution to the problem by rapidly taking good guesses. This produces new defensive molecules which become attached to their outside, to help grab onto an invader so it can be destroyed.

      Although a random guess can at times be better than no guess at all, uncontrolled random change (random mutation) in DNA coding is normally damaging. These are caused by (among other things) x-rays and gamma rays, UV light, smoke and chemical agents. Molecular intelligence systems normally use error correction mechanisms to prevent “random chance” memory changes from occurring. To qualify as a random guess the molecular intelligence system must itself produce them. An exception is where random change/mutation is the only available guess mechanism, which may have been all that existed at the dawn of life, to produce the very first living/intelligent things.

      Without some form of good-guess genetic recombination the learning rate of the system would be very low. Offspring would normally be clones of their parents. Therefore a part of the cell cycle often has crossover exchange where entire regions of chromosomes are safely swapped, to produce a new individual response to the environment that should work as well or better. This is a good guess because the molecular intelligence is starting with what it has already learned then tries something new based upon that coded knowledge. This is not randomly mixing coding regions in an uncontrolled genetic scrambling which can easily be fatal.

      Regardless of population size a molecular intelligence “gene pool” still relies on single individuals to come up with unique solutions to problems such as digesting nylon, antibiotic resistance and differentiation into new cell morphologies. A gene pool is the combined memory of a "collective intelligence" or more specifically "molecular collective intelligence". By using conjugation to share information, a colony of bacteria (or other cells) can be considered to be a single multicellular organism.

      Delete
    17. Cellular Intelligence

      Cellular Intelligence adds moment to moment awareness and actions to molecular intelligence. Without it, the very slow responding molecular intelligence would lack an added level of intelligence to find food and defend itself. Rudimentary cellular intelligence is gauged using scientific models of their internal systems. Animal-cell intelligence (protozoans, colony forming stem cells and social amoebas) has a much greater ability to navigate its environment which is gained from a centrosome (microtubule nucleating center) which evidence suggests may be an additional light sensitive organelle. This more visible intelligence is gauged using special mazes and other environments which test their advanced features. Observing microscopic single celled hay infusion protozoa shows intelligent behavior inherent to an animal design. We more easily recognize them as intelligent living things while observing some of their more impressive hunting and foraging skills.

      A most rudimentary example of a cellular intelligence system is e.coli chemotaxis8 9 10 11 that will normally “run” straight ahead but when confidence level in heading direction goes low a "tumble" is very simply produced by reversing motor spin direction to guess a new heading. More follows.

      In animals an added centrosome which has its own replication mechanism produces amoeba and stem-cell migration behavior by nucleating microtubules in chosen direction of travel which then causes internal cytoplasm to “stream”, to produce movement. They will wander in search for a place where they feel comfortable (are useful) in the growing multicellular colony.

      At the cellular level developing muscle cells exercise along with their neurons that control them, which must learn to fire and wire together. Cells must train so that “we” (conscious mind of the cellular colony) can in time crawl, walk or run. Cellular intelligence age is the age of the cell itself, making the oldest you would have the same birth-date age as you in years plus around 9 months.

      Delete
    18. REQUIREMENT #1 of 4 - SOMETHING TO CONTROL

      Cellular intelligence controls movements and actions of the cell which has chemoreceptors, eyespots, and as in insects antennae to sense movement as it controls its cilia/flagellum motors so it can control food/chemical resources of its environment.

      REQUIREMENT #2 of 4 – SENSORY ADDRESSED MEMORY

      E.coli senses chemoeffector gradients in temporal fashion (recall series of readings/conditions back in time) by comparing current concentrations to those encountered over the past few seconds of travel, a single element reversible methylation temporal memory, to navigate its environment.12

      Cellular (and molecular intelligence) can include plasmid exchange which is a very useful form of communication/learning between members of a bacterial colony, which share genetic information. When one finds a useful solution to a given environmental situation it is taught to others, this way. But as in all forms of learning it's also possible to be taught something that works at first then later tragically fails, or was useless to begin with.

      Other cellular intelligence memory systems are expected to exist, but at this time they are an active area of ongoing scientific research.

      Note: Only germline cells that divide to become egg and sperm cells must accurately copy the full genetic memory. After germline cells fuse (fertilization) they begin to modify their genome as much as is necessary to achieve differentiation into a specialized cell. It is here changing in morphology in response to its environment to be able to survive one cellular lifetime. During development of the organism many kinds of cells (muscle and skin cells, neurons, etc.) with many cellular intelligence behaviors are produced by the germline cells which remain the same through time to produce the eggs and sperm to produce another generation.

      Delete
    19. REQUIREMENT #3 of 4 - CONFIDENCE TO GAUGE FAILURE AND SUCCESS

      E.coli chemotaxis first has “sensory adaptation” which produces one behavior over another according to immediate needs. When sensed chemoeffector gradients that are stored in memory show movement fails to bring it towards goal a guess is triggered by briefly running motors in CW direction to produce "tumble" action guess response. Cellular intelligence can also respond to quorum sensing where molecules they secrete into the environment coordinate their actions so they all do the same thing at the same time to meet the needs of the entire colony or organism.

      REQUIREMENT #4 of 4 - ABILITY TO TAKE A GUESS

      Hypermutation is a molecular intelligence level state in immune cells which influences its cellular intelligence when a threat is sensed which they must destroy. A million times the usual mutation rate rapidly designs new molecules to grab onto invaders the immune cells are then at war with. Only the cellular intelligence has the moment to moment awareness to successfully battle other microbes. The molecular intelligence is involved too, but more on the sensing and supply of defensive molecules needed by the cellular intelligence producing the required motor (protein) actions.

      Molecular level translocation to change address location can also influence cellular behavior. Also what is accepted or rejected during conjugation, which adds to its molecular knowledge, but is much a guess whether it works or not. Something that worked for another is a good guess making its way around in a population.

      Delete
    20. Multicellular Intelligence

      Multicellular intelligence produced by a brain operates with clock cycles that can be detected from the outside by tuning to waves with an electroencephalograph (EEG) machine to observe brain waves. In humans intelligence can be gauged using academic test scores and personal accomplishments, while in less academic organisms mazes or other cognitive tests are used.

      Multicellular organisms are not always multicellular intelligence. Without a brain, plants cannot meet the four requirements for multicellular intelligence. In plants and other simple systems cellular intelligence combines to produce a multicellular structure where the only plant motion is to sway with the wind or slow phototropic behavior, growing towards light. Venus flytrap has a simple reflex action to close when an insect touches its sensor, but a “reflex” action is not “intelligence”. There is also cellular sprout timing (vernalization) circuitry but that is a molecular system inside its cells not cells communicating with each other as in a brain, therefore we will consider plants to be cellular intelligence only, not multicellular intelligence.

      Most animals easily meet all four requirements for intelligence at the multicellular level. This includes corals, sponges and sea squirts where in the larval (tadpole) stage they have a light sensing ocellus (motion sensing navigation eye) to help them find a comfortable place to stay.

      As though they were a single giant multicellular intelligence fungi may have a form of underground communication system that wires together entire forests. But to be considered intelligent it would need to meet all four requirements of intelligence, which here has not yet been accomplished but cannot be ruled out.

      Delete
    21. Human Multicellular Intelligence

      REQUIREMENT #1 of 4 - SOMETHING TO CONTROL

      In addition to a physical body with arms and legs to control, humans seek knowledge and “power over others” that puts them in control of all things in their environment. This can include controlling a musical instrument that is controlling the sound heard in the air that is controlling our moods that control how our day goes.

      It's both a good and bad thing that we are this way. This behavioral trait keeps us searching for new knowledge (science) which benefits us. But being so successful at controlling our environment sometimes makes our presence at the expense of other living things, and to war with each other. Academia controls knowledge by granting "degrees" or "credentials" to those who make the grade. In this case learning, and knowledge itself, is something humans can control.

      Some desire to control others mind and body, or their own. In religion Buddhism is self-control of ones own mind and body. Islam and Christianity also seek empowering knowledge. In culture Harry Potter fans seek to control things like bullies they wish they could make vanish into thin air by pointing a magic wand at them.

      External to the human body are feedback circuits such as a thermostat to control room temperature. The intelligent cause that created the intelligent design is the human intelligence that ultimately controls the room temperature, not the thermostat that only makes it easier for its human intelligent designer to control it with an electrical feedback system of that design.

      REQUIREMENT #2 of 4 – SENSORY ADDRESSED MEMORY

      Neurons store memories with synaptic junctions (synapse) between their many neural fibers that grow from them to other neurons.

      As in stem-cells which start off with the same similarly expressed genes in memory there is differentiation which produces an observable difference in the structure and contents of each memory according to lifetime learning. We can here say that stem cells do a great deal of work on their own genome, as do we when we use our memory to learn which produces new networks and much rewiring. A muller cell for guiding light into retinal photoreceptors can discard all but most vital processes to become increasing transparent while a muscle cell uses/exercises genes that make it stronger. Similarly a taxi driver has an increasingly larger than average hypothalamus from storing the spatial maps their job requires be wired into memory.

      Disabling memories found in Post Traumatic Stress Disorder is expected in all forms of intelligence. Our being consciously aware of what we have in our memory makes these painful. But in at least a computer model of intelligence reexposure to the same set of stimuli while this time actions result in repeated failure (as opposed to prior repeated success) confidence goes to zero then there is an overwrite of existing memory.

      In the computer model, PTSD may be evident after moving the last feeder out of its reach of screen (or other way stress it) where upon restoring a normal environment will have become noticeably jittery. In time they can get back into a functional routine but trauma type memories can still remain. Once a traumatic experience is in memory it can be there for good. The only way to overwrite harmful genes/plasmids is to physically change or replace them with new ones.

      Delete
    22. REQUIREMENT #3 of 4 - CONFIDENCE TO GAUGE FAILURE AND SUCCESS

      In multicellular intelligence confidence level changes are often produced by chemical/hormonal change which alters our behavior in a way that we are driven towards one thing or another. This includes the hedonic system of the human brain, the source of “pleasure”. Simple blood chemistry levels produce “hunger” that can in turn produce a long and complicated search where we feel confidence levels rising as we get closer towards food. In some cases such as knowingly overeating confidence levels (for other needs) are at the same time lowered and may set a new goal that resists the pleasure of food. Thrill seekers are guided towards confidence boosting activities where adrenaline hormone levels pleasurably rise.

      Confidence to gauge failure and success is the part of our intelligence we can "feel", know what it’s like to be rewarded by "success" and punished by "failure". Games and sports are very popular to achieve the euphoria that accompanies success. These confidence changing feelings make us intentionally act one way or another depending on changing needs. Need might at first be thirst which then leads to danger in the path to the water which takes longer to get to which then makes hunger a priority which has them on a path to the food.

      The confidence circuitry is perhaps the most complex part of the human brain. And by being able to "feel for others" we can share in the success or failure of another intelligence simply by watching them. We therefore have heroes who succeed and villains. In human culture this is well expressed as winning over the 1970's "pinball machine" that preceded home video games and personal computers. The pinball machine had to be fed quarters which in turn kept many teenagers out of spending money, which in turn helped make the impossible dream of being able to control the game for endless replays the ultimate success for many of that generation.

      In the musical movie by the Who named "Tommy" is a scene where a "deaf dumb and blind kid" that can only do one thing at all (get endless free games) first discovers a pinball machine that was luring him to wander off. After beating a machine the world “lights up" around Tommy by his superhuman success, when in reality the ability to fully control a pinball machine would not work without an electrical outlet or really light up the air around them, just feel as though it could.

      After spending much money attempting to control a pinball machine, human intelligence of this generation would then spend more money to see a confidence building movie that feels good by showing what that ultimate superhuman control over a controlling machine would look like when abstracted through art. Our intelligence here understands a reality by relating to something that in reality could not possibly happen. What is in human art/culture is here useful for explaining how human intelligence works.

      Low confidence of repeated failure or being held down by others attempting to control us produces an imprisoning feeling that we may work very hard to get “free" from. Getting free can lead to state of euphoria, as expressed in the movie Tommy "I'm Free" with abstraction being of running through the world inviting all to join through scenes that resemble going back in time through our creation.

      Some may seek knowledge from history and/or religion. Scientists may try to answer that by searching for new knowledge scientifically, driven to keep taking their intellect and science to new levels. In fact, that powerful need for knowledge is why this theory exists.

      No matter what we are driven to seek, the search for knowledge is well abstracted by art as climbing a mountain for the light of knowledge and wisdom as in the movie Tommy “See Me, Feel Me - Listening to You”.

      Delete
    23. REQUIREMENT #4 of 4 - ABILITY TO TAKE A GUESS

      Externally human intelligence can take a random guess aided by flipping a coin or draw from deck of cards. A good guess is based on success and failure of past actions in memory for similar environmental condition(s).

      Trial and error guessing is how the “scientific method” works. A hypothesis is a guess, which is tested. A theory is the memory text where results of hypothesis testing are added. It's no secret that scientists test guesses, in order to solve a scientific problem. This simple guess driven process (demonstrated by the computer model) is the scientific “mother of invention” that leads to the creation of novel new intelligent designs, at all intelligence levels.

      Delete
    24. Damn, if I wanted to read a text book, I wouldn't be on the net.

      But I think that the entire approach used by creationists can be summed up in the following sentence by Gary;

      "CatMat you are missing the obvious",

      If you don't see their views as being obvious, the deficiency is with you, not with their argument.

      Delete
    25. Since you asked, CatMat
      Good grief, where did I ask for this copypasta?

      Anyway. I'll address the points in the first post of the series (Saturday, September 13, 2014 11:11:00 PM as it shows here). I might read the rest after you've answered at least one of the questions I actually asked.

      About requirement #1: raw RNA does nothing on a planetary scale, it needs the intracellular machinery or a pre-cellular equivalent to express itself. Apart from that, the paragraph is pretty much OK as presented. You might want to look into the minor detail that viral RNA (or DNA as the case might be) does not actually encode for the machinery needed for replication and what this implies for the information content of the inheritable part.

      About requirement #2: nothing before the final sentence even hints to a "self-organization of a complex collective molecular self-learning system." Any and all molecules exist around an equilibrium state with their environment and their resultant action affects that state.

      About requirement #3: how is this a requirement and to what? If concentrations of molecules are a measure of failure and/or success, what's the meter? If anything, life has shown it's capability to change what defines a successful mix of molecules and to do that in several scales of space. As far as I know, there are no examples of learning by changing the distribution of molecular "species" within an organ or organism. At least using any definition molecular specises compatible with requirements #1 and #2.

      About requirement #4: Yes, different triplets for the same amino acid result in different timing for the transcription and a varying probability for a mistranslation. This does not equip any particular strand of RNA with a mechanism to "guess," though, since there is no mechanism for the strand to change its triplets once they are laid out.

      Now, you might want to answer the questions I actually asked... I'm especially interested in your interpretation of emergence and why the usage of the term in ID does not match its usage in any other field.

      Delete
    26. What does "the entire approach used by creationists" have to do with whether the above text (and more still left to go including Species and Speciation section but I will stop there) is from science or from scripture CatMat?

      Delete
    27. I should have said Acartia Tonsa at the end of the last question.

      Delete
    28. About requirement #3: how is this a requirement and to what?

      From theory:

      A behavior qualifies as intelligent behavior by meeting all four circuit requirements for this ability, which are: [1] body (or modeling platform) with motor muscles (proteins, electric speaker, electronic “write” to a screen) to control, [2] memory addressed by sensory sensors where each motor action and its associated confidence value are separate data elements, [3] confidence (central hedonic, homeostasis) system that increments (stored in memory) confidence value of a successful motor action else decrements the confidence value, [4] guess new memory action when associated confidence level sufficiently decreases (and if not prerandomized motor data then when first addressed). For flagella powered cells reversing motor direction can produce a tumble to a new heading direction, guess where to go.

      The IBM Watson system that won at Jeopardy qualifies as intelligent. Word combinations were guessed then tested against memory for confidence in each being a hypothesis that is true, and whether confident enough in best answer to “push buzzer”. The Watson platform had a speaker (for vocal muscles) and muscles guiding a pen was simulated by an electric powered writing device.

      Behavior of matter is produced by electromagnetic force created atomic bonds and intermolecular interactions (covalent, polar covalent, van der Waals polar force, ionic, metallic, hydrogen) and follows the laws of physics. This behavior can only respond to its environment one way, such as bonding with another molecule or not. To computer model the behavior of matter only two of the four requirements for intelligence are used.

      Delete
    29. CatMat your response contains the following that I did not know about, which might be useful to include in the theory:

      About requirement #4: Yes, different triplets for the same amino acid result in different timing for the transcription and a varying probability for a mistranslation. This does not equip any particular strand of RNA with a mechanism to "guess," though, since there is no mechanism for the strand to change its triplets once they are laid out.

      Different timing? Eureka!!!!!!!

      See my two comments for the article: Another stupid "prediction" by Intelligent Design Creationists

      Your example belongs in requirement 3 "confidence level" as the cause of the "guess" needed to meet requirement 4. It would seem that where that is true: on average gene sequences that have catastrophic results from changing a single base will use the highest confidence triplets, while gene sequences that are not very helpful or not matter either way will more often use lower confidence triplets.

      Do you by chance have any experimental evidence to indicate whether this hypothesis is true or false? It's possible to guess anyway, therefore the theory does not fall apart from this one hypothesis not being true. But where it is true an intelligent system checks out to be working most efficiently, not haphazardly.

      Delete
    30. Gary, that's not science.
      When you realize you don't know how something like RNA transcription works, you are supposed to find out and see how it affects your model, not invent a scenario you hope fits your model.

      As it happens, that hypothesis cannot be true as stated mostly because it is based on false premises but at this point I think I'll let you figure out the specifics yourself.

      At least we now know that you are a creationist who considers Discovery Institute to be a religious organization instead of a scientific one. As an atheist I'm glad we can at least agree on that one thing.

      Delete
    31. This hypothesis is scientifically testable:

      On average gene sequences that have catastrophic results from changing a single base will use the highest confidence (least mistranslation) triplets, while gene sequences that are not very helpful or not matter either way will more often use lower confidence (greater mistranslation) triplets.

      I have a feeling I'm going to have to do all this testing myself too, someday, when I can afford the time for that and all else that had to be thrown away because academia is only funded to trash this area of my scientific work, not help.

      How religious of an organization the Discovery Institute is does not matter to whether a testable model and theory of operation to demonstrate intelligent cause is possible or not, already know that it was. As an Agnostic Intelligent Design Creationist who is only focused on the scientific integrity of the Theory of Intelligent Design (I defend) I'm glad I don't have to even care whether we agree or not.

      Delete
    32. Good grief. "Agnostic Intelligent Design Creationist."

      If you had started with that instead of Larry, what makes a person who explains/teaches science like this a "creationist"? you could have saved us both a lot of trouble.

      Happy testing, then. I'd suggest you make sure to properly formulate the hypothesis first so that you know what you are supposed to be testing, but I don't think you'd listen anyway.

      Delete
    33. Also, a protip: If you intend to label yourself as "Agnostic Intelligent Design Creationist" it might be advisable not to tout ID as scientific evidence of "God" as you did five days ago. That just makes you "Theistic Intelligent Design Creationist" like the rest.

      Delete
    34. Gary has repeatedly presented his theory as evidence for God. Then she says he's agnostic? More slippery evasion from sophists.

      Delete
  14. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. SRM your method to qualify someone as an "ID proponent" leaves out probably thousands of people who don't even know who Sal Cordova is, they just know what I'm working on is very scientifically challenging and are OK with that Theory of Intelligent Design, accept it as scientific theory. You're only including ID proponents that meet your stereotypes.

      The only thing you are saying anyway is that (likewise) scratching the surface of Evolutionary Creationists (like at BioLogos) finds those who are a "religionist" underneath. It would seem the average sane person might wonder why you didn't already expect that. It's to me like being surprised to find out that all who lead a scientific institute are a "scientist" underneath.

      Delete
    2. Gary: SRM your method to qualify someone as an "ID proponent" leaves out probably thousands of people who don't even know who Sal Cordova is, they just know what I'm working on is very scientifically challenging

      So there are thousands of people who know what you're "working on" is very "scientifically challenging." Riiight.

      So there are thousands of people who are either also stupid, like the DI Fellows and UDites, or else they have been hornswoggled by Gary's heap of pompous jargony bullshit into thinking Gary is "working on" some science.

      Poor souls!

      and are OK with that Theory of Intelligent Design, accept it as scientific theory

      So again, these "thousands of people" are either not very smart, or have never given two minutes' thought to what ID "theory" is. We should care... why?

      If you asked them, I bet they'd all say the "theory" is that God did it supernaturally. Wanna bet?

      Delete
  15. Barry Arrington is a lawyer but not a judge. Different skills for different needs in justice.
    He makes a excellent point about self awareness.
    We clearly are self aware and its not clear how this could be the result of circuits in the skull. in fact its unreasonable.
    People must go a long way to see and say circuits add up to us as thinking beings.
    Indeed we are souls made in Gods image. A immaterial thing is what does our thinking.
    this is why for a YEC its impossible for their to be innately intelligent or unintelligent people.
    Therefore children, elderly, or mental deficient are no less or more in the same standard of thinking ability as anyone.
    Therefore one must conclude the brain is just the mind. The mind is just a great memory machine.
    We simply are souls meshed to a memory machine which is meshed to the body.
    indeed its true we have never smelled, seen, heard, tasted, or felt touch in our lives.
    We only read a memory of these senses. this is why the senses can fool us. No matter how quick they go into the memory for us to read there still is editing.
    Evolutionism does not competently explain the glory of thinking humanity relative to the dumbness of creatures.
    Its more then having a better thumb and using fire.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "He makes a excellent point about self awareness."

      No, he is making a declaration unsupported by any evidence.

      But since you think that he is making such a good point, maybe you should tell him this by posting a comment on his OP.

      Delete
    2. If what you Acartia are saying is true then you should have no problem providing a model or experiment to explain how conscious "qualia" works. Show us your scientific evidence please.

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

      Delete
    3. Qualia is just another word for the way each individual perceives things. Why do you think there's any scientific problem with the fact that each individual has individual sensory experiences through their individual sensory organs and brains?

      Delete
    4. Judmarc that was not an explanation for how conscious qualia works. Where is your model or experiment that I can test for the presence of conscious qualia? Where is the control that shows what happens without it? What is qualia made out of (electromagnetic, biochemical, quantum entanglement, etc..)?

      You clearly have nothing but a dictionary definition and strawman argument as an excuse.

      This (that was brought to my attention) is a good example to show where else this faith based pop-science is coming from:

      You are a meat robot with a network of autopilots
      http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/09/12/you-are-a-meat-robot-with-a-network-of-autopilots/

      Delete
    5. Gary,

      That's a good link to a good if brief statement what "you" is really about. You know, the one Arrington assumes he is self-aware about.

      Now, could you please address the questions stated? About the statements you made?

      Delete
    6. There is also a Marina and the Diamonds video to help explain what the issue (Barry Arrington and others are also addressing) is over:

      MARINA AND THE DIAMONDS | "I AM NOT A ROBOT"
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_oMD6-6q5Y

      Can you teach a nonliving electronic machine how to "feel"? If yes then how? And how do you test that it's truly being consciously aware instead of just repeating what a human would say, or whether the system was programmed to coax a behavior that makes it only appear to "feel" like we do?

      Delete
    7. could you please address the questions stated?
      Guess not then.

      Can you teach a nonliving electronic machine how to "feel"? If yes then how?

      One based on the Harward architechture? No, probably not. Too direct coupling to I/O.

      It should be possible to design an architechture that allows the machine to learn to learn, after which teaching it, even to feel, would also be possible.

      And how do you test that it's truly being consciously aware instead of just repeating what a human would say, or whether the system was programmed to coax a behavior that makes it only appear to "feel" like we do?

      Precisely as you would test it on a human. With, I might add, comparable results.

      Delete
    8. Precisely as you would test it on a human. With, I might add, comparable results.

      And how is that tested?

      Delete
    9. And how is that tested?

      Really? Humans aren't generally taught to feel but how does a teacher test if the student has understood the subject matter or if he is just answering by rote?

      The teacher might ask the student to interpret the content in a different context, to apply it using some set ot assumptions not in the original material or to restate some of the subject matter in their own terms. I'm sure the actual educators here have more ways.

      If the student can produce coherent results, it's likely he has understood the subject matter. If he answers by regurgitating the subject matter verbatim, it's likely he has merely memorized it without actual comprehension.

      On that note - how sure are you that you actually understand the theory you are defending?

      Delete
    10. A_T said:"No, he is making a declaration unsupported by any evidence."

      G_G relied: If what you Acartia are saying is true then you should have no problem providing a model..."

      How does that follow. Whether or not a person knows anything about the subject, he/she is quite capable of identifying when a slimy lawyer is making an unsupported declaration about something. My apologies to slimy lawyers everywhere.

      Delete
    11. It's ironic that Gary responds to refutation of his assertions by 1. Demanding his critics provide detailed solutions to problems that neither Gary nor any other IDiot has ever even seriously addressed, much less solved, and 2. Demanding his critics' solutions be testable when Gary, like all ID promoters, evades, dodges, changes the subject and bizarrely accuses us of being "anti-science" whenever we ask him to make even one single specific, testable statement on any subject.

      Gary hilariously demand that Acartia and Judmarc solve problems that he like all IDiots cannot solve, and hypocritically demands their solutions be testable, when Gary refuses to even acknowledge that WE asked HIM to make a testable statement FIRST, and he never even acknowledged he was asked the question.

      Let's keep it simple.

      IDiots believe in spooks. They attack atheism by claiming that there are "unsolved" problems which are allegedly "solved" by the actions of spooks. Yet they never answer when I ask them:

      1. What property of spooks enables them to explain ANYTHING!? Qualia, consciousness, free will, morality, anything? Say spooks are made of ectoplasm. What unique properties of ectoplasm solve these problems?

      2. What evidence could support the claim that spooks have those properties?

      Delete
    12. Gary: "And how do you test that it's truly being consciously aware instead of just repeating what a human would say, or whether the system was programmed to coax a behavior that makes it only appear to "feel" like we do?"

      Exactly-- Gary, what evidence can you present to prove that you are consciously aware of things, as opposed to just imitating what a human would say, or engaging in programmed behavior to make it just appear that you feel and think? Please present a criteria and make it testable. If you can't, we declare victory the same way you do.

      Gary writes like a chatbot and I think he is a chatbot. Can he price he is "aware" rather than just aping behaviour that imitates awareness?

      Delete
    13. Hey Diogenes, the second paragraph of the Introduction states the following:

      There is reciprocal cause in both forward and reverse directions, specifically (for any behavior) behavioral cause or (for intelligent behavior) intelligent cause. This behavioral pathway causes all of our complex intelligence related behaviors to connect back to the behavior of matter, which does not need to be intelligent to be source of consciousness. For sake of theory consciousness is considered to be in addition to intelligence, but not required for intelligence to exist. Otherwise the most rudimentary forms of intelligence even simple algorithm generated computer models of intelligent processes might be expected to be conscious of their existing inside of a personal computer. It is not possible to rule-out electronic or algorithmic consciousness existing, therefore even though consciousness is not expected to exist in a computer model it is still possible that any functioning intelligence system is somehow conscious of their existence. In either case, consciousness is not a requirement for intelligence.

      I long ago made sure to stay out of the trap, you and others are now stuck in.

      And the word "aware" is routinely used by Microsoft and others who develop the computer sciences. For example lookup the phrase "data aware". You honestly only made a fool out of yourself by believing that being data "aware" must make a computer conscious.

      The existing terminology works just fine, for the theory and I. But you are now demanding academia and industry redefine standard terminology to follow your beliefs which oversimplify science using unscientific generalizations such as: aware=conscious=qualia.

      Delete
    14. Gary, are you incapable of understanding a single thing I wrote? Or are you a psychotic liar?
      You cannot answer my questions, no matter how simple I make them, so you exercise your IMAGINATION by making up bizarre sentences and attributing them to me! Such as:

      "You honestly only made a fool out of yourself by believing that being data "aware" must make a computer conscious."

      Jesus you're a moron. That resembles NOTHING like anything I wrote.

      You NEVER answer the questions we ask you no matter how simple we try to make them; instead you spout ad hominem attacks ("you made a fool of yourself") like every other IDiot.

      We expect IDiots to have zero reading comprehension anf to respond with furious ad hominems when refuted, but your power of imagination is quite beyond the beyond.

      You're not a scientist, and the only scientists you're likely to meet will be experts in abnormal psychology. And they'll be putting electrodes on your head.

      Delete
    15. Diogenes, in regards to testing for consciousness you said "Please present a criteria and make it testable. If you can't, we declare victory the same way you do."

      I had to respond with the text that makes it clear that neither the theory or I are obliged to "present a criteria and make it testable" as you were suggesting by finding a reason why I must or "we declare victory the same way".

      It was important for me to make it clear that you win no victory at all, by now expecting I explain how conscious qualia works and how it can be tested. I am explaining a consciousness related issue, which does not in the least bit influence the scientific integrity of the Theory of Intelligent Design.

      Delete
  16. People must go a long way to see and say circuits add up to us as thinking beings.
    With you so far.

    Indeed we are souls made in Gods image.
    And there's a leap to the dark.

    A immaterial thing is what does our thinking.
    If you insist that you are not using your brain for that, who am I to disagree - there is even some supporting evidence. I do disagree about the generalization, though.

    indeed its true we have never smelled, seen, heard, tasted, or felt touch in our lives.
    If that's where you draw the line around self then I think you smashed even Arringtons premordial datum. Congratulations.

    Evolutionism does not competently explain the glory of thinking humanity relative to the dumbness of creatures.
    Its more then having a better thumb and using fire.

    I'm reminded of a proverb about glass houses...

    ReplyDelete
  17. Professor Moran, I have recently discovered that a professor of biology and chemistry in a Canadian school is a creationist. He teaches grades 11 and 12. He claims his principal and superintendent are also creationists. It is a public school. Should I inform someone? If yes, who?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You absolutely and without hesitation must inform The Darwinian Police: i.e. Jerry Coyne, PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins... Larry already knows....

      The Darwinian Police will take care of the business promptly and the subjects at fault will be removed...

      The dictatorship as well as censorship at public schools must win.... right or wrong...

      Delete
    2. Quest:

      "The dictatorship as well as censorship at public schools must win.... right or wrong"

      What censorship?

      Delete
    3. If they're just creationists, that's not necessarily a problem. People can believe whatever they want.

      However, if their beliefs are leading them to teach things that are incorrect or in violation of the school curriculum. then they certainly should be stopped from doing so, If a teacher believes that 2 + 2 = 5 he's an imbecile, but so long as he teaches his students that 2 + 2 = 4, then his imbecility is not sufficient reason to discipline him.

      Delete
    4. And that is the part of my problem, I do not know what he teaches. He commented on Eric Hovinds page and gave usual arguments about information. Perhaps someone should contact his students? I don't know.

      Delete
    5. I guess the bigger question would be why a creationist would agree to teach a curriculum he knows to be wrong, in his twisted little mind anyway.

      Either way, he is a complete hypocrite.

      Delete
    6. @confused

      "Creationist" is a very broad term. It includes lots of people who don't have a problem with evolution and science. Like lutesuite said, if it doesn't interfere with what they teach then there's no problem.

      Delete
    7. I'm sure many or most of the teachers we have ever had hold to creationist beliefs to one degree or another. For many, it seems religious beliefs are rather weakly or vaguely held and they are not motivated to introduce the concepts they were indoctrinated with in a class room.

      Although I distinctly recall in all of my high school biology, evolution was only touched upon briefly probably because it was deemed controversial and/or the teacher in question did not care for it, and simply avoided an in-depth consideration of the theory. Not sure what the Ontario curriculum prescribed at that time (1980s).

      Delete
    8. All that said, if a teacher is being interviewed for a position, I think it would be be perfectly acceptable to ask him how old he believes the universe is, or whether he accepts the theory of evolution, and to immediately strike his name off the list if he gives the wrong answers. One should have at least a cursory understanding of a topic if one is going to teach it.

      Delete
    9. "Confused",

      Anonymous delations are usually signed "Concerned".

      Delete
    10. All that said, if a teacher is being interviewed for a position, I think it would be be perfectly acceptable to ask him how old he believes the universe is, or whether he accepts the theory of evolution, and to immediately strike his name off the list if he gives the wrong answers.

      Not sure I agree with your exact methodology. Perhaps a better idea would be to ask how they would approach the teaching of evolution (for example), and then listen to their answer.

      Delete
    11. although mind you, I know nothing of the requirments for secondary school teaching positions...I would be more comfortable in vetting university level teaching positions which do not tend to be linked to prescribed curriculums.

      Delete
    12. "Creationist" is a very broad term. It includes lots of people who don't have a problem with evolution and science. Like lutesuite said, if it doesn't interfere with what they teach then there's no problem.

      Good answer Larry. These days everyone is a creationist of one kind or another. It's helpful to know what kind of creationist they are.

      I found this to help everyone get on the same page as to proper terminology to use:

      So perhaps we should try to stick to ‘biblical creation’ or ‘Genesis creation’. This reinforces what it’s really all about, just like the term ‘biblical creationists’. In short, let’s remember to do what we can to advance the cause!
      http://creation.com/biblical-creationists

      Of the choices I would most qualify as a Genesis Creationist, where in my case Genesis is accepted as an ancient theory that still makes a surprising amount of sense in regards to chromosome speciation and other concepts that scientifically created a "Chromosomal Adam and Eve". Their noticing their nakedness and learning of evil lurking in the tree of wisdom (that has a way of kicking them out of an ignorance is bliss Eden) is very easy to work with.

      Biblical Creationist would go past Genesis into scripture. Including Young Earth Creationism that uses a later estimate found in scripture that suggests one day to our Creator us like a thousand years to us, which from what I know was back then the highest most could count to and saying it was a way to express a mind boggling large number. Genesis alone only used a word that was later translated to "day" even though a day does not even exist without the sun and revolving planet. The length of each day is simply not specified in Genesis. All evidence even Biblical indicates that it's not 24 hours, and 1000 years is much closer to actual, with it either way possible to add decimal places to be more precise than scientists were able to be around Jesus' time. That's my opinion, anyway.

      Delete
    13. Of the choices I would most qualify as a Genesis Creationist, where in my case Genesis is accepted as an ancient theory that still makes a surprising amount of sense in regards to chromosome speciation...

      What is "chromosome speciation"? Is it just something that Genesist Creationists say in the hope that using mock-technical jargon will make them sound sciencey?

      and other concepts that scientifically created a "Chromosomal Adam and Eve".

      Oh, boy. "Chromosomal Adam and Eve"? What is a chromosomal Eve and how do you create such a thing scientifically?

      Their noticing their nakedness and learning of evil lurking in the tree of wisdom (that has a way of kicking them out of an ignorance is bliss Eden) is very easy to work with.

      Yeah, folk tales are easy to work with.

      All evidence even Biblical indicates that it's not 24 hours, and 1000 years is much closer to actual, with it either way possible to add decimal places to be more precise than scientists were able to be around Jesus' time. That's my opinion, anyway.

      Do you seriously entertain the possibility that the universe, Earth, life and all were created in [...gasp...] 6000 years rather than 144 hours?? How... er... progressive of you.

      Delete
    14. Gary, Jesus tap dancing Christ, science did not "create" a "chromosomal Adam and Eve." You're probably referring to Y chromosome Adam and mitochondrial Eve. This same method of genetic analysis falsifies Genesis, because by the same method there is a Chromosome 1 Charlie, a Chromosome 2 Betty, a Chromosome 3 Ted... but they don't get in the news like Y chromosome Adam, but they are as real, and they falsify Genesis. As for Y chromosome Adam and mitochondrial Eve, we know that they could not have been the only humans alive at that time, because human genetic diversity is too great for hominids to have a population size below ~13,000. Y chromosome Adam and mitochondrial Eve probably never even met each other and never mated at all; he could have been her grandfather or no relation for all we know.

      Genesis 1-2 is also falsified by:

      1. Hominid population size was never below ~13,000 as we know from human genetic diversity.

      2. Some alleles in human population are more similar to alleles in the CHIMP population than they are to other human alleles.

      3. Human-chimp genetic difference is 1.3%, which is what you'd compute under neutral evolution from present day mutation rates and ~6 million years from split with line to chimps-- as Larry has written about at great length on this blog.

      4. Human chtomosome 2 is fusion of ape chtomosomes 2a and 2b with same genes in same order and pseudo-telomere in the fusion site.

      5. One third of human genes more similar to gorilla than to chimp, as expected for finite population under Incomplete Lineage Sorting.

      6. SNAKES DON'T &*%$ING TALK AND TREES ARE NOT &*%%$ING MAGIC!!!

      Delete
    15. Exactly, Gary. "Chromosome speciation" has precisely nothing to do with the Genesis folk tale. Or can you point out which of those publications talk about the talking snake? As far as I can tell, they all discuss how chromosomal differences can contribute to speciation by the usual evolutionary mechanisms.

      Delete
    16. Oh, you are able to google up the phrase. But what does it have to do with Genesis? Why do you think Genesis "makes a surprising amount of sense in regards to chromosome speciation"? Does it mention the chromosomal rearrangements that may have affected the tempo of hominid divergence?

      Delete
    17. Ditto, how the hell does a lady tricked by a talking snake into eating from a magic tree "make a surprising amount of sense" in regards to unproven but plausible hypotheses of speciation driven by karyotypic changes? Which may or may not have anything to do with hominid line splitting off from chimp line.

      I ask this rhetorically. I know Gary will evade and never answer the question, as he always does, but change the subject to something else completely out of left field. Nothing about Gary's factually false assertions is predictable, except that they will be factually false and will NOT answer the questions we asked about his previous set of false assertions.

      Gary is a chatbot built on a recursive algorithm, in which each iteration of false assertions evades the questions raised by the false assertions from the previous iteration. I asked him to prove he was a self-aware, conscious being and not just a chatbot, and he never answered that question.

      Delete
    18. I don't have to explain talking snakes for "Chromosomal Adam and Eve" to already logically exist in science.

      Since there were only two choices for me to choose from (Genesis or Biblical) I think I need to add the other possibilities. In the case of Diogenes, Piotr, lutesuite (and most others in this forum) that is undoubtedly Evolutionary Creationists, who love to explain their origin as a process of essentially random accidents and natural selection. You can call me a heretic, but I honestly find that scientifically and religiously boring.

      The other remaining possibility is instead of being an Evolutionary Creationist like most here I became a full fledged Intelligent Design Creationist, which in my opinion is 100% true. I can help make sense of an Adam and Eve in our lineage, but I cannot explain the (expected to be metaphor anyway) talking snake part. I don't believe is supposed to be taken that literally but in a forum like this one it is anyway.

      Delete
    19. How many times do we have to say there was no "Chromosomal Eve", there was a "mitochondrial Eve"!? And she probably never met nor coited Y chromosome Adam!

      Delete
    20. but I honestly find that scientifically and religiously boring.

      But the issue is not whether something's boring [for you or anybody else]. Your lengthy piece of bullshit, your "theory of Intelligent Design," is nothing else, but a lengthy piece of bullshit. It does not matter how entertaining you, or me, might find it to be. What matters is if we can test the ideas/hypotheses/etc, and thus get to some actual understanding.

      Yet you state something like this:

      I had to respond with the text that makes it clear that neither the theory or I are obliged to "present a criteria and make it testable" as you were suggesting by finding a reason why I must or "we declare victory the same way".

      It was important for me to make it clear that you win no victory at all, by now expecting I explain how conscious qualia works and how it can be tested. I am explaining a consciousness related issue, which does not in the least bit influence the scientific integrity of the Theory of Intelligent Design.


      (emphasis mine)

      You're just declaring, quite openly, that you don't know shit about science. You see no reason why your "Theory of Intelligent Design" should be testable, yet you claim, as the good kook that you are, that this does not change it's "scientific integrity." Obviously you have a very different definition of "scientific" to that held by actual scientists.

      No victory at all for Diogenes? Who needs to call victory when the opponent is as obviously handicapped as you are?

      Delete
    21. After their religious arguments and stereotypes bite the dust the ones who remain just throw insults.

      Delete
    22. Diogenes,

      Your claims regarding human-chimpanzee/gorilla similarities are quite inapt....

      There are a lot of developmental genes in insects and mammals that are also very similar, and yet humans and fruit flies have totally different body plans; they look quite different…. though have not seen your picture yet... maybe I’m wrong after all… lol

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D475j4sZyz0

      BTW: l've heard you finally decided to catch the evolution live and make the chickens fly again long distance and maybe even migrate...?

      How about growing the flagellum in a bacterium without a flagellum...? Are you going to do that too...? ;-)

      Delete
    23. Hi Quest! I'm glad to see you here to help keep them busy. I was about ready to give up on this bunch.

      Delete
    24. Gary, what's the difference between a genesis creationist and a biblical creationist?

      And will you explain your contradictory claims of being an "Agnostic Intelligent Design Creationist" and a "Genesis Creationist" and a "full fledged Intelligent Design Creationist", but not a "Biblical Creationist"?

      Delete
    25. I was about ready to give up on this bunch.

      Please don't tease us with the possibility of relief.

      Delete
    26. yet humans and fruit flies have totally different body plans; they look quite different

      Wow Quest, that's almost like doing real science.

      (Genomes from a wide variety of living things have been studied and compared, by Dr. Moran and his graduate students among others, and - I'm sure just by sheer coincidence - they happen to exhibit exactly the types and degrees of similarities and differences one would expect from evolution.)

      Delete
    27. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    28. We may not care whether Gary Gaulin is going to give up on this bunch but it's important to note that I am about to give up on this bunch. I have a little more control of this thread than Gary does.

      It's time to stop feeding.

      Delete
    29. @Gary Gaulin

      "Hi Quest! I'm glad to see you here to help keep them busy. I was about ready to give up on this bunch."

      I'm sorry but I have neither read most of the thread nor most of your comments...

      I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "...giving up on this bunch.." but I assume that you think you are on some kind of a mission from God to try to save these poor, lost atheists from their delusion of abiogenesis and evolution...?

      If that is the case...while it is a noble idea worth admiration...let me give you a word of advice:

      Most people who post here are not looking for any kind of salvation from their beliefs...no matter what evidence you present… or whether you ask them to provide evidence for their faith... These people are theorists who are stuck on a fairy tale written over 150 years ago.... They keep updating their beliefs as the progress in science keeps making their beliefs further and further away from any kind of reality...
      I have been posting on this blog for over a year...
      Each time I ask for evidence for their beliefs I get what you get...
      I’ve asked here many times to preform simple and rather inexpensive experiments that would provide evidence for their beliefs that at the same time would falsify the theory of evolution or abiogenesis and nobody... not even once said: "...This is a great idea! Let's do it and prove the IDers wrong once and for all..." I even offered to arrange some funding for such experiments….but as you may suspect… nobody wants to do it…Do you know why…?
      Because… none of them wants their beliefs to be disproved… They live in La la Land and they don’t what to wake up…

      Why would you wanna save people who don't what to be saved...?

      Delete
    30. I don't know if this would be considered "feeding", but it might be worth pointing out that the existence of a "mitochondrial Eve" and "Y chromosome Adam" is an inevitable conclusion to be drawn from the simple and obvious fact that humans reproduce by passing on copies of their genetic material to their progeny. It has nothing to do with evolution vs. creation, other than providing the evolution deniers with yet another opportunity to demonstrate their ignorance and stupidity.

      Delete
    31. Quest said:

      "I’ve asked here many times to preform simple and rather inexpensive experiments that would provide evidence for their beliefs that at the same time would falsify the theory of evolution or abiogenesis and nobody... not even once said: "...This is a great idea! Let's do it and prove the IDers wrong once and for all..." I even offered to arrange some funding for such experiments….but as you may suspect… nobody wants to do it…Do you know why…?"

      No you haven't, Quest, not even once. Once again your post is a collection of projections and self delusion...and 100% science-free.

      Go ahead and post one scientifically testable hypothesis to disprove evoution. Real scientists have been subjecting testable hypotheses about evolution to scientifically rigorous experimentation for many decades.

      Gimme just one Quest. It has to be a scientific hypothesis, mind you, not some meaningless drivel about flying chickens.

      Delete
    32. Quest: " These people are theorists who are stuck on a fairy tale written over 150 years ago..."

      Low hanging fruit alert.

      As opposed to a 2000 year old fairy tale?

      Delete
    33. Chris B wrote:

      "No you haven't, Quest, not even once. Once again your post is a collection of projections and self delusion...and 100% science-free.

      Go ahead and post one scientifically testable hypothesis to disprove evoution. Real scientists have been subjecting testable hypotheses about evolution to scientifically rigorous experimentation for many decades.

      Gimme just one Quest. It has to be a scientific hypothesis, mind you, not some meaningless drivel about flying chickens."

      Tell me that you are kidding...

      Well...If you don't want to make the chickens to evolve why don't you prove that the bacterial flagellum evolved by natural selection or any other mechanism you believe it happened by...

      Get a bacterium without a flagellum or knock out the genes for the flagellum and the grow the bacteria in a lab for a long time and see if it is going evolve anything resembling a flagellum or jet engine, or even sails...

      When that happens... or I should rather say...IF it happens...ID will be disproved and the theory of evolution and people like you will be vindicated...

      I certainly don't expect the bacteria without the flagellum to evolve anything even remotely resembling a flagellum or even sails... therefore I propose that this hypothesis is scientifically testable and 100 % disproves the theory of evolution...

      All you have to do to prove me wrong is to test the hypothesis by the actual scientific experiment...

      But... most of people here already know what the outcome would be...

      Until then.. by-bye

      BTW: I have many more examples of irreducible complexity in living systems that can be tested in the same way... ;-)

      But... lets start with one at a time...

      Catch you latter...

      Delete
    34. Acartia Tons a wrote:

      Low hanging fruit alert.

      As opposed to a 2000 year old fairy tale?"

      What are you referring to...? Aladdin or abiogenesis...?

      Delete
    35. "Tell me that you are kidding... "

      Why would I be kidding?


      "Well...If you don't want to make the chickens to evolve why don't you prove that the bacterial flagellum evolved by natural selection or any other mechanism you believe it happened by..."

      Asking for making chickens evolve just proves you don't understand evolution and don't understand how to frame a scientifically testable hypothesis.
      As for the bacterial falgellum, one can't reproduce every single step in its evolution since it happened in the ancient past. However, it is pretty clear that the flagellum evolved from a type III secretion complex, common among bacteria. This is based on DNA/protein sequence and functional similarities among type III secretion systems and their corresponding proteins in the flagellum.

      And btw, it has been shown that "irreducibly complex" systems can arise by standard evolutionary mechanisms. And also, asking me to reconstruct every evolutionary step in the bacterial flagellum is not a scientific hypothesis. Try again.

      "Get a bacterium without a flagellum or knock out the genes for the flagellum and the grow the bacteria in a lab for a long time and see if it is going evolve anything resembling a flagellum or jet engine, or even sails... "

      This is not how evolution is proposed to work, so your experimental proposal does not test any aspect of evolutionary theory. It's a fun straw man argument for you to kick around with your creationist buddies, but it doesn't approach any real world problem. This has been pointed out to you many times in the past, but you just keep making the same logically fallacious claims over and over again, as if they have gone unanswered.

      "When that happens... or I should rather say...IF it happens...ID will be disproved and the theory of evolution and people like you will be vindicated..."

      Not at all, the experiment you propose cannot vindicate evolution, even if it were to happen (not that you would accept the evidence, if it did happen). If you take a culture of a bacterial species that has a fully evolved flagellum and knock out all the flagellum genes, and that flagellum is necessary for its survival in the lab, it will just die. The only thing you have shoem is that if you knock a critical system out of an organism, that's bad. In the same way, if you knock out the genes of a developing human so that it cannot grow a brain, it will die. It won't magically reconstitue a brain or grow a jet engine. That sort of magical nonsense is the purview of creationism, not evolution.

      "I certainly don't expect the bacteria without the flagellum to evolve anything even remotely resembling a flagellum or even sails... therefore I propose that this hypothesis is scientifically testable and 100 % disproves the theory of evolution..."

      This sentence indicates you have no concept of evolutionary theory, or else if you do this sentence is totally irrational.

      "But... most of people here already know what the outcome would be..."

      Completely irrelevant to the validity of evolutionary theory.

      "Until then.. by-bye"

      Ok, bye, go learn about evolutionary theory.

      "BTW: I have many more examples of irreducible complexity in living systems that can be tested in the same way... ;-)"

      Like blood clotting and the mammalian immune system? Please, Quest, tell us all about it.

      Delete
    36. A Questy self-projection translation:

      Most people who post here are not looking for any kind of salvation from their beliefs...no matter what evidence you present… or whether you ask them to provide evidence for their faith... These people are creationists who are stuck on a fairy tale written over 2000 years ago.... They never update their beliefs as the progress in science advances the human race, making their beliefs further and further away from any kind of reality...
      I have been posting on this blog for over a year...
      Each time I ask for evidence for their beliefs I get what you get...
      I’ve asked here many times to preform simple and rather inexpensive experiments that would provide evidence for their invisible, omnipotent, perfectly good and compassionate being that at the same time would falsify the theory of evolution and nobody... not even once said: "...This is a great idea! Let's do it and prove those people who accept the fact of evolution and evolutionary theory (based on available evidence) wrong once and for all..." I even offered to arrange some funding for such experiments*….but as you may suspect… nobody wants to do it…Do you know why…?
      Because… none of them wants their beliefs to be disproved… They live in La la Land and they don’t what to wake up…

      Quest, you describe yourself so well.

      *all kidding aside, several studies have been done on the effect of intercessory prayer, where people pray for ailing folks and see if if they have better outcomes than the unprayed-for folks. Never once has any evidence been shown that praying for someone had any positive effect on the outcome, with one exception. If the ailing person believed in intercessory prayer and knew people were praying for him/her, they often had significantly better outcomes.

      Delete
    37. Quest said: I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "...giving up on this bunch.." but I assume that you think you are on some kind of a mission from God to try to save these poor, lost atheists from their delusion of abiogenesis and evolution...?

      The only thing I can save is what's left (if any) of the bunch's scientific credibility, which they lost to endless red-herrings that change the subject to evolution deniers, evolution vs. (religious) creation, materialism vs. immaterialism, supernaturalism, God, talking snakes, etc..

      Those who know me very well from other forum discussions are aware that I'm not arguing against “evolution”. This mission is about systems biology and cognitive science related issues that are not made gone by PZ calling everyone a “meat robot” while the bunch here makes it seem like all big questions we may have were already answered by their science leaders.

      At some point a long discussion like this one is down to a small number who may be purposely acting foolish, a false flag troll. It's best that I give up on the remaining bunch, when they are doing such a bad job representing science that their credibility is no better than that of a troll, then let the discussion end before it becomes an even longer read to wade through.


      Quest: Why would you wanna save people who don't what to be saved...?

      Whether the bunch (scientifically) saves itself (or not) is irrelevant to the Theory of Intelligent Design. Either way it wins.

      Delete
    38. Quest: Get a bacterium without a flagellum or knock out the genes for the flagellum and the grow the bacteria in a lab for a long time and see if it is going evolve anything resembling a flagellum or jet engine, or even sails...
      When that happens... or I should rather say...IF it happens...ID will be disproved and the theory of evolution and people like you will be vindicated...


      I have to add that the above experiment would not disprove ID, regardless of results. In a religious sense it's as in the concept of "Trinity" where our Creator has three parts working together and like conscious thought it's not visible by looking at someone thinking. We cannot see their thoughts or directly share their consciously experience. So where you look for a scientifically plausible Creator/God in the Theory of Intelligent Design I defend there is a relatively obvious 24/7 (at least at our level) conscious and intelligent force that's essentially seeing through our eyes and thoughts for billions of years, and in a cyclical universe maybe for eternity.

      In case you didn't see it yet this video helps conceptualize what is hard to explain in words:

      Everything Is Energy

      Delete
    39. Gary, what would, according to you, disprove ID?

      Delete
    40. What would disprove ID theory (that I defend) is one or more of the following requirements not being met by genetic systems:

      A behavior qualifies as intelligent behavior by meeting all four circuit requirements for this ability, which are: [1] body (or modeling platform) with motor muscles (proteins, electric speaker, electronic “write” to a screen) to control, [2] memory addressed by sensory sensors where each motor action and its associated confidence value are separate data elements, [3] confidence (central hedonic, homeostasis) system that increments (stored in memory) confidence value of a successful motor action else decrements the confidence value, [4] guess new memory action when associated confidence level sufficiently decreases (and if not prerandomized motor data then when first addressed). For flagella powered cells reversing motor direction can produce a tumble to a new heading direction, guess where to go.

      The hardest to account for (and perhaps will turn out to be the most complex) is requirement is #3, confidence level. With little (if any) active research in that direction I only have topical details to work with like codon "mutation bias" that easily indicates what I'm looking for is there, unfortunately not enough is known to model the entire system yet.

      Delete
  18. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  19. His argument:

    X is true
    X is self-evident, and therefore not concluded based on material evidence
    Therefore X cannot be the result of material processes
    Therefore people who believe X is the result of material things think that because they've got ulterior motives

    This is obviously an invalid argument, it is a non-sequitor and an amphiboly.

    ReplyDelete
  20. It should be pointed out that Gary Gaulin has a thread of his own at AtBC (After the Bar Closes), 396 pages in two years. I stopped reading it long ago to save my mental sanity.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Indeed. It's like the worst kind of minimalism - dip into any page, and the 'debate' looks exactly the same. What strange power he holds over his interlocutors, I cannot imagine.

      Delete
    2. You mean his bull$π1÷ is holographic-- any small fragment of his bull$π1÷ has the whole information content of the total?

      Delete
    3. I would like to know which science 'institute' Gary works for. Is it like IDer David Abel's fancy Bio-Semiotics Institute in his own garage? Or Rev. David Rives' Creation Science Museum in a double wide trailer?

      Delete
    4. You mean his bull$π1÷ is holographic-- any small fragment of his bull$π1÷ has the whole information content of the total?

      This is surely made easier by the fact that "the information content of the total" is not a high bar.

      Delete
    5. Sad to say, it's not just Gary that contributes to the thread's repetitiousness. He is indefatigable, and a response from him is guaranteed, but page after page of "it's nonsense", while true, is boring.

      Delete
    6. Burying an opponents well thought out replies (and text they asked to study before commenting) under tons of quickly hurled garbage gives the thoughtless an advantage. The opponent is then damned for copy-pasting what they were supposed to have studied, and damned if they don't.

      Delete
    7. Gary,

      Blog commentary is not the best place to argue the merits or otherwise of your viewpoint. Your scattered thoughts and the myriad byplays make for an unreadable narrative. You're not as clear as you think you are. You have to give people a reason to invest effort in following your arguments, and take them from A to B without sidetrack. Write a book.

      Delete
    8. I have the theory in book form right now, have been linking to it. The problem is that it's textbook type science and computer software, not sciency-religion or something else that makes a bestseller list. Without ties to academia book publishers don't want to get involved. I cannot afford or have time start my own publishing company. It's even a chore to get those who are supposed to first study it to read a word.

      The way the system works has left me very much on my own. But for what it's worth I still plan a printing run of what I now have for text. I am way behind schedule on that, but if the printing press rollers that came in several days ago solves the problem with the press I can run it on at work (I have been rebuilding as time and company's money allows) maybe by Thanksgiving I'll have some printed.

      Making the books is easy for me. If there was a demand for them then I could have a good sized run finished in a week. Unfortunately it's only science, that many would rather stop, so to hell with that too.

      Delete
    9. I have the theory in book form right now, have been linking to it. The problem is that it's textbook type science and computer software, not sciency-religion or something else that makes a bestseller list. Without ties to academia book publishers don't want to get involved. I cannot afford or have time start my own publishing company. It's even a chore to get those who are supposed to first study it to read a word.

      I think there are simpler explanations for why you can't find any readers or publishers who are interested in your, umm, work. But I'll let you figure that out for yourself.

      Delete
    10. Umm, lutesuite, it's part of an award winning computer model (that has a 5 globe rating after the bully votes that were disqualified are subtracted out) called the Intelligence Design Lab at Planet Source Code (and more since).

      Ones who don't care about that would not accomplish anything scientific with it anyway. They are scientifically irrelevant to begin with. What matters is being where all of this is valuable enough for none to care about perfect grammar with a few million dollars of polishing up, like a new academic product of equal scientific importance would get before going to even the science teachers of the world.

      But I can say to Allan Miller:
      With the issues being mostly over (even at the NCSE blog) it's as though I just ran out of science forums that need a heads-up on what it is, so I don't get stuck in the middle of another Dover, even though in this case the judge can be handed the online book and software CD of something on Planet Source Code too then wonder why anyone would complain about a science teacher trying to explain all of that by the time students graduate from high school.

      I'm cautious, but the software and theory has since 2011 been where it most needs to be to find its way to those who most need it for scientific purposes. I can afford to take my time with those are uninterested in cognitive science and its applications in systems biology, but I can't waste too much time having to repeat the same things over and over again.

      At this point I have the parts of the theory/book that needed work looking good enough to edit then roll the presses. I'll then only have to figure out what to do with them, after that. It for some reason make sense to send a small box full to everyone at the Discovery Institute. I at least know they're for the most part into that sort of thing.

      Delete
    11. Gary, although I think that you are a fruit loop that even Toucan Sam would pass by, I don't think that anyone here would disagree with my assessment that you have put a huge amount of effort Ito this endeavour.

      But if you are having a problem gaining an audience for this work, I strongly suggest that you contact Barry Arrington, Behe or Dumbski. If you need their contact information, just let us know.

      Delete
    12. If that's what this forum and others would rather I do with what I have then perhaps I am best off helping the Discovery Institute prove how useless the scientific leadership in charge of this issue actually is, by letting the DI handle distribution to the public schools. After the sample run and good going over I have a 40"x28" Miehle Roland two color press and other machinery needed to make tons of inexpensive books, which a good number of science teachers need for their students who have an interest in systems biology, cognitive science, ID, Adam and Eve, Creationism, Evolution, etc..

      After thinking about the new possibilities I'm starting to get excited! I'll link Casey (we're already in contact) to this comment.

      Delete
    13. Hey Gary,

      Best of luck with your new endeavour.

      Delete
    14. Yes, DI probably is best placed to handle the distribution of scientific evidence of "God" to public schools, especially as written by an Agnostic Intelligent Design Creationist. They should be especially enthusiastic if you agree to describe them as a religious institute in the back cover blurb.

      Delete
    15. Thanks for the encouragement Steve!

      And CatMat, if you know of a more precise religious category for me than Agnostic then let me know. I'm still not sure what I am. I was trained at church to be a Methodist religious leader but that was because my parents sent me to Sunday School, I had no choice. Although I loved what the church offered for activities like scouting and Methodist Youth Fellowship my mind was on science and its conflicts with the Bible. When I was old enough to not have to go to church on my own I didn't. I did though have an interest in learning about world cultures and religions including Wicca and similar nature religious. But I never became a follower of any one religion. I now believe that through science "God" is understandable and would expect this creator to through us express both male and female qualities, even though the word "He" is often used (but not always).

      I'm not unfriendly towards religion. I just see my mission being an entirely scientific one, even though I believe that there is essentially no limit to what science can ultimately explain.

      What am I?

      Delete
  21. Gary, Jesus tap dancing Christ, … Y chromosome Adam and mitochondrial Eve probably never even met each other and never mated at all; he could have been her grandfather or no relation for all we know.

    (This is a follow-up to Diogenes, but entered as a new comment because the Reply button doesn't work on the operating system I'm using)

    More likely that she was his distant ancestor rather than granddaughter, because female fecundity is much less variable than male (some males have lots of offspring; many have none), so Adam advances through the generations faster than Eve.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But note this report:

      Science 341 (2 August 2013)

      Here's the final paragraph:

      Dogma has held that the common ancestor of human patrilineal lineages, popularly referred to as the Y-chromosome “Adam,” lived considerably more recently than the common ancestor of female lineages, the so-called mitochondrial “Eve.” However, we conclude that the mitochondrial coalescence time is not substantially greater than that of the Y chromosome. Indeed, due to our moderate-coverage sequencing and the existence of additional rare divergent haplogroups, our analysis may yet underestimate the true Y-chromosome T_MRCA.

      They would still be separated by ~16ky (or 500+ generations), but since the study did not take into account the recently announced A00 Y-chromosome lineage, "Y-Adam" may still turn out to be considerably older than "mt-Eve".

      Delete
    2. I'm Batman and you're Hawkeye.

      (Yes I know one is Marvel and one is DC...)

      Delete
    3. Gary, Jesus tap dancing Christ, … Y chromosome Adam and mitochondrial Eve probably never even met each other and never mated at all; he could have been her grandfather or no relation for all we know.

      It's odd how Adam and Eve must have never known each other in order to colloquially qualify as one of them, while both of them being at the same time and place with all their chromosomes (not one and the other has none) is an issue.

      Delete
    4. It's not odd; it's incredibly fucking straight-forward.

      Delete
    5. Gary, it's not odd if you have even a layperson's passing understanding of evolutionary biology. QED.

      Delete
    6. It's odd how Adam and Eve must have never known each other in order to colloquially qualify as one of them, while both of them being at the same time and place with all their chromosomes (not one and the other has none) is an issue.

      Aarrgghh! The English language! The poor, poor English language!

      Delete
    7. You don't even have to know much evolutionary biology in order to grasp the "Y-Adam" and "mt-Eve" concept, to understand why they didn't have to live at the same time, or why lots of other ancestors have contributed to the genetic makeup of modern humans. Gary, if you could trace your ancestry ten generations back, you could find up to 512 great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandpas and up to 512 great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandmas (the actual number is smaller since many of them are bound to be the same person) somewhere around 1700 (give or take a few decades). Only one person among them was your matrilineal ancestor (your mother's mother's mother's ... mother's mother), and all your mtDNA comes from her. Likewise, only one person among them was your patrilineal ancestor (your dad's dad's dad's ... dad's dad), and your Y-chromosome DNA comes from him (for clarity, I ignore some possible minor complications). Those two people may have lived in different places at different times, they probably didn't know each other, and had no idea they were "special" in the rather odd sense that her mitochondria and his Y chromosome would meet in a certain Gary Gaulin about 300 years later.

      Y-chromosome + mtDNA = about 2% of your genome, traceable all the way back to "Y-Adam" and "mt-Eve". The remaining 98% comes from a multitude of other sources. If humanity had ever been reduced to a population consisting of just two individuals, it would not have survived for long. Moreover, the evidence of such a bottleneck would be clear: the reconstructed genealogies of all genetic loci (not just those inherited matrilineally or patrilineally) would coalesce at approximately the same time in the past. Needless to say, they don't.

      Delete
    8. This video also gives a good explanation, for those (like me) who find it easier to grasp things with visual aids.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjdZ5GmU61o

      Delete
    9. Y-Chromosome Adam and Mitochondrial Eve did not even know each other. It's therefore absurd to argue that they are the human progenitors as in Genesis. This is where Adam and Eve are located (at the same time and place) and had offspring, etc.. From theory/book:

      The first (of two) fused chromosome is in either allele (mother or father) of the haploid (one of two sets of chromosome pair) germ cell (egg or sperm) to become a 47 chromosome heterozygote (alleles differ). This one copy expresses human chromosome #2 along with copy of the original two unfused chromosomes to provide all that the cell had before, therefore it is not a sudden unsurvivable change. The new fusion produced chromosome is also controllable through epigenetic systems which can reregulate genes to a successful balance. We now have the first human Chromosome #2. Next, the fused chromosome replicates to go from 48-ape, to 47-protohuman, to 46-human, in the population as follows:

      48 and 48 parents produce a 48 offspring only.
      48 and 47 parents produce a 48 or 47 offspring.
      47 and 47 parents produce a 48 or 47 or 46 human offspring.
      48 and 46 parents produce a 47 offspring only.
      47 and 46 parents produce a 47 or 46 human offspring.
      46 and 46 parents produce a 46 human offspring only.

      The 47’s were a transitional stage that soon led to a stable 46 human design. New traits that may have appeared could have increasingly taken a 46 to find desirable, further accelerating speciation through the species recognition mechanism.

      Our human genome design has an easily recognized "signature" in the phylogenetic data where the most obvious feature was produced by a chromosomal fusion/rearrangement speciation event through a progeny born to 48 then 47 chromosome ancestors who were not of the chimpanzee design, they were protohumans. Without our unique chromosome design being expressed they were not yet systematically human. Therefore where fully "human" is operationally defined as a 46 chromosome ancestor from our lineage (the result of chromosome fusion speciation) there is the genetic signature of a man and a woman progenitor couple expressing the new human design who deserve the colloquial name of Chromosomal Adam and Eve, whose descendants preferred to be with their own kind, through time, all the way from them to us..

      Delete
    10. Gary Gaulin, present-day genomes coming from single copies in the past (mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosome Adam) has nothing to do with changes in chromosome number. Have you ever heard of a "coalescent"? Read up on. Until you do you have not a clue what the genetic evidence shows about these two ancestors and when they occurred, and how many other people were around.

      And Diogenes, you mistakenly said there were similar ancestors for each chromosome. No, because recombination breaks each up into smaller and smaller chunks. and there must have been thousands, or even tens of thousands of ancestors, each of a small part of the genome. For the Y and for the mitochondrion we have one ancestor each as there is no recombination within those regions.

      Gary Gaulin will be back after he goes off and reads about coalescents.

      An

      Delete
    11. Don't worry Joe, I am already well aware that "(mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosome Adam) has nothing to do with changes in chromosome number."

      Your argument is a red-herring, that provided zero evidence against what is stated in the book/theory.

      Delete
    12. Gary - if you declare 'fully human' to be a 46-chromosome individual, there will be multiple 'fully human' individuals thrown up by a population capable of generating heterozygotes for the fusion - ie, where the fusion exists but is not fixed. Many of these would, by your criterion, have 'non-human' and even 'fully-ape' descendants, until the moment of fixation.

      There is no privileged position in an outcrossing population for a single male and a single female, wrt autosomes. The original fusion would have occurred in a single individual, who could have been male or female with equal likelihood. Its presence in descendants is not guaranteed until fixation.

      Delete
    13. There are people walking about today who have 44 chromosomes:

      http://genetics.thetech.org/original_news/news124

      I wonder if Gary would consider them to be "superhuman" or "subhuman"?

      Delete
    14. Lutesuite the same Tech Museum link is one of the footnotes of the book/theory. That link in turn links to a biomedical research article that answers your question according to what Darwinian Evolutionary Theory consider them to (at the very least) be, which as a two word phrase is "reduced fitness":

      It is well-known that the fitness of rob translocation carries is reduced, but rob translocation can provide material for evolution.

      In Darwinian Theory (only) the starting point is "reduced fitness humans" and full reproductive isolation would shorten that to be "unfit humans".

      Thankfully the Theory of Intelligent Design that I defend has no "fitness" generalizations, just speciation circuit systematics that require use the word "progenitor", or plural "progenitors". What the progenitors want to call themselves (in addition to that) is most up to them. Maybe Human2, and wear double wedding bands after marriage or on the other hand when not married yet but looking.

      Delete
    15. Gary,

      Just for the record, when you refer to 'Darwinian theory' you are referring to the past. You want to engage modern evolutionary theory.

      In any case, neither Darwinian nor modern evolutionary theory posits any fitness requirement for mutations, chomosomal or otherwise. Furthermore, evolutionary theory (or Darwinian theory, of course) makes no value judgements about "unfit humans", in the way you present it.

      And to be clear, there was no "Adam and Eve" in the human species sense. Although there are some exceptions, available evidence indicates most speciation occurs at the population level, not the individual level.

      Delete
    16. Darwinian Theory is the theoretical model that contains "natural selection" in its logical construct. Unless NS is taken out it's still "Darwinian Theory".

      http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=darwinian+theory

      Whether you know it or not: you are wrongfully attempting to conflate hundreds of theories together under the umbrella of "Evolutionary Theory" in order to bolster a theory that would otherwise have to stand on its own (only supported by generalizations not specifics) scientific merit.

      Delete
    17. Gary, your authoritarian delusions of god-hood are glaringly obvious, and you are well past the point of becoming tiresome. And whether you know it or not, you are not the arbiter of what can be, should be, or is included in evolutionary theory.

      Delete
    18. So according to Gary's "theory" we are all suffering a state of "reduced fitness" compared to other primates, because we have one fewer pair of chromosomes.

      Delete
    19. @Gary,
      "Organisms that survive to have offspring affect the genetic makeup of the next generation more than do organisms that die without having offspring."

      There, that's Natural Selection in a sentence as applied to living things. For a more general statement feel free to lift "genetic makeup" to "composition of inheritable traits."

      Using your definition every theory involving procreating biologicals is either Darwininan or contrafactual.

      Delete
    20. "Darwinian Theory is the theoretical model that contains "natural selection" in its logical construct. Unless NS is taken out it's still "Darwinian Theory"."

      Regardless of what Google scholar may say, if you mention natural selection, you are not talking exclusively "Darwinian theory". Darwin coined the term natural selection, and it remains an important part of modern evolutionary theory.


      "Whether you know it or not: you are wrongfully attempting to conflate hundreds of theories together under the umbrella of "Evolutionary Theory" in order to bolster a theory that would otherwise have to stand on its own (only supported by generalizations not specifics) scientific merit"

      That's complete nonsense. You just don't want to have to contend with and understand modern evolutionary theory. And it stands on decades of scientific merit.

      And this still remains a completely worng statement:

      "In Darwinian Theory (only) the starting point is "reduced fitness humans" and full reproductive isolation would shorten that to be "unfit humans". "

      Wrong, wrong, wrong. If we take Darwin's original postulate of variation, natural selection and common descent, his theory requires no such starting point.

      Delete
    21. ChrisB you are a pompous hypocrite for saying "You just don't want to have to contend with and understand modern evolutionary theory."

      Delete
    22. CatMat revealed: "Organisms that survive to have offspring affect the genetic makeup of the next generation more than do organisms that die without having offspring."

      I would personally be embarrassed to parade around spouting common sense that a 4 year old child can figure out on their own.

      I can see myself now becoming a famous scientific authority by spouting "The dead organisms have no offspring! That explains everything in biology!!"

      Delete
    23. I would personally be embarrassed to parade around spouting common sense that a 4 year old child can figure out on their own.

      And yet, that's all natural selection is. That's why I'm a bit surprised that you chose this particular point as something defining a faulty theory.

      Delete
    24. The problem is from pompously parading around a childish oversimplifications as though they explain all in biology.

      From my experience I found that the general public has good reason for basically saying none are arguing your common sense microevolution claims, but if that's all you got then you have a long way to go before explaining what everyone wants to know about, pertaining to macroevolution and the origin of intelligence, consciousness, intelligent cause, etc..

      Delete
    25. Gary,

      "ChrisB you are a pompous hypocrite for saying "You just don't want to have to contend with and understand modern evolutionary theory"

      I haven't criticized your hypotheses, so where exactly am I being a pompous hypocrite?

      I am trying to correct misapprehensions you have about evolutionary theory. If you think scientists 'conflate hundreds of theories under evolutionary theory' in order to "bolster" it, than you know not of what you speak, and it seems to me you don't want to know or contend with evolutionary theory.

      I don't know why this is an issue for you. Perhaps I am mistaken, but I was under the impression that your hypotheses were meant as a complementary addition to evolutionary theory. Are you actually proposing a mutually exclusive alternative to evolutionary theory?

      Delete
    26. And I'm having a bad typo day! Sentence should of course read:

      The problem is from pompously parading around childish oversimplifications as though they explain all in biology.

      Delete
    27. Chris B: "I don't know why this is an issue for you."

      It's like being forced to endure children who never grew out of the "Look at me!" stage of life who think they are the greatest in the world by reciting what they learned how to endlessly recite in high school or college.

      Are you actually proposing a mutually exclusive alternative to evolutionary theory?

      If Darwinian theory must be the basis of "evolutionary theory" then yes, I sure am. Logical construct and required variables are completely different, and no generalizations required instead explains the "systematics" required to (without even knowing the other theory) model origin of (intelligent) life, speciation on up to intelligent cause (i.e. Cambrian Explosion).

      Delete
    28. @Gary,
      No one here, except possibly you, is trying to use anything to explain all of biology with any single mechanism. Biology is not simple.

      Scientific communication relies on common language. If a new term is introduced or an existing one is used in a new way it's imperative to make clear what the term or new usage is, since there is no other way to ensure that the information is transferred as intended. Communicating with someone who redefines existing concepts as he goes without providing the new definition is not only tedious, it's an exercise in futility.

      For example, the definitions I've been using here are these:

      "Evolution" is "a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations."
      "Natural Selection" is "the effect of differentiated reproductive success to the genetic makeup of the population."
      "Darwinism" is "the theory of evolution with the central dogma of molecular biology as the axiomatic base and natural selection as the driving force."

      It seems that you use some other definition of evolution and label anything incorporating natural selection as "Darwinist." This of course means that suddenly "Darwinist Intelligent Design" is a thing that supposedly exists...

      And now I notice there's a message from our host from last Tuesday.

      Good luck with your book dealings, I think I'll just stop using this particular equine carcass as a percussion instrument now.

      Delete
    29. I do not use the word "Darwinist".

      The theoretical framework with the variable named "natural selection" is "Darwinian" theory. Where that the basis of what is called "evolutionary theory" then that is equally limited to the same generalization(s) and must be equally antiquated.

      Delete
    30. OK, lets take a couple more riffs off the ex-horse then.

      I do not use the word "Darwinist".
      Mea Culpa. "Darwinian Intelligent Design" it is. Still not a thing.

      The theoretical framework with the variable named "natural selection" is "Darwinian" theory. Where that the basis of what is called "evolutionary theory" then that is equally limited to the same generalization(s) and must be equally antiquated.

      (an aside: does "Christian" get the same treatment? Any framework with the variable named, say, "apostle" is "Christian" and must be equally antiquated as the Gospels?)

      I can't really parse your sentence around the word "basis" but with the definitions I use NS is definitely not the basis of what is rightfully called neo-darwinian evolutionary theory. A mechanism among others, yes. The basis, no.

      I've already stated what my working definition of "natural selection" is. Since you seem to hold the opinion that that's common sense that a 4 year old can configure out on their own you must be using some other definition, unless your objection really is to the words themselves.

      I can't get a handle on how your thinking relates labels to concepts - it appears to be somewhat backwards from what I'm used to. A label does not define a concept, it is just a name for a representation within a model. If I name a loop variable "natural selection" that does not make the loop Darwinian.

      Delete
    31. "It's like being forced to endure children who never grew out of the "Look at me!" stage of life who think they are the greatest in the world by reciting what they learned how to endlessly recite in high school or college. "

      Now who is the pompous hypocrite?

      Do you really think I post here so people will "look at me" and that I just recite things from college and high school? Wow, you really don't like being corrected, do you? Let's drop the gratuitous ad hominem and stay on topic.

      *****
      Are you actually proposing a mutually exclusive alternative to evolutionary theory?

      "If Darwinian theory must be the basis of "evolutionary theory" then yes, I sure am."

      Darwin's original theoretical construct for the fact of evolution is part of modern evolutionary theory. So then, yes, you will have to address modern evolutionary theory if you wish to replace it with something else.

      "Logical construct and required variables are completely different, and no generalizations required instead explains the "systematics" required to (without even knowing the other theory) model origin of (intelligent) life, speciation on up to intelligent cause (i.e. Cambrian Explosion)"

      So what exactly are you positing, Gary? Do you have an alternate explanation for the Cambrian evolution of the major groups of life? Do parts of evolutionary theory complement the Cambrian evolution, are they effective only after some intelligence caused the development of Cambrian groups? Does evolutionary theory explain any macroevolutionary events? If not, why not? Does evolutionary theory explain any microevlutionary observations?

      By briefly answering these questions, what exactly are your claims?

      Delete
  22. Not to mention the fact that there are lots of XXY, X0, etc. people walking around who regard themselves as fully human and are so regarded by others, not to mention people with trisomy-21 -- saying that they are not fully human would not be well received today.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are at the same time saying Y-Chromosome Adam has exceptions too, and humans are not regarded as a 46 chromosomes, therefore all sources of information that make the claim we have 46 must be retracted.

      I wanted to add a qualifier for exceptions to the rule but 44 chromosome man and others are in the process of speciation (due to reproductive isolation already existing) .

      Delete
    2. I wanted to add a qualifier for exceptions to the rule but 44 chromosome man and others are in the process of speciation (due to reproductive isolation already existing) .

      Wrong. There is nothing in principle to prevent fused- and broken-chromosomed individuals from being interfertile with the wild-type. You yourself have described a scenario where you assume mixed 48, 47 and 46-chromosome individuals could interbreed. It's a reasonable assumption. Without it, karyotype could never change in an obligately sexual population. When it does, that isn't (necessarily) speciation.

      Delete
    3. For example all modern equids have 64 chromosomes except for Przewalski's horse, which has 66. This has resulted from the fission of one of the chromosomes in Przewalski's horse so recently that opinions vary as to whether the domestic horse and Przewalski's horse can be regarded as separate species. Anyway, they can interbreed and produce fully fertile offspring with 65 chromosomes.

      Delete
    4. The reason the 44 chromosome man was discovered was due to a very serious reproductive problem with a woman with normal chromosomes:

      This case report was occasioned by the ascertainment of a 25-year-old Chinese man (IV-1) married to a nonconsanguineous woman with normal chromosomes (IV-2). This couple had had a son who died at age 6 months, was buried without an autopsy, but had had a chromosome study because of cerebral palsy. The karyotyping analysis of IV-1 is Authenticated by the Chinese Academic Committee of the state key
      laboratory of medical genetics with the previously undescribed balanced human karyotype 44,XY,der(14;15)(q10;q10),der(14;15)(q10;q10).

      The parents of the propositus are phenotypically normal first consins, each a carrier of the same Robertsonian translocation

      http://biomedres.info/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/171-174-Bo_Wang.1584046.pdf

      Delete
    5. So what? This does not mean that ALL non-46 individuals are of reduced fitness. We don't tend to do karyotype analysis on people who don't present with an issue.

      Nor does it mean that the 44 individual is 'speciating'.

      Delete
    6. The chromosome speciation hypothesis for the human-chimp split has been tested. In this study, no evidence was found: http://genome.cshlp.org/content/14/5/845.full

      Delete
    7. Allen please stick to modern (not recently outdated) research:

      Conclusion
      Although a Robertsonian translocation carrier has a full
      genetic complement, their fitness is reduced due to high
      probability of genetically imbalanced gametes.
      However, this type of translocation can provide material
      for human evolution. Long term isolation of a group of
      individuals who are homozygous for a particular
      Robertsonian translocation chromosome could
      theoretically lead to the establishment of a new human
      subspecies having a full genetic complement in 44
      chromosomes.


      http://biomedres.info/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/171-174-Bo_Wang.1584046.pdf

      Delete
    8. Allen please stick to modern (not recently outdated) research:

      Allan. Sigh.

      On your bike, Gary. The fact that my paper was published in 2004 (OMFG!) and yours in 2013 is immaterial. All your paper adds to knowledge on the matter is a single case study and a repeat of speculations that date back to the 1970's. There is no population biology offered.

      The authors of your paper don't even mention the Zhang et al paper, which actually tested the hypothesis they advance, and found no evidence for it in the particular case of human Chromosome 2.

      see http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/chrom.spec.html for a brief overview of problems with this hypothesis as a general mechanism.

      Delete
    9. In fact (with apologies to Larry; I know he called time on this debate already) heterozygotes for this particular translocation are clearly viable and fertile - as witness the 44-individual's own parents. Their 'population of homozygotes' would have to be isolated from the wider population by some other means - the death of the child was not demonstrated to be caused by translocation heterozygosity, and it is demonstrably not universally fatal to a soma.

      You can't get to homozygosity without passing through fertile and viable heterozygosity. If heterozygotes were significantly less fit than either homozygote, you couldn't propagate the 44 state inside this barrier without close inbreeding, which would leave a signal.

      Delete
  23. Arrington asserted:

    "The following statements are so obvious as to be considered truisms.

    1. The primordial datum: I am subjectively self-aware."

    I looked up "primordial datum" and found various definitions. I looked up "subjectively self-aware" and found various definitions. I looked at Arrington's post and comments at UD and he didn't provide his definition of those terms.

    I'm surprised that Arrington used the word "subjectively", instead of objectively or symbolically. He obviously believes that humans, or just humans who agree with his version of, well, everything are specially created in his chosen, so-called 'God's' image and are therefor vastly superior to all other living things in every way. I would think that Arrington would want to try to elevate humans, or just himself and those who agree with him, to a special, objectively and symbolically self-aware position that is far above everything and everyone else.

    In my search for definitions I came across this paper:

    The Symbolic Self in Evolutionary Context

    http://www.southampton.ac.uk/~crsi/thesymbolicself.pdf

    One of the things said in the paper is:

    "There are several millions of species on Earth, most of which are plants, microorganisms, and insects (Gallup, 1985). In agreement with Lewis (1992), we have no problem in accepting that all living species possess subjective self-awareness."

    There's much more about subjective, objective, and symbolic self-awareness in the paper but if that statement is credible then Arrington and all other humans aren't 'special' on the basis of subjective self-awareness. You all may want to read the entire paper. I cant say that I agree with everything it says, although I can't think of a reason right now to disagree with the above, quoted statement. It seems to me that subjective self-awareness is quite common and natural and that Arrington's claims about it are just another glaring example of his ignorance and inflated ego.

    ReplyDelete
  24. In response to numerous postings on this site I think it's worth reading what Sean Carroll said about "crackpot theories". He's talking about Frank Tipler, once a respected physicist.
    "First, Frank Tipler is probably very “intelligent” by any of the standard measures of IQ and so forth. In science, we tend to valorize (to the point of fetishizing) a certain kind of ability to abstractly manipulate symbols and concepts — related to, although not exactly the same as, the cult of genius. (It’s not just being smart that is valorized, but a certain kind of smart.) The truth is, such an ability is great, but tends to be completely uncorrelated with other useful qualities like intellectual honesty and good judgment. People don’t become crackpots because they’re stupid; they become crackpots because they turn their smarts to crazy purposes.

    Second, the superficially disconnected forms of crackpottery that lead on the one hand to proving Christianity using general relativity, and on the other to denying global warming, clearly emerge from a common source. The technique is to first decide what one wants to be true, and then come up with arguments that support it. This is a technique that can be used by anybody, for any purpose, and it’s why appeals to authority aren’t to be trusted, no matter how “intelligent” that authority seems to be.

    Tipler isn’t completely crazy to want “average people” to be able to check claims for themselves. He’s mostly crazy, as by that standard we wouldn’t have much reason to believe in either general relativity or the Standard Model of particle physics, since the experimental tests relevant to those theories are pretty much out of reach for the average person. But the average person should be acquainted with the broad outlines of the scientific method and empirical reasoning, at least enough so that they try to separate crackpots from respectable scientists. Because nobody ever chooses to describe themselves as a crackpot. If you ask them, they’ll always explain that they are on the side of Galileo; and if you don’t agree, you’re no better than the Inquisition."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He’s mostly crazy, as by that standard we wouldn’t have much reason to believe in either general relativity or the Standard Model of particle physics, since the experimental tests relevant to those theories are pretty much out of reach for the average person.

      I would agree that the Standard Model of Particle Physics'/quantum mechanics is out of reach of the average person. However, at least one of the tests of General Relative is pretty straight forward, namely the deflection of light passing near the Sun during a total eclipse.

      Delete
  25. Well, it is now official. I have been banned from UD by the ambulance chasing lawyer. Who would have thought that being critical of his approach to arguing a point would get a person banned.

    The interesting thing is that he removes the comment that gets you banned so that nobody can see the reason.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Even more interesting, I registered under a different name. I am able to post on all OPs without a problem. But when I post on a post authored by Barry, my comment goes under moderation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So you are back on under another name, but Barry is wise to that?

      Delete
    2. Aside from wd400, who else is commenting at UD who opposes ID and creationism? The echo-chamber more and more has no real debate.

      Delete
    3. Joe: "So you are back on under another name, but Barry is wise to that?"

      Yes and no. I am using another name but I am only under moderation on his posted OPs.

      The only others I have seen are Mark Franks (not really sure what he is, but he is Anti-ID), RDGish and Graham2. But I think the other two have also been blocked.

      Delete