Friday, August 07, 2015

Here's why you can ignore Günther Witzany

Günther Witzany is one of those people who think the Modern Synthesis needs to be overthrown but he missed the real revolution that took place in the late 1960s. He's part of The Third Way crowd that includes Denis Noble and Jim Shapiro [see Physiologists fall for the Third Way and The Third Fourth Way].

Susan Mazur interviews him for the Huffington Post [Günther Witzany: Modern Synthesis "Must Be Replaced," Communication Key to Evolution]. Recall that Susan Mazur is fixated on the Altenburg 16 and their attempts to radically revise evolutionary theory without understanding anything about Neutral Theory and random genetic drift. Günther Witzany is a philosopher. He was not one of the Altenberg 16 but he clearly wants to be part of the outer circle. It's not clear why anyone should consider him an expert on evolutionary biology.

Susan Mazur did us a great favor when she asked him if he would like to make a final point. His answer shows us why we can ignore him.
The older concepts we have now for a half century cannot sufficiently explain the complex tendency of the genetic code. They can't explain the functions of mobile genetic elements and the endogenous retroviruses and non-coding RNAs. Also, the central dogma of molecular biology has been falsified -- that is, the way is always from DNA to RNA to proteins to anything else, or the other "dogmas," e.g., replication errors drive evolutionary genetic variation, that one gene codes for one protein and that non-coding DNA is junk. All these concepts that dominated science for half a century are falsified now. ...
Thank-you Susan. Keep up the good work. Fools need to be exposed.


210 comments :

  1. Professor Moran can you give me a short list of people who understand evolution in your opinion. Thank you sir.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Professor Moran can you give me a short list of people who understand evolution in your opinion. Thank you sir."

      They are all the knowledgeable scientists who agree with Larry's view on evolution, which is mainly the random genetic drift as the main evolutionary driving mechanism.

      You can remove Coyne from the list if you happened to have him on there.

      Now you know Beau?

      Delete
    2. Larry: Here's why you can ignore Günther Witzany

      Apparently, dozens of the most respected evolutionary scientists in the world don't ignore Guenther Witzany's work. Here are a few of the evolutionists who have contributed to Witzany's books "Natural Genetic Engineering and Natural Genome Editing" (2009) and "DNA Habitats and Their RNA Inhabitants" (2015):

      Jürgen Brosius, Gustavo Caetano-Anollés, Patrick Forterre, Peter Gogarten, King Jordan, Eugene V. Koonin, Mart Krupovic, John Mattick, David Prangishvili, Eörs Szathmáry, Luis Villarreal and Natalya Yutin.

      Why should we ignore these evolutionists, who have high credentials, and not Larry?



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

      Delete
    4. Why should we ignore these evolutionists, who have high credentials, and not Larry?

      Did Larry say anything about ignoring them just because they accepted Witzany's invitation to publish something in his collections? That would be an association fallacy. Having contributed to an edited volume doesn't mean that the contributor endorses the editor's opinions.

      Delete
    5. Apparently, you are not familiar with the 'protocol' involved in producing these scientific books: the reputation of the Editor is paramount. No reputable scientists, who have many opportunities to publish their work and ideas, will accept the invitation to contribute, if they do not respect the Editor. I'm sure that Larry, who is scientist, will agree with that.

      Delete
    6. Claudiu Bandea,

      Piotr doesn't understand neither the contributing process nor the importance of supporting a view or an idea in the scientific community because he is not a scientist.

      People like him some of my scientist friends call "internet philosophers" without the overtones of offending true philosophers.

      I don't have to explain what an "internet philosopher" stands for because Piotr just gave us an example of an inadequacy common among IPs, who try hard to pretend to be scientists.

      Delete
    7. Apparently, you are not familiar with the 'protocol' involved in producing these scientific books: the reputation of the Editor is paramount.

      Oh, really? And what sort of reputation does Witzany have as a scientist? Have you had a look at any of his papers? Most are available online. You will learn from them, among other things, that the human genome contains "2 million genes", that DNA is literally a language (in the technical linguistic understanding of the term), and other such pearls of wisdom.

      Serious scholars may be attracted to fringe conferences for a variety of reasons -- most typically if they enjoy a little bit of anarchy, sympathise with unorthodox ideas, or tend towards the fringe themselves. Being seated in the same audience with evident kooks may be embarrassing, but who cares if the conference is fun. If you read a paper at such an event and are invited to publish it in the proceedings volume, will you be fussy abou the chief editor's credentials?

      Delete
    8. Why don't you answer the question or the challenge by Claudiu?

      You didn't understand it? Again?

      You can continue with the strawman, as you normally do after your typical and total lack of argument. We are used to it, so no sweat.

      Delete
    9. Liesforthedevil appears to be Quest, again.

      People like him some of my scientist friends

      Your "scientist friends". Right. Name three of your "scientist friends" and we'll look up their publication records.

      I'm calling bullshit right there. Liesforthedevil has no scientist friends.

      Why don't you answer the question or the challenge by Claudiu?

      Sounds exactly like Quest. People answer his stupid question, then he asks "Why didn't you answer the question?"

      Delete
    10. No evidence? Just accusations? It sounds "scientific" to me. It can't get anymore scientific than that. Just keep watching Claudiu! The Darwin boys might finally have some answers, one would hope!

      Delete
    11. Here we go with "quest" again. I just realized that it was a nickname on this blog that drove everyone crazy. Why? It must have been the ellipses.......LMAO

      Delete
    12. liesforthedevil:

      Based on the fact that you accept conceptual existence of natural selection, species mutability, speciation, and macroevolution, like Michael Behe (your master) everything you say against evolutionary theory is completely undermined.

      Your inability to see the egregious contradiction in your overall position indicates strong delusion.

      Delete
    13. Well said, Ray.

      For lies:

      "...publish another flop like Coyne's. "

      "Why Evolution is true"
      #1 Best Sellerin Organic Evolution
      Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #3,528


      "Darwin's Doubt"
      #41 in Books > Science & Math > Evolution > Organic
      Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #137,457


      I do wonder how you rate Meyer's pathetic creationist tome since you claim Coyne's book is a flop...

      Never trust a creationist.

      Delete
  2. Larry, can you give us estimates of the year or decade that these old ideas were known by geneticists to be wrong, and published in the literature as wrong?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hmmm let's see ....

      The Central Dogma was falsified in 1970, twice in 1971, once in 1972, twice in 1973, three times in 1974, once in 1975 and then I lost track.

      The dogma that DNA replication causes mutations was first falsified in 1974.

      The dogma that one gene codes for one protein was falsified sometime around 1962.

      And the dogma that non-coding DNA is junk was falsified by the ENCODE Consortium in 2012.

      Delete
  3. People like that have so much in common with anti-science creationists (maybe he is one, I don't know).

    You take scientific knowledge, accumulated solely through the activity of scientific research, to explain why scientific knowledge ought to be discarded.... and with prejudice even.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Larry,

    Do you or don't you know of any scientific, experimental evidence that would possibly invalidate the Central Dogma of molecular biology? Even one?

    If you don't, what would you do, if you were presented with such data with only one exception to the dogma? What would you do Larry?

    What would you do, if you saw data proving, without any doubt mind you, the transfer of information from proteins ( specifically from protein sequences) to the genome?

    Would you stick to the dogma just because of one piece of evidence indicating it to be
    wrong?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think this is the point in the religious movie where the professor breaks down, and admits that everything he has ever believed and ever taught is wrong, and that god is real.

      Delete
    2. Speaking for myself, if evidence for reverse translation were obtained, I would abandon my position that reverse translation does not (and cannot) occur. Till then ...

      Delete
    3. Exactly. Whatever its theoretical justification, the irreversibility of translation is in the first place an observational fact, and an observation could falsify it. Where's that observation?

      Delete
    4. We haven't seen cows orbiting Saturn and we can say factually they don't do that, but hey if a telescope ever spots one, well we can now say they do, can't we?

      Delete
    5. I think to Liesforthedevil, this is intended to be some sort of clever "gotcha" question. But the religious person will never understand that the scientific view is based upon evidence and that our increasing understanding of the universe absolutely depends upon discarding unsupported concepts. The reason some religious people cannot conceive of this is because they feel their entire existence is dependent upon the maintenance of a central, permanent truth. They think all people operate in the same way.

      How many people here would be devestated, or even disturbed, if an enzyme that could reverse translate was discovered tomorrow? The scientists here would be thrilled and intrigued, of course.

      Delete
    6. Does the central dogma still stand?

      Abstract

      "Prions are agents of analog, protein conformation-based inheritance that can confer beneficial phenotypes to cells, especially under stress. Combined with genetic variation, prion-mediated inheritance can be channeled into prion-independent genomic inheritance. Latest screening shows that prions are common, at least in fungi. Thus, there is non-negligible flow of information from proteins to the genome in modern cells, in a direct violation of the Central Dogma of molecular biology. The prion-mediated heredity that violates the Central Dogma appears to be a specific, most radical manifestation of the widespread assimilation of protein (epigenetic) variation into genetic variation. The epigenetic variation precedes and facilitates genetic adaptation through a general ‘look-ahead effect’ of phenotypic mutations. This direction of the information flow is likely to be one of the important routes of environment-genome interaction and could substantially contribute to the evolution of complex adaptive traits."

      Does the central dogma still stand?


      Conclusions

      "The Central Dogma of molecular biology is refuted by genetic assimilation of prion-dependent phenotypic heredity. This phenomenon is likely to be the tip of the proverbial iceberg, a specific, most dramatic manifestation of a major facet of evolution that I denoted here ‘general look-ahead effect.’ Even more generally, the entire spectrum of epigenetic variation, in particular various modifications of DNA, chromatin proteins and RNA, potentially can be similarly assimilated by evolving genomes. It is interesting to note that genetic assimilation of phenotypic adaptation had been predicted [73] and then experimentally demonstrated by Waddington in classic experiments on Drosophila over half a century ago [74]."


      73.Waddington CH. Canalisation of development and the inheritance of acquired characters. Nature. 1942;150:563. doi: 10.1038/150563a0.

      74.Waddington CH. Genetic Assimilation of an Acquired Character. Evolution. 1953;7:118–126. doi: 10.2307/2405747

      So far at least one exception to the central dogma was observed that looks to be the tip of the iceberg or more and more exceptions to come.

      Delete
    7. In none of these cases do we deal with transfer of sequential information from proteins back to nucleic acids. Thus, they don't refute "the central dogma" as defined by Crick, though they may refute various strawman misrepresentations of it.

      Delete
    8. liesforthedevil,

      Why does the central dogma matter to you? If it has been or were to be discovered that the central dogma is wrong, how would that support your religious beliefs? Is it your belief and assertion that your chosen, so-called god creates changes/variety in organisms by sending information through proteins to DNA, or do you just believe that if something, anything, is found to be wrong in evolutionary theory your beliefs will be proven true and will instantly and completely replace evolutionary theory?

      Delete
    9. whole truth says ...or do you just believe that if something, anything, is found to be wrong in evolutionary theory your beliefs will be proven true...

      Pretty much, eh. I think it is just a campaign to cast doubt about science in general, invariably using the findings of science (and not theology, since there are none) to do so. Usually it involves a misinterpretation of some scientific principle, or just the fact that sometimes new discoveries are made that challenge existing models (and somehow this is a mark against science).

      Delete
    10. I think the explanation is simpler: Plain old ignorance and stupidity. Like too many believers, liesforthedevil does not understand theology well enough to figure out what an argument for God should look like.

      Delete
    11. Piotr,

      Can you read?

      Well, someone just alerted me that the English language is not your first or second language. I should have known.

      I think that at least you should be able to figure out, somehow, what the actual scientists in the field (unlike you) have to say and supported it with evidence.

      Just because you have no idea what we are talking about here, it doesn't make your stupidity true. Quite the opposite. It reaffirms it!

      Delete
    12. Does anybody here understand what the evolutionists Koonin had been able to prove by his experimental work? (maybe with the exception of Piotr who has comprehension issues due to his languages barrier).

      Do I have to repeat the results of his EXPERIMENTAL FINDINGS?

      Delete
    13. Do I have to repeat the results of his EXPERIMENTAL FINDINGS?

      OMG, evolution is powerless against teh CAPS LOK!!!

      Delete
    14. Do I have to repeat the results of his EXPERIMENTAL FINDINGS?

      OMG, evolution is powerless against teh CAPS LOK!!!

      Delete
    15. Lies' reference does highlight an important fact: Apparently Eugene Koonin is not aware of what the central dogma says and he's "refuting" a muddled version. This is rather surprising to me because I normally consider Koonin as one who knows his shit.

      Nobody's infallible.

      Delete
    16. Koonin knows the original version (and cites it correctly), agrees that reverse translation never happens in the living world, and that inverse transcription is "business as usual" (no violation of the central dogma). Nevertheless, he thinks that "genetic assimilation" somehow constitutes an exception to Crick's rule. I don't think the mechanism suggested in the article has anything to do with the central dogma. At best, Koonin falsifies his own private interpretation of the central dogma, which he extends at his peril.

      Delete
    17. Yes but that's my point, the conclusion is rather confusing since he seems to actually understand what the central dogma says, then goes on to claim it is being refuted by prions.

      Delete
    18. Does anybody here understand what the evolutionists Koonin had been able to prove by his experimental work? (maybe with the exception of Piotr who has comprehension issues due to his languages barrier).

      Evolutionists? Languages barrier? Christ, if you're going to do a language flame ...

      Delete
    19. Mikkel,

      Yes but that's my point, the conclusion is rather confusing since he seems to actually understand what the central dogma says, then goes on to claim it is being refuted by prions.

      Don't listen to Piotr! He doesn't know what he is talking about, as I said earlier.

      Read the full article and you will arrive at the same conclusion you just came up with.

      Here is the main point:


      Reverse translation has not been discovered so far and seems extremely unlikely to ever be discovered. However, the Central Dogma is not about a specific molecular mechanism but rather about information flow: not about the (im)possibility of reverse translation but rather about the (non)existence of information flow from protein to nucleic acid.

      Delete
    20. And that main point is wrong. The point of the Central Dogma is not whether any sort of information can flow from the protein to the nucleic acid, but whether sequence-dependent information can flow from the protein to the nucleic acid, or from the protein to the protein. No one has yet discovered a single instance of this happening.

      Delete
    21. LiesfortheDevil, Jesus you love authority quotes. As Nullifidian stated, where is the evidence or sequence information going from protein to genome? By prions or by any other medium?

      If that happened, there would be some kind of reverse genetic code. Please prove that the Central Dogma has been violated by telling us what is the reverse genetic code, from protein to genome:

      alanine - ala - A --> what in the genome??
      arginine - arg - R --> what in the genome??
      asparagine - asn - N --> what??
      aspartic acid - asp - D --> what??
      cysteine - cys - C --> what??
      glutamine - gln - Q --> what??
      glutamic acid - glu - E --> what??
      glycine - gly - G --> what??
      histidine - his - H --> what??
      isoleucine - ile - I --> what??
      leucine - leu - L --> what??
      lysine - lys - K --> what??
      methionine - met - M --> what??
      phenylalanine - phe - F --> what??
      proline - pro - P --> what??
      serine - ser - S --> what??
      threonine - thr - T --> what??
      tryptophan - trp - W --> what??
      tyrosine - tyr - Y --> what??
      valine - val - V --> what??

      Fill that in. Until you fill it in, Koonin is wrong and so are you.

      Delete
    22. I will presented what I need to present, if you and all of your morons will officially commit what you are going to do, IF YOU ARE PROVEN WRONG. I want to have the statement from all of you, what is going to be your next escape.

      I know the worshipers of Darwin, and I cornered them many times. But they have one problem. They have no integrity whatsoever. So, I want all of you to go on record.

      Is that too much to ask from people who claim to have scientific evidence for their beliefs?

      Delete
    23. Diogenes,

      I think you misunderstand how reverse translation would work, if it worked. It would translate an amino acid sequence into a DNA sequence that coded for that amino acid sequence. There would be no need to reproduce the exact codons that were originally translated as long as they were all synonymous. So the code would just be a reversed subset of the existing code. That doesn't seem like the problem to me. The problems would be getting a reverse translatase that could actually read the amino acid sequence and unfolding the protein to allow access to the sequence. I suppose it would have to be a huge complex of proteins, including one to clip all the disulfide bridges. And what use would a reverse translatase be to any organism?

      Delete
    24. Even though the outcome would not falsify the Theory of Intelligent Design that I work on and defend: has the possibility/hypothesis that cells can reverse engineer/translate proteins into RNA or DNA ever been reliably tested by experiment?

      I searched Google Scholar and did not find anything. I'm thinking along the lines of a long term experiments where cells that had a partial or full gene knock-out of a simple yet relatively vital protein to their long term health are periodically exposed to what they need.

      Delete
    25. liesforthedevil barfed:

      "I will presented what I need to present, if you and all of your morons will officially commit what you are going to do, IF YOU ARE PROVEN WRONG. I want to have the statement from all of you, what is going to be your next escape."

      Spews the IDiot-creationist troll who won't admit when he is wrong and escapes (runs away from) relevant questions and evidence.

      "I know the worshipers of Darwin, and I cornered them many times. But they have one problem. They have no integrity whatsoever. So, I want all of you to go on record."

      Why should anyone care about what you want? You're just an illiterate, ignorant, loud-mouthed, internet bumpkin with a huge god complex.

      "Is that too much to ask from people who claim to have scientific evidence for their beliefs?"

      Instead of stupidly and arrogantly demanding 'official commitments' from alleged "worshipers of Darwin", why don't you produce the 'proof' of whatever it is that you think you can 'prove'? Hey, maybe you have 'proof' of your chosen, so-called god?

      Here again are the questions I asked you above. Will you answer them or "escape'?

      Why does the central dogma matter to you? If it has been or were to be discovered that the central dogma is wrong, how would that support your religious beliefs? Is it your belief and assertion that your chosen, so-called god creates changes/variety in organisms by sending information through proteins to DNA, or do you just believe that if something, anything, is found to be wrong in evolutionary theory your beliefs will be proven true and will instantly and completely replace evolutionary theory?

      Delete
    26. liars said:

      "Does anybody here understand what the evolutionists Koonin had been able to prove by his experimental work?
      Do I have to repeat the results of his EXPERIMENTAL FINDINGS?"

      Yes, i understand it, and Koonin's paper was discussed here on Sandwalk in 2012 shortly after it appeared. Instead of just repeating the results of his EXPERIMENTAL FINDINGS, why don't you explain it to us:

      1. How do the epigenetic effects of yeast prions differ from other recognized forms of epigenetics?

      2. How does this falsify the Central Dogma sensu Crick?

      3. Let's assume it does falsify the central dogma sensu Crick. What does this mean for biology?

      Delete
    27. JH says: Diogenes,

      I think you misunderstand how reverse translation would work, if it worked. It would translate an amino acid sequence into a DNA sequence that coded for that amino acid sequence. There would be no need to reproduce the exact codons that were originally translated as long as they were all synonymous.


      Yes, I get that, but I *did not* say the original genetic sequence must be reconstructed. My point was that I was being more broad-minded and allowing protein sequences to be reverse translated into anything: not even necessarily codons, but a reverse code that maps each amino acid into a quadruplet or couplet of base pairs, I would accept even that as a violation of the Central Dogma.

      But Liesforthedevil cannot present even one instance of an experimental observation of any kind of violation of the Central Dogma, even when defined very broadly.His creationist shtick is to write EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS in all capital letters, when everyone here knows he has no knowledge at all of Koonin's research or results.

      Delete
    28. Liesforthedevil replied, but did not abswr my question. Why can't he answer my question? I will repeat it.

      where is the evidence or sequence information going from protein to genome? By prions or by any other medium?

      If that happened, there would be some kind of reverse genetic code. Please prove that the Central Dogma has been violated by telling us what is the reverse genetic code, from protein to genome:

      alanine - ala - A --> what in the genome??
      arginine - arg - R --> what in the genome??
      asparagine - asn - N --> what??
      aspartic acid - asp - D --> what??
      cysteine - cys - C --> what??
      glutamine - gln - Q --> what??
      glutamic acid - glu - E --> what??
      glycine - gly - G --> what??
      histidine - his - H --> what??
      isoleucine - ile - I --> what??
      leucine - leu - L --> what??
      lysine - lys - K --> what??
      methionine - met - M --> what??
      phenylalanine - phe - F --> what??
      proline - pro - P --> what??
      serine - ser - S --> what??
      threonine - thr - T --> what??
      tryptophan - trp - W --> what??
      tyrosine - tyr - Y --> what??
      valine - val - V --> what??

      Fill that in. Until you fill it in, Koonin is wrong and so are you.

      Delete
    29. Diogenes,

      I think your question is still wrong. If you will accept any mapping whatsoever from protein to DNA sequence, why are you demanding a mapping at the level of individual amino acids? Why couldn't some sequence of amino acids of whatever length map to some DNA sequence of whatever other length? That is, you are defining reverse translation either too broadly or too narrowly.

      Of course there's no answer to your question, even if Lies cared.

      Delete
    30. Liesforthedevil has also not answered my other question: who are your "scientist friends"?

      List three of your "scientist friends".

      Delete
    31. He's not going to list his "three scientist friends". Guaranteed.

      Delete
  5. The inly thing i point here is that there is scientists, none creationist i think, who smell something is wrong with the present evolution story. They feel they must organized to present a new view. Its a reflection on evolution that is gets it from all sides. Nobody thinks it makes a good case yet. I can't think of any other "science" theory that has this problem.
    I think we are watching the end of a hypothesis that went to far in its claims for important and complex things in the universe.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hmm. Günther Witzany is, according to Mazur, a "philosopher of science and language, Günther Witzany, working from his private practice in Austria".

    I wonder how that "private practice" works. I guess he hangs out a shingle that says "philosopher of science and language". Someone's mother is unhappy with her child's attitude, and unhappy with the communication skills that go with it. So an appointment is made to straighten these out, for only $100 per hour ...

    I also notice the usual ambiguity between "the genetic code" and what the DNA codes for. It is like confusing David Copperfield with a table of the English alphabet. You'd think someone with Witzany's "private practice" should be able to keep these straight.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Close. The website offers
      - "Zielorientierte Gespräche zur persönlichen Sinnfindung." (goal oriented conversations on your personal quest for meaning) This particular offer is "useful in many different situations and life stages"
      - "Vorträge zu Zukunftstrends, zukunftsfähigen Handeln,
      Zukunftsethik, Orientierungshilfe zu zukunftsadäquaten
      Handeln." (Talks on future trends, future-enabled action, future ethics and directions for future-adequate action)
      - "Kritische Vorträge und Beiträge zur Gentechnik,
      Europäische Union, Belastungen der Demokratie,
      Bevormundung der BürgerInnen, Willkür der Bürokratie
      und Machtmissbrauch. Technokratische Entgleisungen
      Und Agrarindustrie. Und noch vieles mehr, das zeitkritische
      Distanz erfordert." (critical talks and contributions on GMOs, the EU, threats to democracy, the patronization of citizens, despotic bureaucracy and abuse of power, technocratic overstepping, agricultural industries and many other things requiring critical distance from contemporary conditions).
      - "Formulierung einer Corporate Philosophy.
      Entwicklung eines Mission-Statements.
      Förderung der Unternehmens-Identität" (Formulating a coprporate philosophy. Developing a mission statement. Promoting a corporate identity)

      There are a couple more (you can send him your papers for comment before you submit them to review for instance) and they are all on "ask for a price tag" basis.

      Looking at some of his papers I found this statement:
      The core concept of DNA biology, that DNA determines protein information and some remnants of former evolutionary stages remained as useless junk DNA in the genomes of cell-based organisms is also outdated. The genes coding for proteins in the human genome represent 1.5% of the total, whereas the number of noncoding DNA reaches 98.5% (Villarreal & Witzansky 2013, "The DNA Habitat and its RNA Inhabitants: At the Dawn of RNA Sociology", Genomic Insights 6:1-12.)

      So apparently only coding DNA (or at least previously coding DNA) counts as junk.

      Delete
    2. Yes, I was joking, but apparently my joke was on-target.

      The quote from his paper shows that he isn't too good at communication. His figures (1.5% etc.) are not new. Of course he has misread molecular biology as saying that there is no information outside of the "genes coding for protein". He also seems to be saying that the sheer amount of other stuff means that it must be doing something. And is that figure just the exons, or what? For an expert on communication he doesn't sound very clear.

      Delete
    3. I understood that passage as saying that most of the genome couldn't be junk, because it was noncoding. It does seem to restrict junk to pseudogenes.

      Delete
  7. I've researched "The Third Way" and I can't seem to find anything that it would indicate as what it is exactly. I have found no definition as to how evolution is supposed to happen by T3W, by what mechanisms, and no evidence on the agreement that T3W proponents have.

    It seems to me, that most of them simply promote their books with some individual ideas about evolution. No consensus there except for one that they are not to be confused with creationists or ID proponents.

    The way I see it T3W movement will soon become The Forth Way movement or most likely The All Way where everyone will just continue to promote his version of evolution without the intervention of an Devine Organizer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Looks like Skeptical Mind traded places all of the sudden. Or someone else is writing his comments.

      What are you trying to say moron? Which side are you on now? Watchtower?

      Delete
  8. I'm surprised Witzany didnt use the phrase "paradigm shift" in that paragraph.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Just read the article and to me it falls flat. Just letting him talk without challenging his claims doesn't work unless the reader has some degree of biological knowledge. Not lots, necessarily, I have just enough. But for most people, I think, his claims will sound like they're reasonable because they're in gobbledegook and unchallenged.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The Third Way site has (something like) 43 people, each promoting a different Way. So it is more like Ways 3 through 45.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually, ways 2 through 44. Because the Third Way of Evolution is IIRC number three, where the modern synthesis is #1 and creationism is #2. But since creationism is not a "way of evolution" but a "no-way" of evolution, we should omit it from the list.

      Delete
    2. They would mean for the truth of bio origins and so a third option. Creationism would mean a second way. It does seem the 43 counts as a third because it rejects the previous two.
      If its 43 then creationists can say dozens of scientists see modern evolution as failing even while not embracing YEC/ID. i say dozens in just this organized group so why not millions out there!!!
      They always throw ar us all scientists agree evolution is true.
      Someone needs to do a head count.

      Delete
    3. "Creationism would mean a second way."

      byers, does that "second way" include every version of creation that anyone has ever imagined, or just your version? Someone needs to do a head count, and a helluva lot of dead people will have to be brought back to life and asked too.

      And why do you care what scientists think, say, and agree upon, oh ye of little or no faith? For such a zealous thumper, you sure aren't following the orders in the bible.

      Delete
    4. Byers, the scientists behind the "third way" still think evolution is true -_-.

      Delete
    5. the scientists behind the "third way" still think evolution is true -_-."

      And this is the most pathetic part. At least they don't think that neo-Darwinian evolution is true.

      And now the search for new mechanisms of the "third way of evolution" begins.

      The finniest part of it is that "the third way evolution" looks more and more like a process requiring an intervention of intelligence every step of the way rather than random processes but "the third way" crowd can't see it.

      Delete
    6. The finniest part of it is that "the third way evolution" looks more and more like a process requiring an intervention of intelligence every step of the way rather than random processes but "the third way" crowd can't see it.

      Even assuming that is true, the "third way" has proven useless at making sense of the living world, so what does that say by extension about intelligent design?

      Delete
    7. Did neo-Darwinian way of evolution make any sense at all, ever? I haven't seen it. You might be the only one who holds the secrete to the Pandora Box. Open it up!??

      Delete
    8. Did neo-Darwinian way of evolution make any sense at all, ever?

      Yes, it did. Virtually by definition, one of its key intellectual achievements was the harmonization of natural selection and Mendelian genetics, providing for the first time a major (but not exclusive) mechanism by which evolution could occur at the molecular level. Also, in the discovery that natural selection could be harmonized with Mendelian inheritance, Sewall Wright discovered the principle of genetic drift, which would in turn set the stage for the revolution in neutral and nearly neutral theory some 30-40 years later. Hence, the fact that you're so focused on the "neo-Darwinian way of evolution" shows you to be about fifty years out of date, but that's about average for the ID crowd.

      I haven't seen it.

      Of course you haven't, because you don't want to understand anything about evolution. You know nothing about evolution since c. 1965, and you know scarcely more about the "neo-Darwinism" you keep on kvetching about. The only thing you have got right is the idea that learning about what the Modern Synthesis really was would give you considerably less scope for turning "neo-Darwinian" into a generic term of abuse.

      You might be the only one who holds the secrete to the Pandora Box. Open it up!??

      Is this supposed to be in English?

      Delete
  11. Günther Witzany: There are four levels of communication in the biosphere. First is signaling within an organism -- mitochondria, chloroplast, cell nucleus, etc. This is intra-organismic communication, within a cell.

    Second, we have the inter-organismic communication process, the signaling between cells of an organism like in an organ or tissue. Specialized communication between the participating cells with the same and related cells.

    Third is the trans-organismic communication level, which is where organisms communicate, signal other organisms not of the same species as we can find it in symbiotic processes.

    The fourth level is sensing and differentiation of indices. They serve as abiotic information for living organisms. . . .


    In my opinion he's more of less on the right track. And from my experience the "Modern Synthesis" is definitely showing its age. No scientist should be ignoring all this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The first three points are trite. Any primary school student understands them at a basic level.

      The fourth one, I have no clue what he's talking about. And I guess I never will, since the interviewer interrupted him (to bring up Noam Chomsky) before he could elaborate. I guess her eyes were starting to glaze over, too....

      Delete
    2. Sounds like he just wants to call everything organisms do, or their parts do, and call it "communication". Then, since he's an expert on communication, he can be seen to be way ahead of us all.

      Delete
    3. Nothing in his writing suggests he is an expert on communication though. For instance he regularly claims that the "linguistic turn" in the humanities happened in the 1930s, when the basic ideas that inspired it were first published in the late 19th century and they rose to prominence in the 1960s. I try to get my head around biosemiotics and there doesn't seem to be a there there with the best of them If someone spends a paper telling me that there is a semiotic theory of evolution and that population genetics is a special case, I'd like them to show their work and provide at least an outline of the semiotic theory and then explain how population genetics is a special case. And I'd really like them to provide examples where the special case doesn't hold.
      Now, I have read some of the key authors of the linguistic turn. And mostly the biosemiotics people at least have their semiotics in line. But nothing in Witzanys stuff suggests to me that he could provide a decent definition of a social construct for instance.

      Delete
    4. @Simon: I quite sympathize with your assessment of biosemiotics, though I have not actually gone to the extreme of reading what they say. (You apparently have, so my admiration and also my sympathies). It just sounds like talking about talking about evolution, rather than actually talking about evolution.

      I meant that Wizzany was an "expert in communications" in the sense of a self-declared expert.

      I will pay attention to the Semiotic Theory of Evolution the first time I hear that they have some actual conclusion about evolution to draw from it, as opposed to "it's all very complicated" or "discussion of evolution is driven by social context".

      Delete
    5. I'd say less of more but 6 of one, half dozen of another.

      Delete
    6. Where's Alan Sokal when you need him?

      Delete
    7. @Joe: It just sounds like talking about talking about evolution, rather than actually talking about evolution.

      If only! I think that'd actually be something worthwhile to look at, but as far as I can tell biosemiotics actually tries to do semiotics in biology. Now the basic questions in semiotics are based on 3 questions: How do symbols acquire meaning? How are symbols interrelated? And how are they used?
      Now all of that can be applied to how we talk about evolution. We can look at how particular terms are used, we can also look at graphics or even symbols that occur in formulas. When I see N in a publication I think population size. But physicists would think of Newtons. Or my favorite confusing bit: The diffusion approximation treats evolution as a bounded Brownian motion. Brownian motion can be decomposed into a drift part and a diffusion part - but the same decomposition in population genetics has drift and selection with selection equivalent to the mathematicians drift...
      But the main issue here that you can't make analogous points about genomes. The meaning of symbols is rather fluid and results from a process of negotiation between communicating partners. That's not something one can really apply to - say - genomes. But trying to apply it is what biosemiotics seems to be all about.

      Delete
  12. From what I can gather biosemiotics is another rapidly growing field that is in need of a much more predictive theory than "Modern Synthesis":

    Biosemiotics - Journal, Springer Publishing
    Description
    Biosemiotics is dedicated to building a bridge between biology, philosophy, linguistics and the communication sciences. If it is true that biosemiotics is "the study of signs, of communication and of information in living organisms" (Oxford Dictionary of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, 1997, p. 72), it is also true that, in time, it has acquired a more general scope. Today, its main challenge is the attempt to naturalize biological meaning, in the belief that signs are fundamental, constitutive components of the living world. Biosemiotics has triggered revision of fundamentals of both biology and semiotics: biology needs to recognize the semiotic nature of life and reformulate its theories accordingly, and semiotics has to accept the existence of signs in animals, plants, and even individual cells. Biosemiotics has become in this way the leading edge of the research on the fundamentals of life, and is a young exciting field on the move.
    By providing both a place for – and access to – exceptional peer-reviewed papers on the emerging discipline of biosemiotics, the journal will offer an instrument of its development by publishing papers in all relevant areas of the natural sciences and the humanities. In particular, the journal is focused on publishing original papers that explore deep links between biology and semiotics. Special issues are dedicated to some of the most interesting and provoking ideas in biosemiotics. In addition, the journal helps the readers to navigate in the current literature by publishing subject reviews and book reviews.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 2014 Impact Factor: 0.593

      Yup, sounds just like a field that is recognized for changing the "fundamentals of... biology" right before our eyes.

      Delete
    2. From my experience: emerging areas of science and new theories are normally ignored or even trashed by those who see no need for them. Impact factors help justify the complacency.

      Delete
    3. True enough, but there are also new fields that actually accomplish nothing, and only seem new because they rename things. These get trashed and are treated with complacency too. Except they often get more publicity because they try harder to get "puff pieces" into places like the Huffington Post. Actual new areas of science actually say something new.

      Delete
    4. From my experience: emerging areas of science and new theories are normally ignored or even trashed by those who see no need for them.

      That also tends to happen with ideas that are stupid and useless.

      Delete
    5. I get the sense that biosemiotics is just an attempt to line post-modernism with a thin veneer of scientific respectability, and has been initiated and promoted by those who likely know very little about biology in the first place. But since post-modernism itself is opaque to me, maybe I am wrong.

      Delete
    6. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.

      Delete
    7. And to this day they still laugh at those who said things like: "If man were meant to fly, he would have wings".

      With junk-DNA and "the central dogma of molecular biology" hoopla aside: I'm clearly seeing other areas of science discover what I have been computer modeling and explaining using cognitive science.

      I expect that the world is soon enough going to wake up to scientific history, now being made by those who need a much more predictive theory than "Modern Synthesis".

      Delete
    8. If these wonderful folks are making history, they will provide us with much better predictions. I'm waiting ....

      Delete
    9. Joe,

      Speaking about 'predictions', probably, you did see the question on an earlier post about predicting the relevance of genetic drift in evolution:

      At what population size in sexually reproducing organisms would you estimate that the meiotic/mendelian Genetic Drift (mGD) becomes irrelevant as an evolutionary factor for alleles present at 0.5 frequency, in absence of random births and deaths (bdGD) and selective forces?

      I'll be waiting...-:).

      Delete
    10. Predictions are already taking shape. For example the "four levels" Günther Witzany described that I earlier posted. That is the communication related part of the very predictive model and theory I now have.

      The problem is that all of this seems like foolishness to those who prefer to ridicule instead of trying to understand why so many are now heading in this direction, away from "Modern Synthesis" and all the other variations of Darwinian theory.

      Delete
    11. My apologies to Bozo the Clown for the invidious comparison.

      Gary, wake up to scientific history and Predictions are already taking shape. just begs for a place on a t-shirt.

      ID, in the planning stages for millennia, soon to burst onto the forefront of science, if only the dog hadn't ate my homework.

      Delete
    12. The dog did not eat my homework. In fact, it's now more explanatory by my having just added "communicative" where that applies in the theory of you know what. And I expect that many experienced scientists will soon understand why giving you exactly what you asked for and deserve, this way, is actually a brilliant idea:

      Introduction – Intelligent Cause, Intelligence

      The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, whereby the behavior of matter powers a coexisting trinity of systematically self-similar (in each other's image, likeness) intelligent systems at the molecular, cellular and multicellular level as follows:

      (1) Molecular Level Intelligence: Behavior of matter causes self-assembly of molecular systems that in time become molecular level intelligence, where biological RNA and DNA memory 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 Level Intelligence: Molecular level intelligence is the intelligent cause of cellular level intelligence. This intelligence level controls moment to moment cellular responses such as locomotion/migration and cellular level social differentiation (i.e. neural plasticity). At our conception we were only at the cellular intelligence level. Two molecular intelligence systems (egg and sperm) which are on their own unable to self-replicate combined into a single self-replicating cell, a zygote. The zygote then divided to become a colony of cells, an embryo. Later during fetal development we made it to the multicellular intelligence level which requires a self-learning neural brain to control motor muscle movements1 (also sweat gland motor muscles).

      (3) Multicellular Level Intelligence: Cellular level intelligence is the intelligent cause of multicellular level 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). Successful designs remain in the biosphere’s interconnected collective (RNA/DNA) memory to help keep going the billions year old cycle of life where in our case not all individuals must reproduce for the human lineage to benefit from all in society.

      Reciprocal cause/causation goes in both the forward and reverse direction. These communicative behavioral pathways cause all of our complex intelligence related behaviors to connect back to the behavior of matter, which does not necessarily need to be intelligent to be the fundamental source of consciousness.

      A behavior from any system qualifies as intelligent behavior by meeting all four circuit requirements for this ability, which are: [1] something to control (body or modeling platform) with motor muscles (proteins, electric speaker, electronic write to a screen), [2] Random Access Memory (RAM) 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 mechanism for a new memory action when associated confidence level sufficiently decreases. For flagella powered cells a random guess response (to a new heading) is designed into the motor system by the action of reversing motor direction causing it to “tumble”.

      Delete
    13. As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly.

      Delete
    14. Then spew on you.......

      Science is now gaining momentum in a direction that can only be explained by an "intelligent cause" that exists at more than one intelligence level. And the fabricated intelligent designers that largely came from the Atheist religion are strawman arguments, which are way out of bounds of science.

      You do not have special rights that allow you to support your scientific opinions by invoking religious deities of your own. The only way to maintain scientific integrity is to use the tools of science to develop the Theory of Intelligent Design, which can in fact be put into scientific context. I already did.

      Delete
    15. From my experience:

      Non-existent.

      emerging areas of science and new theories are normally ignored or even trashed by those who see no need for them.

      But that's the whole point, isn't it? Had the 'biosemioticians' demonstrated a need, or even basic competence in addressing biological problems, others would be paying attention. Perhaps not everyone would be won over at the same time, but there ought to be some significant fruitful dialogue between this journal and others after eight years of publication. (Of course, the 0.593 Impact Factor was only for 2014, so perhaps this will be the year they turn it around. Yeah, right.) Instead, the entire field seems beset with useless neologisms and reification of metaphors, combined with no apparent understanding of the molecular reality represented by these metaphors. If they actually come up with something that has practical or theoretic application for those outside this 'field', then I would expect it to be noticed.

      Impact factors help justify the complacency.

      Impact factors that are this low for journals that have been publishing for eight years in a supposedly 'groundbreaking' field also indicate that what they're publishing actually lacks interest and relevance.

      Delete
    16. I can agree that it's possible for these emerging fields of science to do a better job explaining to others what the main problem basically is. But if there is no need for more explanatory theory then you should have no problem at all explaining the fundamental basics of how any intelligent system works, the origin of "intelligence" including examples of the very first intelligent living things, whether or not genetic systems are somehow also intelligent, are able to communicate, and how all that can be modeled/tested.

      The real test is how well you can answer all the above, with a testable model and theory. What do you have?

      Delete
    17. @Claudiu Bandea: I guess I missed your question, so here goes:

      At what population size in sexually reproducing organisms would you estimate that the meiotic/mendelian Genetic Drift (mGD) becomes irrelevant as an evolutionary factor for alleles present at 0.5 frequency, in absence of random births and deaths (bdGD) and selective forces?

      Technically, never, if by "irrelevant" you mean completely irrelevant. The larger the population size the less relevant, but genetic drift caused by Mendelian segregation is never totally absent.

      ... I'll be waiting ...

      Your wait is over! OK, therefore ... what ?

      Delete
    18. Thanks, but let's be practical and reasonable in predicting the evolutionary impact of mGD on alleles' frequency in context of other factors such as bdGD and selection. I would say that in populations of a few thousand individuals, the mGD is basically irrelevant from a biological/evolutionary (not statistical) perspective. Do you agree?

      Delete
    19. @Claudiu: No, I do not agree. In a normal Wright-Fisher model of genetic drift, it can be shown that the part of it due to the randomness of meiosis is half of the genetic drift. So the mGD and the bdGD (to use your terminology) are equal in impact.

      Delete
    20. I can agree that it's possible for these emerging fields of science to do a better job explaining to others what the main problem basically is.

      Note bene: this would have been a good point at which to explain the "main problem", as you see it.

      But if there is no need for more explanatory theory then you should have no problem at all explaining the fundamental basics of how any intelligent system works, the origin of "intelligence" including examples of the very first intelligent living things, whether or not genetic systems are somehow also intelligent, are able to communicate, and how all that can be modeled/tested.

      Spoken like a complete amateur, to be blunt. First off, considering "biosemiotics" an intellectually vacuous waste of time doesn't commit me to the idea that existing theories are complete and comprehensive. Second, even if no further theory is needed, that doesn't mean that there are no unsolved problems. Science isn't a matter of looking in the back of the book, but of working out the solutions to problems by applying theory, past results of experiments/observations, etc. to new problems. If any field ever develops to the point where there effectively cease to be new avenues to explore, then it passes from the scientists to the engineers, as Newtonian mechanics has done. And even in the case of Newtonian mechanics, there are still a few unsolved conundrums, but that doesn't mean that we need to throw out the whole thing when applying it to classical systems like levers, pulleys, and springs.

      The real test is how well you can answer all the above, with a testable model and theory. What do you have?

      I can't answer any of it until you're prepared to define "intelligent system" in some way so that it is susceptible of investigation by biologists. I can answer your last two points, however: genetic systems are not intelligent and cannot communicate, at least in any sense any semiotician would define "communication", which is why I doubt that biosemotics represents anything other than the reification of a (frankly not-too-informative) set of metaphors. Human communication is a series of negotiations. Symbols and words can change their meanings or become invested with multiple meanings due to a constant process of negotiation between the various people who use them. "Evolution", for example, came from the Latin for describing the unrolling of a scroll and its first recorded use in English is to describe a military tactic of wheeling around in the realignment of ships or troops. In biology, it first indicated the developmental progress of an embryo, and Darwin took the term and applied it (only once in the first edition, but it caught the public imagination and the term stuck) to the development of new species from ancestral populations. Now, where is there an equivalent process in, for example, the "genetic code" and, if there is one, how does applying biosemiotics to the proposition add anything to our store of knowledge about the "genetic code"? Aside from the fact that they're talking half-baked idealism most of the time, the other main problem I have with biosemiotics is that the application of their 'theory', such as it is, is entirely secondhand. These people are the Golgafrinchan B-Ark.of academia. Neither makers nor thinkers, they're a class of completely useless middlemen who get the foundation of their field entirely from other people, without ever contributing anything back to the fields that they draw from.

      In other words, it's not my job to validate current scientific thinking for you. The status of any branch of science doesn't stand or fall on whether Gary Gaulin happens to accept it. It is the job of those proposing a replacement or even a contributing theory to show that theory's relevance to the work that scientists are doing now. If they can't, then their wittering away is going to be rightly ignored.

      Delete
    21. Nullifidian states: I can't answer any of it until you're prepared to define "intelligent system" in some way so that it is susceptible of investigation by biologists

      You should read a book on the current state of "cognitive science" and experiment with "machine intelligence" especially the intelligence systems David Heiserman taught how to build. It may then be possible for us to have a constructive scientific discussion.

      Delete
    22. LOL! How can I resist an invitation like that? I know I lay awake at nights hoping for a "constructive scientific discussion" with Gary Gaulin, a man who, to all appearances, knows absolutely sod-all about real science.

      Also, I ask you for a definition of "intelligent system" that is "susceptible of investigation by biologists" and you give me "machine intelligence" in reply. I think you missed the "biologists" part of that request. And, ironically, I was on the point of suggesting that you read up on neuroscience if you'd like to give your intuitions about intelligence a bit firmer empirical foundation.

      Delete
  13. Larry Moran: "Günther Witzany is a philosopher. He was not one of the Altenberg 16 but he clearly wants to be part of the outer circle. It's not clear why anyone should consider him an expert on evolutionary biology."

    This is an invalid argument-from-authority.

    It says Witzany's opinions, arguments, and facts are invalid only because he isn't a practicing scientist or a member of a certain group.

    When claims are being challenged the credentials of the challenger and the status quo are irrelevant.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So you didn't read on to the part where Larry quotes him mangling the Central Dogma and the recent history of evolutionary biology?

      Delete
    2. It doesn't matter anyway, since Witzany is a double agent on Darwin's payroll, like the rest of 'em all.

      Delete
    3. Ray said:

      'This is an invalid argument-from-authority.

      It says Witzany's opinions, arguments, and facts are invalid only because he isn't a practicing scientist or a member of a certain group.

      When claims are being challenged the credentials of the challenger and the status quo are irrelevant."

      Of course you never argue from authority, do you Ray, and you never mention, question, challenge, or denigrate the credentials of anyone who challenges your claims, right?

      A couple weeks ago in another thread here you admitted that you are the Ray Martinez who said this:

      "It is of no surprise that a Darwinist asserts the Bible does not mean what it says. How convenient. Does the desire to validate your theory have anything to do with asserting what anyone can read does not mean what it says? How would anyone expect to obtain accurate information about the Bible from a Darwinist/atheist?", and added this: "Darwinists and the Bible = Catholic priests and young boys."

      If that's not an "invalid" argument from authority and a despicable denigration of the credentials of every "Darwinist/atheist" in regard to what the bible means/says, then what is it? You even use the same type of arguments against other christians who don't agree with your version of christianity/the bible.

      ALL of your arguments are invalid arguments from authority and denigration of the credentials of your challengers.

      Maybe you'll explain what you mean about "the status quo"? Are you saying that the credentials of "the status quo" are irrelevant, or that the credentials of people who challenge "the status quo" are irrelevant, or what? And which "status quo" are you referring to?

      Delete
    4. Judmarc: "So you didn't read on to the part where Larry quotes him mangling the Central Dogma and the recent history of evolutionary biology?"

      By pointing out that Witzany is a philosopher Larry is saying Witzany doesn't have scientific credentials and is wrong on that basis alone. That **particular point** is an invalid argument-from-authority. Conversely, according to Larry's point, those that oppose Witzany are correct based only on their scientific credentials.

      Delete
    5. Concerning the points made by The whole truth:

      You've mistaken bias for credentials. I simply pointed out bias. I did not contend anyone right or wrong based on credentials or lack of credentials.

      Delete
    6. Malarkey. Credentials, bias, whatever, you're just playing typical creationist games, Ray.

      Delete
  14. Larry Moran, being a first rate scientismist, can't be faulted for resorting to the "No body but me and my pals understand evolution!" shtickinessness.

    So Larr,y we all weep for the burden of gross misunderstanding you carry day in and day out.

    May that lodestone be lifted by Jerry and Friends' scientismistic activism.

    Go Jerry!!!

    ReplyDelete
  15. Gary Gaulin said: "You do not have special rights that allow you to support your scientific opinions by invoking religious deities of your own. The only way to maintain scientific integrity is to use the tools of science to develop the Theory of Intelligent Design, which can in fact be put into scientific context. I already did."

    What is what you "already did" useful for? It's purpose? How come you seem to have found yourself at home at AtBC? Seems like everyone there is critical about most aspects of what you already have done?

    But you can throw insults, when a guy suggested a science book by a Nobel Prize winner for you to read, your only response was to name the guy a nutcase.

    You expect to be acknowledged and respected? Your theory of intelligent atoms and molecules doesn't seem to sell well. You use the tools of science? IMHO, abuse is more like what you do.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But Gary is a Planet Source Code Superior Coding Contest Winner.

      And he has the cute little graphic to prove it, which he displays on each and every post he makes over at antievolution.org.

      As one of the commenters over there said:

      Actually, in science, the burden is on the guy with the new paradigm. He has to prove it's more useful than the old paradigm.

      ID needs people (1)creating an actual model, (2)using it to generate specific predictions about the real world, (3)collecting data, (4) using the data to further refine the model.

      Instead, it's stuck at step (0), which is having people clueless about biology babble on web sites. That's all its done for 20 years, and accomplished nothing, because it's just creationism, which is scientifically worthless.

      Delete
    2. 14887 replies since Oct. 31 2012,02:32

      Seriously Gary, how do you get to the time to do your real science ?

      Thats on the order of 10 posts a day, every day, for the last 3 years.

      Just on that one site.

      Delete
    3. Another good question is: why do opponents bother? Dive into any page at random and the same people are saying the same things. Unless they are 'bots keeping Gary busy.

      Delete
    4. It's an ugly job, but it keeps him off the street.

      Delete
    5. Someone had to prove that the integrity of science is being destroyed by (anti)religious activists who are using science to achieve their religious agendas.

      Delete
    6. Gary Gaulin said: "You do not have special rights that allow you to support your scientific opinions by invoking religious deities of your own. The only way to maintain scientific integrity is to use the tools of science to develop the Theory of Intelligent Design, which can in fact be put into scientific context. I already did."

      Rolf Aalberg asks: What is what you "already did" useful for? It's purpose?

      The models and theory are currently the best that there is to explain how the fundamentals of any intelligence works. The latest model, Intelligence Design Lab-5, is of interest of neuroscientists and others who are trying to figure out how the hippocampus and entorhinal cortex of mammals work.

      How come you seem to have found yourself at home at AtBC? Seems like everyone there is critical about most aspects of what you already have done?

      Most just read the thread without needing to respond to anything. They are by now aware that the critics are only talking trash.

      But you can throw insults, when a guy suggested a science book by a Nobel Prize winner for you to read, your only response was to name the guy a nutcase.

      Those who should by now know better than to spread defamatory rumors like the theory is about "intelligent atoms" are simply being creeps. Suggesting that I need to read a physics book only added to the insult. They owe me an apology, but I doubt I'll ever see one.

      You expect to be acknowledged and respected? Your theory of intelligent atoms and molecules doesn't seem to sell well.

      Scientists I email information to don't need to waste their time reading the dishonest crap that gets thrown at me at places like that.

      You use the tools of science? IMHO, abuse is more like what you do.

      Abuse is what I get in return for properly using the tools of science. But that's the way it goes when science gets in the way of those who have a religious agenda.

      Delete
    7. "Someone had to prove that the integrity of science is being destroyed by (anti)religious activists who are using science to achieve their religious agendas."

      Anti-religious activists with religious agendas, eh? Yeah, that makes sense, not.

      And you proved it?

      What's my "religious" agenda, Gary?

      Delete
    8. "What's my "religious" agenda, Gary?"

      To use the ID controversy to promote your personal religion, and that includes Atheism (even though Atheists often believe their religion is not a religion).

      Delete
    9. "To use the ID controversy to promote your personal religion, and that includes Atheism (even though Atheists often believe their religion is not a religion). "

      Atheism is not a religion. Atheism is the provisional conclusion that gods do not exist, based on the lack of evidence for gods. It's a superfluous word, though. Nobody goes around saying they are Abigfootists.

      Calling atheism a religion is like saying that not collecting stamps is a hobby, or not pole vaulting is a sport.

      Apolevaulters, together now: amen.

      Delete
    10. Those who endlessly argue over such things as Gods, scripture, good or bad design, omnipotent designer(s) and the religion of others are talking religion, not science. And the US Supreme Court has already ruled that Atheism is a religion. US public school teachers need to beware of those who believe that the ruling does not apply to them. It's much easier than you think to prove that Atheists are promoting a religious view, especially with so much evidence including Atheist clergy and places on the internet for becoming legally ordained to preach the religion (and associated tax-free status for their church).

      Delete
    11. "Those who endlessly argue over such things as Gods, scripture, good or bad design, omnipotent designer(s) and the religion of others are talking religion, not science."

      Sometimes people talk about religion. That doesn't make atheism a religion, because it isn't.

      " And the US Supreme Court has already ruled that Atheism is a religion. US public school teachers need to beware of those who believe that the ruling does not apply to them."

      The fact that the US Supreme Court defined atheism as a religion so that it could be treated as such under the law doesn't change reality. It doesn't make atheism a religion, and it isn't.

      "It's much easier than you think to prove that Atheists are promoting a religious view, especially with so much evidence including Atheist clergy and places on the internet for becoming legally ordained to preach the religion (and associated tax-free status for their church)."

      Atheism does not require clergy, or internet churches, or tax free status, any more than not believing in Santa requires clergy, churches and tax-free status. Some people may be building some kind of weird religion around the logical conclusion that there is no evidence for gods, but none of that is in any way required to not believe in gods.

      Delete
    12. You are entitled to your opinions. Just keep your religious views out of the science classroom.

      Delete
    13. US public school teachers need to beware of those who believe that the ruling does not apply to them.

      But you would rarely hear of a school teacher promoting atheism in the classroom, unless by promoting atheism you mean that the teacher does not attribute all manner of natural phenomena to supernatural entities.

      Meanwhile, in the US, promoting christianity is epidemic, and don't get me started about what goes on in the schools in the various theocracies around the world.

      In any case, Gary, it is clear by how you write about atheism that you are not an atheist yourself. So, we are to suppose that your theory regarding intelligent design has nothing to do with that?

      Delete
    14. Due to my dedication to science: five or so years after "graduating" from Methodist Sunday School and other learning experiences such as Methodist Youth Fellowship that was preparing me to be a "religious leader" as opposed to a "follower" I began to identify myself as an Agnostic, then later an Atheist. I also became a legally ordained Minister in the "Church of the God Within" via mail-order, which I donated $20 to.

      In time my somewhat of a protest led to my discovering that marrying and burying people (and other things clergy do) required dedication to something that gives people hope for the future. Since I could not scientifically prove that "God" does not exist (and even where it's as explained in science books we were still created by something) I went back to identifying myself as an Agnostic and studied world religion including Wicca, which after having kids of my own to raise became popular in our local public schools. I did what I could to help turn that trend into a learning experience that made me (as a friend of my daughter would say) "a cool dad" and they respected my opinions. Such things as pentagrams had an origin that began with early scientists, which made it easy to relate the religion to science. Thankfully, even with a student writing favorably about the religion in the high school newspaper there was no widespread panic over the situation. The trend eventually ended without incident, locally. In other parts of the country it led to parents overreacting in ways that ended up with kids committing suicide and others in trouble for attempted murder after getting caught running around with guns to shoot anyone who appeared to be one.

      I never followed any particular religion. I'm still as dedicated to science as I ever was. And I know for a fact that you will not find a "God did it" answer anywhere in the theory. To prove that here's a direct link to the pdf for you to search through. The best you will be able to do is to show that the theory is able to explain scientific reasons why humans inherently like to celebrate making it to certain stages of life including weddings, which are not always performed and/or celebrated in churches anyway. So here you go:

      https://sites.google.com/site/theoryofid/home/TheoryOfIntelligentDesign.pd

      I'll be eagerly waiting for you to report back with your findings. Others may be interested in knowing what you can dig up for scripture and "supernatural" designers.

      Delete
    15. Several malls have collapsed over the last few years due to bad/faulty designs, the inquires have revealed.

      Unfortunately none of the inquiries have come to the conclusion that evolutionists have that bad/faulty designs mean that the designer (s) doesn't exist.

      This particular type of obvious paranoid schizophrenia symptoms, so far have been identified only among one population.

      Delete
    16. So you're saying that your hypothetical designer is incompetent and would design a mall that collapsed? That sure doesn't fit the popular view of god.

      Delete
    17. It may not fit the "popular" view of god but it accurately describes her behaviour.

      Delete
    18. I've met a lot of people who have claimed to be not religious. But it turns out, once you scratch below the surface, they still believe that something is pulling the strings in this universe, and that what has happened had to happen in this universe, or that human intelligence may be the mechanism by which the universe comes to understand itself, or various other manifestations. All of these ideas pre-suppose a design and therefore some sort of designer. None of these people claim to believe in any conventional god, none of them subscribe to scripture.

      Delete
    19. Unfortunately none of the inquiries have come to the conclusion that evolutionists have that bad/faulty designs mean that the designer (s) doesn't exist.

      Nice try. But intelligent design proponents and creationists would not care one bit if genomes were full of junk except for the fact the designer, who is their god, does not make mistakes, does not do poor design.

      But at the same time, and typical of the religious, they fail to notice all the evidence of poor design and poor decision-making by the god of the bible.... but nevermind.

      Delete
    20. "You are entitled to your opinions."

      Yes, I am. Thanks.

      "Just keep your religious views out of the science classroom."

      Atheism isn't a religion, so no 'religious views' there, but in my opinion, atheism doesn't have much place in the science classroom either. Since you bring it up, though, even before I came to the logical conclusion that there is no good evidence for gods, when i still clung to comforting but unevidenced religious beliefs, I was against people trying to insert religious beliefs into the science classroom. So I am with you there, Gary: religious beliefs have no place in the science classroom.

      Delete
    21. John,

      "So you're saying that your hypothetical designer is incompetent and would design a mall that collapsed? That sure doesn't fit the popular view of god.

      This is not the point I was making. I was trying to point out the logic that even bad design is never used as proof that the designer doesn't exist, with only one exception.

      What if I'm a great designer and choose to design something that some view as dumb. But I view it as funny and adorable?

      It's my choice as the designer to design what I wish. Why would anybody, based on this assumption, decide to come to a conclusion that I don't exist?

      This lack of logic only applies to one group of people and that is your group of people. You are the special and selective "thinkers". It's sad.

      Delete
    22. That's not the point you were trying to make, but it is the point you made. If your designer exists, you have shown that he's incompetent. You may want to back off from that claim.

      Delete
    23. In addition to John's great point, I have already addressed your

      "I was trying to point out the logic that even bad design is never used as proof that the designer doesn't exist, with only one exception."

      argument in another thread. It is a terrible argument, and you should stop using it.

      Bad design is not proof that there isn't a designer (it does suggest there is an incompetent or intentionally cruel designer, though) but it certainly isn't proof there is a designer either.
      You also said:

      "Or that the design has deteriorated since its original form due to many errors of replication and accumulation of deleterious mutations."

      So we were once perfect, with no appendix, no dental problems, functioning vitamin C synthesis enzymes, etc? Did the designer later give us an appendix and leave broken vitamin C synthesis genes in our genome to be cruel? Why do whales have little degenerate pelvic bones? And why did (s)he/it design malaria, cancer etc? These are not funny and adorable. What kind of psychotic sadist is this designer?

      "By acknowledging that something was badly designed one confirms the existence of a designer; good or bad depending on ones view."

      That doesn't follow logically at all. If we were in fact perfectly designed you would then claim that was proof of a designer. So no matter how good, bad, or in between the design, you conclude at the end that this is proof of a designer. That's an awful argument. It's sad.

      Delete
    24. "What if I'm a great designer and choose to design something that some view as dumb. But I view it as funny and adorable? "

      Such as: Cancer? Skin eating bacteria? Down's syndrome? Conjoined twins? Miscarriages? Still births? Sudden infant death syndrome? Cleft lips and palates? Hemorrhoids? Blindness? Cataracts? Glaucoma? Deafness? Sunburn? Starvation? Easily herniated disks? Arthritis? COPD? Ebola? AIDS? Acne? Warts? Tooth decay? Ulcers? Scars? Microcephaly? Brain eating parasites? Migraine headaches? Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis? Hurricanes? Tornadoes? Tsunamis? Earthquakes? Extinctions? Murderers? Racists? Tyrants?

      Delete
    25. Gaulin drooled:

      Those who endlessly argue over such things as Gods, scripture, good or bad design, omnipotent designer(s) and the religion of others are talking religion, not science."

      Then shouldn't you and your fellow creobots shut up about your imagined designer-creator-god and stop trying to force your religious beliefs into science, education, and everything else? Religious beliefs are argued against on sites like this only because religious loons like you keep trying to destroy science.

      "And the US Supreme Court has already ruled that Atheism is a religion."

      If you're referring to Torcaso v. Watkins you're full of crap. Well, you're full of crap anyway,

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torcaso_v._Watkins

      Delete
    26. No I was not referring to Torcaso v. Watkins. It is though one of several rulings on the matter.

      After searching for a link to more information the most complete I could find is a brief summary written by Casey Luskin. There is a list at the end that can be used to verify that these are real cases:
      http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/07/for_first_amend1087481.html

      Believing that Atheism is not a religion can get a US public school teacher into very serious legal trouble. They need to be careful not to take sides. And at least some of the "bad design" arguments are "arguments from ignorance" that leave out important information such as Muller cell light guides of the human retina, which direct photons straight into the receptors therefore the claim that the light is scattered by having to travel through nerves and blood vessels is not even scientifically true. The one about the laryngeal nerve of a giraffe does not consider that a vocal circuit needs a timing delay to achieve resonance of the entire acoustic chamber that starts in the lungs. None yet know for sure whether that is the reason for the nerve that appears to be a bad design that extends along this length but from my modeling acoustic circuits I found that such a feedback delay is vital. So even the "bad design" arguments are riddled with "bad science" that could get a teacher fired for not knowing what they are talking about. At least two of the arguments are now very good examples of "jumping to conclusions" which is a very good thing to warn students about, and should be constitutional to teach in a public school science classroom.

      Delete
    27. Muller glial cells are an excellent example of the contingency of evolution. They are clearly glial cells like any other, but have additional morphological changes to partly compensate for the bad design of the inverted retina. Some light is still scattered by tissues in the inverted retina that are in the way but are a legacy of the evolution of the human eye (shared by many other species descended from a common ancestor). The morphology of the retinal glial cells makes the best of an unintelligent (in terms of optics) design.
      2007 May 7. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0611180104

      Why would the giraffe need a timing delay to achieve resonance of the entire acoustic chamber? Most sound is produced in the larynx in mammals, so this would pose no special problem to the giraffe. Do giraffes need some other vocalization needing the vibration of the entire elongated throat, that also needs this timing delay to function? Why do okapi, the closest living relative of the giraffe, with a much shorter neck, also show an elongated laryngeal nerve?

      Also, atheism is not believing in gods. It is not a religion.

      Delete
    28. but have additional morphological changes to partly compensate for the bad design of the inverted retina.

      Even though the following had to be published in CRSQ it's important to study:
      Why the Inverted Human Retina Is a Superior Design, Jerry Bergman and Joseph Calkins - .PDF

      Why would the giraffe need a timing delay to achieve resonance of the entire acoustic chamber?

      The short answer is that they would otherwise likely only be able to squeak like a mouse instead of being able to communicate over long distances using low frequency infrasound:
      http://www.animalvoice.com/giraffe.htm
      http://www.birds.cornell.edu/brp/elephant/cyclotis/language/infrasound.html

      Atheism does not have to believe in Gods for it to be a religious choice that rejects scientific evidence that contradicts what its followers want to believe.

      Delete
    29. Why don't elephants (or whales, for example) need long necks, then? What has the length of the resonating chamber got to do with the length of the laryngeal nerve? Your short answers are non-answers.

      Delete
    30. Why don't elephants (or whales, for example) need long necks, then?

      They are all still large animals with longer & larger volume airways, which results in a longer laryngeal nerve path than mice or humans.

      What has the length of the resonating chamber got to do with the length of the laryngeal nerve?

      This webpage has a good illustration showing how the left nerve is forced to travel the distance to where its lungs are then back up again:
      http://www.icr.org/article/recurrent-laryngeal-nerve-not-evidence/

      Delete
    31. gary, I'm not going to click on any links to ENV or anything that the dominionist howard ahmanson's lying mouthpiece casey luskin spewed. If you can show that "the US Supreme Court has already ruled that Atheism is a religion", do it without linking to discotoot theocrats.

      And no matter how many times you say otherwise, atheism is not a religion. I asked you;

      "What's my "religious" agenda, Gary?"

      And you crapped this IDiotic response:

      "To use the ID controversy to promote your personal religion, and that includes Atheism (even though Atheists often believe their religion is not a religion)."

      I don't believe in any so-called god(s). I am atheist, and anti-religion. I don't believe in, practice, or preach any religious dogma, requirements, rituals, etc. I am not religious and I have no religious agenda.

      Why does it irritate you IDiots so much that some people are atheists or don't believe in the same so-called god(s) as you, or that your imaginary, so-called god doesn't get credit in scientific observations, claims, theories, hypotheses, inferences, and publications, if so-called "ID theory" is strictly scientific and not religious?

      Every time that you IDiots bitch about and condemn atheists/atheism you add to the huge mountain of evidence that shows you to be religious, theocratic liars and tyrants. You IDiots don't even like so-called 'theistic evolutionists', obviously because they aren't religious enough for you. They pretty much only give whatever so-called god(s) they believe in credit for getting evolution started (e.g. front loading) but apparently no credit for intermittently or continuously 'guiding' evolution, and that just isn't enough 'worship' to satisfy you IDiots.

      Delete
    32. This webpage has a good illustration showing how the left nerve is forced to travel the distance to where its lungs are then back up again

      This is another non-answer, and the diagram doesn't explain anything. The laryngeal nerve controls the larynx and not "its (??) lungs"; its length has nothing to do with the acoustic characteristics of the animals's vocal tract, or the fundamental frequency produced by the glottis. If it's very long, this may slightly impair the neuromuscular control of the vocal folds in terms of precise timing (which is no problem for giraffes, since thay are not fast talkers, but it's hardly an "optimal solution"). No special "feedback" or time delay is needed to produce low-frequency sounds -- you are making things up.

      Delete
    33. gary, you rely on and post links to ENV and ICR, yet you actually expect rational, intelligent, educated, scientifically minded people to believe that you are not a creationist and that so-called "ID theory" is not just a religious, theocratic agenda. Wow.

      Delete
    34. What if I'm a great designer and choose to design something that some view as dumb. But I view it as funny and adorable?

      You mean like cancer? 'Cause I sure think that's a pretty dumb design. But heck, I dunno, maybe God's splitting his sides laughing at it.

      Delete
    35. Gary,
      "Atheism does not have to believe in Gods for it to be a religious choice that rejects scientific evidence that contradicts what its followers want to believe."

      No, atheism provisionally concludes there is no god specifically because there is no scientific evidence to support the existence of a god. There are no followers of atheism, just as there are no followers of atoothfairyism.

      Atheism is not a religion.

      Delete
    36. "Even though the following had to be published in CRSQ it's important to study:
      Why the Inverted Human Retina Is a Superior Design, Jerry Bergman and Joseph Calkins - .PDF"

      So octopi got stuck with the bad design?

      "The short answer is that they would otherwise likely only be able to squeak like a mouse instead of being able to communicate over long distances using low frequency infrasound:"

      Okapi, elephants and rhinoceros use infrasound without long necks. What's the deal there?

      Delete
    37. Okapi, elephants and rhinoceros use infrasound without long necks. What's the deal there?

      Their necks (or more precisely the length and volume of their acoustic chambers) are still longer and larger than ours.

      I also have to add that whether my hunch turns out to be true or not will not change the fact that at this point in time there is still no conclusive evidence either way, therefore it's still an "argument from ignorance".

      Delete
    38. If it's very long, this may slightly impair the neuromuscular control of the vocal folds in terms of precise timing (which is no problem for giraffes, since thay are not fast talkers, but it's hardly an "optimal solution").

      Ironically giraffes do not make the trumpeting type sounds like other large animals such as elephants are able to. This is expected of a vocal circuit that has a longer time delay than the others.

      No special "feedback" or time delay is needed to produce low-frequency sounds -- you are making things up.

      I can see that you have never designed acoustic circuits to resonate a speaker or other resonant device. If the time delay between each wave is too short all you will hear (if anything) is a low volume high pitched squeal. For proper operation the system has to be timed to operate above and below the resonant frequency. It's very basic electronics, acoustics. Accusing me of making this up did not help your cause.

      Delete
    39. gary, you rely on and post links to ENV and ICR, yet you actually expect rational, intelligent, educated, scientifically minded people to believe that you are not a creationist and that so-called "ID theory" is not just a religious, theocratic agenda. Wow.

      That sort of information is not available anywhere else that I know of. In fact the Atheist movement leadership is still going along as though there is no such thing as Muller cells. Even the faulty biology it's responsible for spreading was never retracted or corrected. And science journals would probably not publish such a basic summary of vision systems.

      In my case I was for years stuck trying to figure out how to model a human retina that was too blurred to detect edges. The paper I linked to was a wealth of information that I needed and appreciated regardless of where it came from. If Richard Dawkins provided something that scientifically useful for modeling vision systems then I would have no problem working from that information instead.

      Refusing to study material from sources other than what your religious leaders want you to blindly believe is an indicator that you are being victimized by a "cult religion". And it should not have to be the job of public schoolteachers to "deprogram" those who refuse to objectively weigh the evidence.

      Delete
    40. Giraffes are not electronic generators. The make low-pitch noises using a large resonating cavity (their lungs, trachea and sinuses combined). There's some dispute concerning the exact technique of sound production and amplification (possibly involving the Helmholtz mechanism), but it's basic aerodynamics, not basic electronics anyway (no matter if the giraffe's vocalisations are more like the ocarine or the alphorn). If you imagine that every single vibration of the resonator is caused by an impulse from the recurrent nerve, you don't understand voice production.

      Delete
    41. Piotr, what do you expect would happen where a giraffe had an extremely fast control circuit with the timing characteristics of a bat or mouse?

      Delete
    42. And it's important to keep in mind that these are two-way control circuits with sensory feedback that goes back to the brain, not a single connection that simply flexes a muscle.

      Delete
    43. None of these animals has a "circuit" that controls the frequency of their vocalisations by sending slower of faster impulses generated by the brain. How do you imagine the human vocal folds work? The brain controls their vibrations indirectly, by adjusting their tension, not by sending a series of impulses. What makes them vibrate is the Bernoulli effect of the air expelled from the lungs, not an electronic oscillator. In other words, the vibrations originate mechanically in the glottis, not in a neural circuit.

      Delete
    44. Animals are easily able to control the frequency of their vocalizations. Where's your "reference signal"?

      Delete
    45. gary, I'm still waiting for your verification of this:

      "the US Supreme Court has already ruled that Atheism is a religion"

      Delete
    46. Animals are easily able to control the frequency of their vocalizations. Where's your "reference signal"?

      They have auditory feedback, and they can adjust muscular tension. No reference signal is needed.

      Delete
    47. gary, I'm still waiting for your verification of this:

      "the US Supreme Court has already ruled that Atheism is a religion"


      There is Supreme Court case law finding that "secular humanists" meeting to discuss their creed could possibly be entitled to a tax exemption, the same as a church group.

      This decision regarding U.S. Constitutional law (which it seems to me is entirely proper, as deciding the other way - that the content of the creed controls the right to a tax exemption - would be 'establishing' some creeds in preference to others, conflicting with the First Amendment's 'establishment' clause) has been miscast by religious folks as the Court saying atheism is a religion. What the Court actually said is that if you choose to, you can create a creed/belief system around something you call secular humanism, and the government does not have the right to say (for tax exemption purposes) such a creed is less valid than if you created one around something you call God. The Court emphatically did not say non-belief in a deity means you have created a belief system. And of course even if it had, what difference would that make philosophically or logically?

      Delete
    48. gaulin, like other god pushers, obviously believes that atheism = secular humanism. They are not the same thing. A person can be an atheist and not be a secular humanist. A person could be an atheist and believe that atoms or fish are the source/foundation of morality and decision making. Atoms and fish are not labeled or thought of as gods, so if someone were to believe that atoms or fish are the source/foundation of morality and decision making that would not make that person a theist and it would also mean that they are not a secular humanist.

      Atheism does not necessitate a belief, philosophy, practice, or 'worldview', that pertains to secular humanism or anything else. Atheist means not theist, and that's all that it means. Anything else that an atheist might think, believe, practice, etc., requires a different label. Any dictionary that defines atheist/atheism as anything more than not a theist/no belief in gods is sloppy and wrong.

      Another example is that a person can be an atheist but not necessarily be anti-theist/anti-religion. They could not believe in any gods but just not give a damn if other people do.

      judmarc, you are right when you say: "The Court emphatically did not say non-belief in a deity means you have created a belief system.", only I would change the wording to 'The Court emphatically did not say non-belief in a deity means you have created a religion.', and I'll add that gary is absolutely wrong in claiming that "the US Supreme Court has already ruled that Atheism is a religion". No such ruling has ever occurred.

      Delete
  16. liesforthedevil,

    You seem to be convinced there is a designer responsible for the biospehere, both all that we find good as well as all we find bad.

    You got any ideas about the identity of the designer? Where, when and how are the desings implemented? He/it obviously is extremely power- and resourceful. How come he leave no traces of his continued intervention in nature over four billion years?

    Is this just a load of BS: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_44 ?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Atheism does not have to believe in Gods for it to be a religious choice that rejects scientific evidence that contradicts what its followers want to believe.

    Talking about evolution and "poor design" in a biological sense has nothing to do with designers or gods or atheism. If these topics do refute religious notions, it is only those patently ridiculous notions that humans have constructed in connection to their various cartoon versions of god.

    Creationists tend to have a dim view of science because it contradicts the myths and fables they refuse to relinquish, even upon becoming mature adults.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If these topics do refute religious notions, it is only those patently ridiculous notions that humans have constructed in connection to their various cartoon versions of god.

      That's a good way to put it. The outcome of such debates can indeed change religious views.

      In this day and age most people in the world know about viruses and other things that cause birth defects and illness, yet religion goes on anyway. Religious leaders are normally able to adapt to scientific discoveries. It's why Christianity, Islam and other mainstream religions have lasted for so long and are not going to go away just because of that, while the ridiculous Roman gods that can be tested for by looking for one pulling the Sun across the sky with a rope tied to his chariot are now long gone.

      Delete
    2. Yeah, gary, as if the imaginary god of christianity and islam is any less mythical than the Roman gods. At least the imaginary Roman gods are interesting subjects for fictional movies and books, whereas the imaginary christian/islam god is just boring, depressing, and irritating.

      "Religious leaders are normally able to adapt to scientific discoveries."

      LMAO. If they would actually adapt to scientific discoveries they would completely discard their ridiculous religious beliefs and accept reality, and they would have done that long ago. There are a lot more religions right now than "mainstream" ones and they're all bullshit. None of them were conjured up or have lasted because they're based on reality. So-called "Religious leaders" are narcissistic con artists. There's a sucker born every minute.

      Delete
  18. Gary, according to Herbst et al. 2012, Science, while felids produce infrasound by active muscular control during purring, other mammals produce infrasound by airflow passing over long vocal folds in a long larynx. They demonstrated in elephants (and it seems to be same in giraffes judging by illustrations elsewhere of a dissected giraffe larynx) that you are wrong about nerves and nerve lags and throat length and resonance in the lung and throat not only because your mechanisms make no sense (alligators, rhinos, elephants, and okapis all produce infrasound with short necks and there's no need for nerve length differences to match throat length or any other length) but also because they produced infrasound by simply blowing air through the larynx in a dead animal.

    ReplyDelete
  19. We'll see if this link works: The "reference signal" you requested is provided in http://www.sciencemag.org/content/337/6094/595/F3.large.jpg

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You need much more than that to rule out the possibility that the time delay serves no purpose.

      Where's your circuit showing all nerves traveling to and from the brain? You need at least that. Where is it?

      Delete
  20. Gary, infrasound can be produced in a DEAD animal or an excised larynx. Illustrations of entire nervous systems and larynx innervations are widespread but unnecessary to show that you are wrong. Stop making stuff up.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And don't forget that your complete circuit diagram will (as in electronic device datasheets) need to show all the circuit timing signals during speech generation, swallowing, purring, infrasound, etc..

      Delete
    2. Hey gary, do you also want a complete circuit diagram for fart sounds? If so, maybe dembski can provide one.

      Delete
  21. A larynx that has been cut out and is dead has no active neural circuits. For finer modulation see the components including nerves in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larynx and http://medicine.missouri.edu/ent/uploads/Laryngeal-Innervation.pdf. The larynx is not an electronic device: the myoelastic-aerodynamic mode of infrasound production is mechanical not electrical, and (as has been fully explained for you) "requires no active time-varying neural firing or muscular contraction", so your emphasis on circuitry, timing, and lags is irrelevant and wrong-headed, along with your ideas about insects having hippocampi and four legs, salmon exemplifying parental devotion, molecules being intelligent, intelligence being defined by controlling motors and being able to guess, and so forth.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This conversation is starting to take on the characteristics of the Dead Parrot Sketch. "No, that larynx is just pining for the savannas."

      Delete
    2. I suggest Gary should try saying "aaaaaah" without breathing out (or, for that matter, in). It should be easy if he's got an oscillating neural circuit that can make his vocal folds contract and expand by firing periodically -- say, 260 cycles a second (middle C).

      Delete
    3. But first, Piotr you must provide:

      "Where's your circuit showing all nerves traveling to and from the brain?
      And don't forget that your complete circuit diagram will (as in electronic device datasheets) need to show all the circuit timing signals during speech generation, swallowing, purring, infrasound, etc.."

      And then cut down the largest tree in the forest with...a herring!

      Delete
    4. See pages 1 through 9 (especially page 4) for an example of the information that is necessary to test your hypothesis that the extra length (hence time delay) of the recurrent laryngeal nerve serves no purpose:

      Technical Data - SP0256 NARRATOR SPEECH PROCESSOR - .PDF

      This is a chip I experimented with when Radio Shack offered it for sale. Testing the biological model (if any) you used to test your hypothesis requires the same kind of timing diagrams for all nerves in the circuit, which must be included in your data.

      Delete
    5. Gary, we know it serves no purpose because we know how sounds are actually produced by humans and other mammals -- something you haven't got the dimmest understanding of. Heck, articulatory and acoustic phonetics are subjects I have taught for a quarter of a century.

      I am reminded of Richard Feynman's paint story.

      I admired better the steel-worker, the welder, or the machine shop man. I always thought the guy who worked in the machine shop and could make things, now he was a real guy!

      You are a practical man, a professional painter trying to convince the rest of us that you'll really get yellow if you mix red and white.

      Delete
    6. Then Piotr there should be no problem at all finding enough information to model the system, correct?

      Delete
    7. And I'm not a "painter" but I know how the rumor mill gets busy then the insults start flying when the critics run out of excuses for their sloppy science work.

      Delete
    8. And I'm not a "painter"

      Are you familiar with that story at all?

      Delete
    9. gary, I'm sure that this will be a shock to you but giraffes and other animals are not machines and are not electronic.

      It's obvious that you believe that 'the designer' (i.e.your imagined-so-called 'God') perfectly designed-created giraffes and elephants and whatever else you include, and that 'imperfect' evolution had/has nothing to do with it. You're just another anti-evolution IDiotic god pusher who sees animals (and who knows what else in nature) as electronic machines. Not kinda sorta analogous to electronic machines in some ways but actual electronic machines. What a maroon.

      Delete
    10. In one of the Internet discussions about the recurrent laryngeal nerve a creationist argued something even stranger:

      The nerve loops tightly around the aortic arch providing a degree of tension that is required for vocalisation.

      I'm not kidding: LINK

      Delete
    11. "...but I know how the rumor mill gets busy then the insults start flying when the critics run out of excuses for their sloppy science work."

      Persecution complex. Check.

      Insult aimed at REAL scientists. Check.

      Extreme resistance to admitting that you're wrong. Check.

      Total lack of self-awareness. Check.

      Total lack of embarrassment. Check.

      Typical narcissistic godbot. Check.

      Delete
    12. Piotr, and the same guy said this:

      "By using the aorta as a marker and looping around it, the great designer might be preventing too much diversity."

      Yep, the great designer is a party pooper when it comes to more diversity and that's the reason for extra long laryngeal nerves. Why didn't I think of that? ;)

      Delete
    13. Are you familiar with that story at all?

      No, and I already had enough "stories". The only thing I need to see is the evidence I asked for, which you obviously do not have.

      Delete
    14. Gary,

      All terrestrial vertebrates have a recurrent left laryngial nerve that loops around the aortic arch. This is a contingent inheritance of nerve development because we all descended from a fish ancestor. The right branch of the vagus nerve branch innervates quite directly. So all terrestrial vertebrate have this, regardless of size, neck length, or ability to produce infrasound. How are these facts explained by your hypothesis?

      If a human were to have a nerve development variation whereby the left laryngial nerve also connected more directly, not having to go around the aortic arch to reach the larynx, what would your hypothesis predict for the phenotype of this person?

      Birds produce most communication sound through the syrinx, capable of producing more than one sound at a time (unlike the larynx). Birds generally have very good (and in some species, exceptional) acoustic control of the syrinx. the syrinx is innervated by the hypoglossal nerve which connects rather directly to the syrinx, with no opportunity for any significant time delays. How does your hypothesis explain these facts?

      Delete
    15. Chris B states: "All terrestrial vertebrates have a recurrent left laryngial nerve that loops around the aortic arch. This is a contingent inheritance of nerve development because we all descended from a fish ancestor."

      This does not rule out the possibility that the resulting time delay is in some way useful but it's the best answer I have seen so far in this forum. Very good!

      The hypothesis I'm testing states something entirely different. In that case it's first assumed to be a bad/poor/incompetent design therefore it's impossible for intelligence to somehow be involved in our genetic development (i.e. genetic systems are a form of cognitive system) thus "intelligent cause" cannot exist and all theory of ID must be entirely religious and my cognitive science related work must be antiscience that deserves to be trashed, and so forth.

      It's the responsibility of those who believe that this demeaning religious hypothesis is true to provide the scientific evidence. I should not have to scientifically prove that the opposite is true for it to be out of bounds of science to begin with.

      You stated an entirely different hypothesis: "This is a contingent inheritance of nerve development because we all descended from a fish ancestor." and since it's scientifically testable I'm OK with that. The theory I'm defending is OK with that too. Whether it's true or not does not even matter. Either way the theory is still scientifically coherent.

      Delete
    16. I am getting at the timing delay issue using comparative anatomy, in this case. Your thoughts on the questions I posed?

      Delete
    17. All terrestrial vertebrates have a recurrent left laryngial nerve that loops around the aortic arch. This is a contingent inheritance of nerve development because we all descended from a fish ancestor. The right branch of the vagus nerve branch innervates quite directly. So all terrestrial vertebrate have this, regardless of size, neck length, or ability to produce infrasound. How are these facts explained by your hypothesis?

      If by "hypothesis" you mean the opposite of the bad design hypothesis then neither the good design or the bad design hypothesis explains anything about that.

      If a human were to have a nerve development variation whereby the left laryngial nerve also connected more directly, not having to go around the aortic arch to reach the larynx, what would your hypothesis predict for the phenotype of this person?

      Once again neither hypothesis would have any explanatory power.

      Birds produce most communication sound through the syrinx, capable of producing more than one sound at a time (unlike the larynx). Birds generally have very good (and in some species, exceptional) acoustic control of the syrinx. the syrinx is innervated by the hypoglossal nerve which connects rather directly to the syrinx, with no opportunity for any significant time delays. How does your hypothesis explain these facts?

      Same thing. Neither hypothesis would explain anything about that.

      Delete
    18. So your hypothesis has nothing to do with a so-called timing delay as an explanation for the circuitous route of the recurrent left laryngial nerve? Then what have we been talking about?

      Evolution and common descent explains why all terrestrial vertebrates have a recurrent left laryngial nerve. Also, since the recurrent left laryngial nerve is an evolutionary artifact serving no specific purpose, it would predict in the case of the human developmental variant that there would be no effect on that person's speech ability or auditory feedback capability, even though (s)he doesn't have the nerve looping around the aortic arch.

      In the case of the bird syrinx, it would predict no impairment of birds in their vocalization capabilities even though the hypoglossal innervates by a direct route with no significant time delay.

      Delete
    19. So your hypothesis has nothing to do with a so-called timing delay as an explanation for the circuitous route of the recurrent left laryngial nerve? Then what have we been talking about?

      A sensory related timing delay (reference signal) for controlling audio frequency is one possibility that would have to be ruled out before concluding that the detour route serves no purpose.

      Evolution and common descent explains why all terrestrial vertebrates have a recurrent left laryngial nerve. Also, since the recurrent left laryngial nerve is an evolutionary artifact serving no specific purpose, it would predict in the case of the human developmental variant that there would be no effect on that person's speech ability or auditory feedback capability, even though (s)he doesn't have the nerve looping around the aortic arch.

      That does not rule out the possibility that is serves a purpose either. In this case you are assuming that it does not, when the only way to know for sure is to have a full understanding of all the signals involved and how they interact. That's why I mentioned needing a circuit diagram and the signal timing data as in electronic datasheets.

      Delete
    20. So, in other words, if we don't know everything we therefore know nothing.

      Delete
    21. So, in other words, if we don't know everything we therefore know nothing.

      That's a lame excuse for jumping to conclusions that you cannot back up with neurological evidence. All (including scientists) need to beware of the possibly that this is just another embarrassing boondoggle like the jumping to conclusions in regards to the human retina turned out to be.

      Delete
    22. "That does not rule out the possibility that is serves a purpose either. In this case you are assuming that it does not, when the only way to know for sure is to have a full understanding of all the signals involved and how they interact. "

      I don't think that will be necessary. There are examples of people whose left laryngial nerve, for some developmental reason, did not route around the aortic arch but went directly to the larynx. These individuals had no impairment or any discernible defect in speech or vocalization. People with this phenotype are typically unaware they even have it, unless it is revealed during surgery or autopsy. This would indicate that a timing delay, even if it occcurs, is not necessary.

      Delete
  22. So Gary, how come pipe organs don't require longer wires for designed timing delays? How can infrasound be produced in a dead, excised larynx? The hypothesis has already been tested and discarded - the larynx (as used for myoelastic-aerodynamic infrasound production) is not a electronic device, and your analogy with a Radio Shack chip is pointless and wrong.

    Nullifidian, yeh, sorry about that:
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1475-4983.2008.00777.x/pdf

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Or in other words: you also have no clue how the biological circuitry in question works and are now trying to excuse the arguments from ignorance by acting stupid.

      Delete
  23. Pure projection, Gary.
    You've been given the innervation diagrams and which part of which nerve links to which part of the larynyx, and you've got no excuse for still failing to understand how infrasound is produced. So, you are acting silly.

    My apologies to others for contributing to derailing from the topic of the thread.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Gary, watch infrasound being produced in a larynx with no nerves attached
    http://news.sciencemag.org/2012/08/elephants-silent-call

    Infrasound frequency appears not to be closely related to recurrent laryngeal nerve length: elephants get as low as 14 Herz, giraffes get down to 7 Herz, but sumatran rhinos, with a head to heart distance not vastly different from elephants ( http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/elephant-rhino-05536.jpg ), get down to 3 Herz.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Interesting. It would be useful to know the transmission speed, which could be slower in the rhino due to less myelination and other factors. You'll need that to properly test your hypothesis.

      Delete
  25. Degrees of myelination and transmission speeds are known for the giraffe and they alone refute your argument about lag timing, as I told you over a year ago (20 May 2014 on ATBC, which you have conveniently ignored ever since): research back in 1981 by D.F.N. Harrison, 1981, Acta Oto-laryngologica, 1981, Vol. 91, No. 1-6 , pages 383-389, "Fibre Size Frequency in the Recurrent Laryngeal Nerves of Man and Giraffe" found differential myelination of the long inferior laryngeal nerve and the short superior nerve in the giraffe and concluded that greater myelination of the shorter nerve makes for a faster transmission of the signal along that nerve, ensuring that the signals of the two nerves arrive at the same time.

    From that paper, "An Optomax Image Analyser has been used to carry out fibre-size analyses in six pairs of human recurrent laryngeal nerve and two pairs of recurrent nerves from adult giraffes. In every case the left recurrent laryngeal nerve was found to contain a greater number of large, fast-conducting fibres. Since this nerve is longer than the right, these findings may explain the simultaneous arrival of motor impulses to both sides of the laryngeal musculature."

    This is a minor point here, because the nerves are not needed for the basic production of infrasound, as infrasound can be produced mechanically in an excised larynx, but it does (once again) show that you are ignoring the facts, making stuff up, and desperately throwing chaff.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I never claimed that the time delay is necessary for the production of infrasound. It's simply an indicator of the lowest frequency that these large animals are able to produce, which is something that YOU need to consider to properly test YOUR hypothesis that the long route and the resulting time delay that slows down the shorter route (by not allowing full myelination hence transmission speed) to match the longer route is a bad design that serves no purpose. Demanding that I essentially do your science work for you is moving the goalposts in order to put the burden of proof on those who are not willing to jump to conclusions like you are.

      A wise scientist waits until conclusive evidence has been provided before claiming to have a conclusive answer. It does not even matter to me which way the evidence goes. I'm just telling you that you do not have enough evidence yet.

      Delete
  26. Sorry, I mistyped: that should be "greater myelination along the longer nerve"

    ReplyDelete