It's much more interesting to evaluate whether the legal victory in Pennsylvania had any significant effect on the general public. Did it cause people to change their minds and abandon Intelligent Design Creationism to embrace science? Has America moved closer to the time when real science can be taught in the schools without interference from religion? Have politicians stopped trying to water down evolution in the public schools because of Judge Jones' decision in Kitzmiller v Dover? Have politicians stopped opposing evolution and has the public stopped voting for those who do?
Let's look at what the IDiots are saying. Somebody put up a post on Evolution News & Views (sic) a few weeks ago. The title speaks for itself ... Following Kitzmiller v. Dover, an Excellent Decade for Intelligent Design.
Most of us can't suppress a snicker when we see such a claim but do they have a point? Who is winning the battle for the hearts and minds of Americans? My own view is that nothing much has changed in the past decade. Intelligent Design Creationism isn't winning but it isn't losing either. If Kitzmiller v Dover had any effect at all then it was only to keep the anti-science group from gaining more ground.
The post on the Discovery Institute site has a list of recent ID "victories" that was first published by Casey Luskin last January [In the Darwin Debate, How Long Before the Tide Turns in Favor of Intelligent Design?].
All of these "victories" are laughable but the science ones are also scary because scientists have proven that they are dead wrong but that doesn't matter to creationists.
- Lots of pro-ID peer-reviewed scientific papers being published.
- Experimental peer-reviewed research coming out showing the unevolvability of new proteins.
- Theoretical peer-reviewed papers taking down alleged computer simulations of evolution, showing that intelligence design is needed to produce new information.
- A major ID research conference at Cornell leading to the publication of the volume Biological Information: New Perspectives.
- Huge victories for ID in the area of junk DNA, thanks to the ENCODE results.
- Data supportive of ID coming out all the time as the epigenetic revolution proceeds.
- ID pretty much shut down the competition in debates relating to Stephen Meyer's book Darwin's Doubt. The book was appraised by one of the world's top two science journal, Science, (in a tellingly weak review).
- Brown University biologist Kenneth Miller's No. 1 argument in the Dover trial has now been shot down as the beta-globin pseudogene was found to be functional.
- The Darwin brigade's favorite argument against Michael Behe was refuted as chloroquine-resistance turns out to be a multimutation feature.
- Major concessions from leading atheists like philosopher Thomas Nagel that ID arguments have merit and should be taken seriously.
- Concessions from influential evolutionists that neo-Darwinism indeed faces serious criticism in biology.
- In recent years, many peer-reviewed articles in the mainstream scientific literature have critiqued Darwinism.
- And revealingly, the more that victories for ID multiply, the more the Darwin lobby tries to suppress free speech for ID proponents, and in turn is forced to squelch their own criticisms of the orthodox evolutionary paradigm.
I've concentrated on debating the "science" behind Intelligent Design Creationism as part of my contribution to the battle for hearts and minds. I'm hoping to do my bit in preventing the IDiots from making unsubstantiated claims. Maybe I'm wasting my time?
From a purely scientific perspective, the good guys have refuted and exposed many of the claims on that list. Any objective outside observer would have to agree that scientists have effectively demonstrated that ...
- Very few pro-ID papers have been published.
- The evolution of new proteins is quite consistent with evidence and evolutionary theory.
- Intelligent design is not needed to produce new information and good computer simulations show this quite clearly.
- Cornell had nothing to do with the meeting of creationists.
- 90% of our genome is junk in spite of ENCODE and IDiots.
- Epigenetics has nothing to do with Intelligent Design Creationism unless it's to show that the creator wasn't very intelligent.
- Darwin's Doubt is a travesty of misrepresentation of facts, misunderstanding of science, and fuzzy thinking. The creationists did a terrible job of defending it.
- The β-globin pseudogene is still a pseudogene and the presence of 15,000 pseudogenes in the human genome still poses a problem for Intelligent Design Creationism.
- The latest data on chloroquine resistance in malaria parasites doesn't support Michael Behe's claims, it refutes them.
- Thomas Nagel says we should listen to some of the arguments from the IDiots and show why they are wrong. Done.
- Neo-Darwinism does, indeed, face serious criticism among biologists. That's because the strict version is incorrect as has been pointed out to creationists repeatedly over the past 25 years.
- Strict Darwinism has also been rightly criticized. This is a victory for science, not Intelligent Design Creationism, unless you are stupid enough to fall for the false dichotomy fallacy. We now have a much better understanding of evolutionary theory although attempts to teach it to creationists have been spectacularly unsuccessful.2
- The vast majority of those trying to suppress free speech are fundamentalist Christians like most of the supporters of Intelligent Design Creationism.
The IDiots can post a list of "victories" that are not victories at all but their followers don't care about the science. Lies are as effective as truth in the cultural war—sometimes even more effective.
The IDiots are very good at lying for Jesus.
As Richard Dawkins pointed out in The God Delusion, the real war is between rationalism and superstition.
I maintain, then—and here I diverge from the many "accommodationists" who see religion and science, if not harmonious or complementary, at least as not in conflict—that religion and science are engaged in a kind of war: a war for understanding, a war about whether we should have good reasons for what we accept as true.Kitzmiller v Dover was victory for accommodationism. The winners were the side that convinced Judge Jones to say that in general science and religion are compatible but you can't teach intelligent design in public schools because it's not science.
Although this book deals with the conflict between religion and science, I see this as only one battle in a wider war—a war between science and superstition.
What did Judge Jones say in 2005? (Part I)
What did Judge Jones say in 2005? (Part II)
What did Judge Jones say in 2005? (Part III)
To the extent that it was an accommodationist victory, the decision in Kitzmiller v Dover may have done more harm than good. That's because it had little effect in changing people's minds about creationism but it did legitimize the compatibility of science and religion. America now has a legal decision saying that it's okay to believe in a creator and in evolution. That's not a problem for evolution according to the accomodationists.
The court decision did not advance the war between rationalism and superstition. It came down on the side of superstition in the form of Ken Miller and John Haught and the defenders of superstition like Robert Pennock and other accommodationists. In the long run, that's like winning a local skirmish but losing the main battle that's being fought on the other side of the field.
I think we need to show that Intelligent Design Creationism is bad science but Kitzmiller v Dover concentrated on showing that it is not science. This view is easily refuted by the IDiots who have continued to publish sciency books and blog posts supporting their position. Look at Casey Luskin's list (above). It all looks very much like science supporting ID in spite of the fact that the decision in Kitzmiller v Dover said ID wasn't science.
But, unfortunately, just showing that ID is bad science isn't going to work either. The enemy is superstition in the form of religion and we are wasting our time if we think that legal and scientific arguments are all it takes to make religious people accept science.
Like it or not, America is still a land full of IDiots.
1. The cultural battle has been won in many Western industrialized nations without resorting to legal quibbling over the separation of church and state. Creationism is not a major force in many of those countries even though they allow religion into public schools and may even have a state religion.
2. That being one of the reasons I call them IDiots.
I don't think ID is science and I think ID stands in relation to science the same way theology stands in relation to philosophy.
ReplyDeleteI would define science as 'common sense applied rigorously to understand the natural world' I think motivation is an important consideration in science. Scientists are supposed to make every effort to not be biased and follow the evidence where it leads, but bias is a fundamental part of ID. IDists will use whatever convoluted reasoning necessary to conclude that 'god did it'
"Concessions from influential evolutionists that neo-Darwinism indeed faces serious criticism in biology."
ReplyDelete"In recent years, many peer-reviewed articles in the mainstream scientific literature have critiqued Darwinism."
Larry, where are the serious criticisms of classical evolutionary science -- "Darwinism" – by competent mainline evolutionists? Admittedly, much, very much, has been added to the simplistic core theory and numerous misconceptions have been corrected over the decades. But what, I ask, was universally and dogmatically defended by "Darwinists" (in the face of then available contrary evidence) that turned out to be glaringly wrong?
Even Darwin recognized -- practically without evidence -- that functionally equivalent traits probably existed and that in the absence of selection might fluctuate in frequency by chance. (Joe Felsenstein has admonished me for equating Darwin's insight with genetic drift). By deriding the past we slight the memory of good scientists who risked more than just reputations when they spoke out in defense of reason.
Larry, where are the serious criticisms of classical evolutionary science -- "Darwinism" – by competent mainline evolutionists?
DeleteDo Stephen Jay Gould, Niles Eldredge, and Masatoshi Nei count as mainline evolutionary biologists?
Is the "Modern Synthesis" effectively dead?
Gould on Darwinism and Nonadaptive Change
Rethinking evolutionary theory
Larry, Have you read Nei's book and is it clear to you what his thesis is?
DeleteYes, the basic idea is that the path that evolution takes is largely determined by when and where mutations arise and not by simple selection on existing variants in the population.
DeleteAh, contingency, then, in contrast to the notion that sufficient mutational variation arises to prevent any constraint? But I presume that mutations that arise form the pool of existing variants on which selection can act. Your second phrase is not in opposition to the first. It seems to me the chief argument would be over what "largely determined" means. Clearly, only mutations that arise can be selected, but doesn't fixation of one mutation considerably determine what other mutations would be advantageous if they arose? And doesn't what arises depend quite a bit on population size and mutation rate?
DeleteI don't really understand either why there is always this either contingency or selection debate. Both are at work. And given a large enough population and enough time, I would be surprised if any individually advantageous mutation (and perhaps even combos of two or three) would not crop up - eventually.
DeleteExcept in species with small populations and clades with few species I'd say that the real contingency is not that there is too little variability for selection to push the lineage hither or thither; instead it is developmental complexity and specialisation. In other words, an organism might need 2,000 mutations in just the right places to be able to adapt to the new conditions, while the competitor from another lineage only needs three, so the former is toast.
John, maybe you should read the book if you want to argue against Masatoshi Nei?
DeleteOr, you could read Arlin's posts at ...
Arlin Stoltzfus explains evolutionary theory
I like the Markov chain metaphor. So far I'm not trying to argue against Nei, just trying to figure out what he says. Sure, I should read the book if I really want to do that. But in the meantime, here we are.
DeleteDeriding "Darwinism" is a bit like deriding Copernicanism. Obviously the initial insights were a bit like movie storyboards, lacking detail and differing in major details.
ReplyDeleteCathey Luffin's "great decade for intelligent design" is a list of absurd lies, but arguably the worst one was
ReplyDelete"ID pretty much shut down the competition in debates relating to Stephen Meyer's book Darwin's Doubt."
Uh huh. The jackholes who misrepresented and/or lied about the conclusions of every one of the scientific papers they cited, who were called out by paleontologists on their paleontological falsifications, called out by systematicists on their systematics falsifications, called out by geneticists on their genetic falsifications, called out by information theorists on their information theory falsifications--- those lying jackholes "shut down the competition in debates."
Cathey Lufkin: "The book was appraised by one of the world's top two science journal, Science, (in a tellingly weak review)."
Their great achievement is that Meyer's shit book o' lies got a damning, negative review in Science. They're paying attention to us! By writing a negative review.
"They said we got our facts wrong and lied about our sources. It's a controversy!"
Can we just call Cathey pathological now?
The judge, who is not a scientist, ruled that ID is not science based on what evidence? None. Was he presented with the experimental laboratory evidence defeating ID that a bacterium is able to evolve a flagellum over thousands of generations equivalent of millions of years of evolution similar to Lenski's experiment? No. Instead, the Darwinist cowards used trickery to make their fairy tail appear as if it was science (well that is the only way to go if you have no evidence for your "science").
ReplyDeleteThey don't know it is BS (some may find it surprising) but they are so in love with their beliefs, they can't see anything beyond that.
Coyne is a perfect example of that. I met him recently and the moment he realized I was not on his side, he ditched me...
Jojo, who is not a scientist, says: "The judge, who is not a scientist, ruled that ID is not science based on what evidence? None."
DeleteWell, no. The evidence the judge gave for reaching this conclusion was clearly written in the judge's decision, which Jojo, who is not a scientist, should read before he displays his ignorance.
Was he presented with the experimental laboratory evidence defeating ID that a bacterium is able to evolve a flagellum over thousands of generations equivalent of millions of years
Not relevant and not necessary. ID claims that information, irreducible complexity and novel complexity can't evolve. ANY instance of evolution creating information, irreducible complexity or novel complexity falsifies ID. Period, full stop.
Any attempt to redefine information, irreducible complexity or complexity in an attempt to evade falsification means that ID is pseudoscience.
I met him [Coyne] recently and the moment he realized I was not on his side, he ditched me...
Given your tendency to bullshit and make things up, I'd bet that he ditched you because you tried bullshitting him and you triggered his bullshit detector, not because you disagreed with him.
Larry, in calling ID bad science rather than non-science, are you saying that it uses observation, experimentation, and/or valid reasoning to motivate its truth claims? Or are you saying that none of those is required to earn the label "science"?
ReplyDeleteRead The Nature of Science (NOS) and follow the links to other posts. The demarcation problem is complicated and I'm not going to rehash the arguments here.
DeleteLet me know when you've caught up on our reading and if you want to present a different point of view send me a draft post and I'll consider putting it on my blog. Or post a critique on your own blog.
For the record, I think that much of the ID literature uses observation, experimentation, and attempts at valid reasoning to prove that the evolution of complex things is impossible. Science as a way of knowing, using my definition, doesn't require that you do experiments.
I've been following those posts and am generally in agreement with you. But what I hadn't realized before is that your definition requires only _attempts_ at valid reasoning, rather than reasoning that is _actually_ valid. We've had a pretty good idea of what is and what is not valid reasoning ever since Aristotle, so I would have thought it would make sense to call an argument non-science if its reasoning is invalid in the Aristotelian sense. Otherwise, any non-sequitur (nature looks designed, therefore God; I stubbed my toe, therefore God) counts as science as long as it was an honest attempt.
Delete@Konrad
DeleteI appreciate the sentiment behind your statement that, "... it would make sense to call an argument non-science if its reasoning is invalid in the Aristotelian sense."
The problem that this definition raises far outweighs any advantage it might have. A great deal of what we would all like to count as science could be dismissed as non-science because it contains flaws in valid reasoning.
Think about all those papers claiming that all bits and pieces of transposons are functional just because one or two have acquired a secondary function. That's clearly an example of invalid reasoning but do we really want to demand retractions because they aren't science?
What about those papers arguing that the Central Dogma of Molecular Biology (quoting Crick, 1980) has been refuted? There's a big flaw in their reasoning even if Aristotle wouldn't have a clue. Are those papers "non-science" or just "bad science"?
Otherwise, any non-sequitur (nature looks designed, therefore God; I stubbed my toe, therefore God) counts as science as long as it was an honest attempt.
No. The "attempt" has to try and use evidence as well as logic to prove the case. Your examples fail because they are not trying to support their arguments with data.
"That's clearly an example of invalid reasoning but do we really want to demand retractions because they aren't science?":
DeleteWell, I see no reason to call those claims scientific. Whether claims should be retracted just because they are non-scientific is a different matter entirely.
"What about those papers arguing that the Central Dogma of Molecular Biology (quoting Crick, 1980) has been refuted?":
I assume you mean papers that are based on a misunderstanding of what the central dogma actually says but are otherwise correct. Technically, starting with a false premise does not make an argument invalid (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity). One could debate whether or not an argument based on incorrect premises/data should count as scientific, but I just want to point out that it is a separate debate from whether the argument should be valid.
"Your examples fail because they are not trying to support their arguments with data":
There are plenty of data in support of the empirical claims in these arguments and it is easy to imagine collecting more: we can poll the general public to measure the percentage of people to whom nature looks designed; I can get independent medical verification on whether I indeed stubbed my toe (perhaps I can even present video footage of the event). The problem in these examples lies not with the data but with the validity of the argument.
We've had these debate with Larry many times-- is ID bad science or pseudoscience?-- and I think a lot of Sandinistas agree with me on this point, but Larry never addresses my handling of the issue.
ReplyDeleteAs I've said before, there are two main arguments for Intelligent Design. One is bad science and the other is pseudoscience. One argument assumes that they IDiots know the purposes of God-- excuse me, "the Intelligent Designer"-- and the other argument makes no such assumption.
The first argument, which assumes it knows the purposes of God, can make testable predictions (like "no Junk DNA") and therefore it can be falsified, so it's bad sceince. Testable predictions like "God created the human genome to serve us, not to serve retrotransposons, therefore all human DNA must serve man" can be falsified. One problem is that they're obviously religious because the IDiots say the know what God wants, like he hates junk DNA. But the fake ID predictions have been falsified, so they're bad science.
The second ID argument, which the IDiots call "the positive argument for design", does not make assumptions about God's purposes. But it claims that certain kinds of complexity/ irreducible complexity / information can't be created by nature. Thus, if these kinds of complexity/ irreducible complexity / information are found in living things, they must be intelligently designed.
That second argument, the "the positive argument for design", is pseudoscience, because all of their definitions of things like "specified complexity" and "irreducible complexity" are carefully loaded with weasel words that they redefine on the fly in order to evade falsification.
Each kind of alleged information like "irreducible complexity" has broad definitions and narrow definitions. The IDiots use a very, very broad definition to claim that living things really contain "irreducible complexity", "specified complexity", etc. The problem is that, by the broad definition, we know that evolution can increase that kind of information, because we've observed evolution doing it.
So, when the IDiots are presented with falsifying observations of evolution creating their alleged "information", the IDiots immediately flip to a different, narrow definition that evolution can't create (e.g. information in a Shakespearean sonnet or the Mona Lisa.) The obvious problem with the narrow definition is that there's no evidence any living thing or its DNA has that kind of information-- there are no Shakespearean sonnets or Mona Lisas in the DNA of any organism.
So the IDiots dishonestly flip back and forth between definitions of "information", but there is no one, single definitions about which they can say 1. It's present in DNA and 2. It can't be made by evolution. The broad definitions don't satisfy 2, and the narrow definitions don't satisfy 1, so the IDiots equivocate.
Thus, the "the positive argument for design" is pseudoscience and unfalsifiable, but fake predictions like "no junk DNA" are falsifiable and bad science.
"fake predictions like "no junk DNA" are falsifiable and bad science"
DeleteSo all I have to do to earn the "science" label is to make a falsifiable prediction? Saying "the moon is made of green cheese" is science, even if I offer no argument for why anyone should take my claim seriously?
The phrase "the moon is made of green cheese" is a hypothesis, but not a prediction about an observable. To have a (real of fake) prediction, you have to say something about something we can observe. e.g. "If you look at the moon through a telescope, it will have lots of holes." That's a prediction, of sorts, but is it a real or fake prediction?
DeleteIt depends on your assumptions. Does the alleged prediction logically follow from the assumptions?
Consider the following predictions. Do they logicall follow?
1. God created all our DNA to serve man and not to serve retrotransposons.
2. Therefore, there is no junk DNA.and all our DNA is functional.
Seems logical to me. It's a religious belief, but it's logical conclusion, so this religious belief can be tested.
Now consider:
1. Living things were designed by an infinite intelligence whose identity and purposes are unknown.
2. Therefore, there is no junk DNA.and all our DNA is functional.
Does this logically follow? No. If the "prediction" does not follow from the assumptions, I call it a "fraudiction."
Now compare this to the very real "prediction" from ID proponent Jonathan Wells:
1. If ID is true, there should be stuff in living cells that can't evolve.
2. Turbines can't evolve.
3. Therefore the centriole (a structure that anchors fibers in a cell when it divides, and helps pull the two new copies of chromosomes into the two dividing cells) is a tiny turbine.
4. The chromosomes are pulled apart by super-vibrations on the fibers that connect the centrioles, which create a vortex inside the cell, and the vortex pulls the chromosomes.
That's a real ID "prediction." Does this logically follow?
Jonathan Wells pushed that "prediction" for years and said it would lead to a cure for cancer. When Ben Stein of "Expelled" appeared on TV saying ID could lead to a cure for cancer, that's the shit he was referring to.
There was experiment evidence years ago that centrioles weren't turbines and there wasn't any "vortex force." By ~2008 there was photographic evidence, in the form of electron micrographs of centrioles, illustrating what scientists had already proven, they weren't turbines and the force that pulled chromosomes wasn't a vortex. Anti-ID evolutionists published this at Panda's Thumb back in 2008 to stick Jonathan Wells' nose in his failure.
But so what? In 2009, a year later, Stephen Meyer publishes "Signature in the Cell" and in the appendix, one of the "predictions" of Intelligent Design was that centrioles are tiny turbines. Which, he said, they'd get around to testing sometime in the future. Right.
No ID proponent called bullshit on that. They still treat Jon Wells as if he's a genius authority.
You have given examples of (1) an unsubstantiated hypothesis followed by a prediction that it can reasonably be thought to imply and (2) two unsubstantiated hypotheses followed by predictions that they can not reasonably be thought to imply. Are you arguing that (1) is science whereas (2) is not? If so, are you saying that my green cheese hypothesis is science even though I have no intention of ever subjecting it or any of the predictions implied by it to any test? By that criterion, is there a reason why I cannot include every work of fiction ever written into the canon of science?
DeleteScience is a way of knowing that uses rational thought and evidence to arrive at conclusions about how things work.
DeleteMichael Behe, Michael Denton, Stephen Meyer, and Jonathan Wells, attempt to do this in their published work. I don't agree with their conclusions and I argue with their facts and their logic but they really are trying to use science as a way of knowing.
Most of the ID literature is about showing that evolution is wrong and that's science. Usually bad science.
The ENCODE Consortium also tries to use science as a way of knowing as do John Mattick, James Shapiro, and a host of other scientists who, in my opinion, go astray. This is bad science but it can't be ruled out of bounds just because they don't do it "properly."
As far as I'm concerned, there is no other way of knowing and I think most creationists know this. That's why they always try to justify their claims by using the scientific way of knowing.
Yes, there's a pseudoscience component to much of ID thought and, yes, they have a bias because they believe gods did it. Lots of us have biases but we don't declare that everyone with a bias isn't trying to do science.
No ID proponent called bullshit on that. They still treat Jon Wells as if he's a genius authority.
DeleteYou know what? Many scientists treat John Mattick as a genius authority who proved that all of our genome is functional.
What's your point? Is it that what John Mattick does isn't science?
Michael Behe, Michael Denton, Stephen Meyer, and Jonathan Wells, attempt to do this in their published work. I don't agree with their conclusions and I argue with their facts and their logic but they really are trying to use science as a way of knowing.
DeleteObjection: Calls for speculation. You don't know what they're trying to do. I think the evidence suggests that most of these works are apologetics -- arguments marshalled to fit the preconceived conclusion -- rather than trying to use science as a way of knowing. There may be a small residue of real bad science, but most of it is cargo cult science, which shouldn't count as actual science.
I think the evidence suggests that most of these works are apologetics -- arguments marshalled to fit the preconceived conclusion ...
DeleteThat describes a lot of work trying to show that humans really are more complex than the data suggests [see The Deflated Ego Problem].
Do you think those people aren't doing science?
I'm wondering if many of you have a very naive and idealistic view of what "real" scientists do every day.
Yeah, I considered that. Real science is an ideal frequently unmatched by real scientists. But it's a matter of degree. Some real science papers contain unsciency bits. It's conceivable that Darwin's Doubt contains some sciency bits, though I haven't found any. The demarcation problem is tough.
DeleteKonrad says: You have given examples of (1) an unsubstantiated hypothesis followed by a prediction that it can reasonably be thought to imply and (2) two unsubstantiated hypotheses followed by predictions that they can not reasonably be thought to imply. Are you arguing that (1) is science whereas (2) is not?
DeleteYes.
"If so, are you saying that my green cheese hypothesis is science even though I have no intention of ever subjecting it or any of the predictions implied by it to any test?"
Depends on how you try to sell "the moon is made of green cheese." Science isn't supposed to be single statements, but sets of statements logically connected. e.g. predictions that logically follow from a hypothesis, or deductions from an accepted general principle.
Pseudoscientists ape how science is sold, while not aping the scientific method. So a pseudoscientist would generally not just say "The moon is made of green cheese." A pseudoscientist would try to make it look science-y, but passing it off as a deduction, or saying it leads to some kind of alleged predictions.
A pseudoscientist would say something like:
1. Stuff with holes is generally cheese. The moon has holes, so it's made of cheese. (A deduction.)
Or something like:
2. If the moon were made of green cheese, we can predict it has holes. Galileo looked through a telescope and saw holes. This confirms the hypothesis. (An alleged testable prediction.)
Is that science? Well, in 1 above, the rule "stuff with holes is generally cheese" was not a product of the scientific method and wasn't tested, so you could argue it's pseudoscience from a fake general principle. In 2, above, the logic is presented backwards: first we observed that the moon is full of holes, then we derived the "green cheese" hypothesis from that.
But what would *really* clinch the claim that it's pseudoscience would be when you present the alleged cheese-theory experts with falsifying evidence: "This rock has lots of holes, but is not cheese. Therefore stuff with holes might not be cheese." Typically a pseudoscientist would respond by redefining "hole" or some shit like that, to evade falsification.
If you try to evade falsification via equivocation, it's pseudoscience.
So typical characteristics of pseudoscience would be:
1. Use of equivocation to evade falsification (e.g. the way IDiots have multiple definitions of "specified complexity" and "irreducible complexity" and switch between them to evade falsification.)
2. Fake predictions that don't logically follow from the hypothesis ("Life was designed by an intelligence whose identity and purposes are unknown, therefore there is no junk DNA".) I call these fraudictions.
(2a. Obvious backward predictions, where the observation comes first and the prediction is derived from it, like "If God created the solar system ex nihilo, we should expect a large round source of light in the sky. And there is a large round source of light in the sky." This is a sub-category of fake prediction.)
3. Very vague predictions full of weasel words that are made to appear more specific than they are, but that overlap the real predictions of other theories ("If life were intelligently designed, we can predict DNA to be full of information. And it is.") I call these vaguedictions.
4. Deductions derived from fake general rules or "scientific laws" that were never really produced by the scientific method ("The Second Law of Thermodynamics says all systems go to disorder and less complexity, so evolution is impossible")
My opinion has not changed. I'm still convinced that the Discovery Institute had no testable explanation for how such an intelligence works, which made them destined to lose the case, real bad. Then they did. My opinion in regards to Dover needs no revision.
ReplyDeleteThe only thing that has been a surprise is how well my showing what is (within limits of science) possible has gone over the years. For the ID movement: baggage from the past is now more easily learned from then left behind.
"Neo-Darwinism does, indeed, face serious criticism among biologists. That's because the strict version is incorrect as has been pointed out to creationists repeatedly over the past 25 years."
ReplyDeleteWhat would it take to form an updated theory that is observable/testable and can reach a broad consensus? What are the key obstacles to achieving this?
The judge didn't say BECAUSE iD wasn't science you can't teach it. he said BECAUSE it wasn't science it was religious ideas and so illegal.
ReplyDeletein other words iD are anti-science or liars or fools about iD being science.
A profound accusation from a Judge8robbed lawyers) about science to scientists like the iD thinkers in question.
another trial and another until freedom is restored to teach the truth.
Its just another hilarious bad judicial thing like so many others.
ID is science and history will say this.
ITS NOT RELIGIOUS IDEAS ON RELIGIOUS INVESTIGATION.
Thats dumb and insulting and dumb.
Remember the old REAGAN line.
ARE YOU BETTER OFF THEN BEFORE(in this case ten years).
I can truly say, and speak for most, iD/YEC has never been as famous, popular, successful, financed, and have rising expectations of demonstrating to intelligent and good guys everywhere Gods fingerprints on nature and evolutions lack of them.
Creationism and friends and general skeptics of old man Darwin and his fish to fishermen beliefs are alive and doing fine.
The bad guys in history always try to win with high handed authority. Censorship is one of those nands.
These courts decisions are silly. Just Judges trying to matter. What do they know?
Anyways.
This cAnadian is confident YAnkee freedom will prevail and just needs more attention in the public. Court cases help this and then a finale one, observed and studied by the public, will establish once again mans and Americans natural right to truth and teaching it in subjects dedicated to truth.
Hey a question. If this court case had gone ID 's way what would society look like now relative to what it looks like now???
I don't think any difference as the case would only say TALK FOLKS. it wouldn't persuade. Possibly the censorship has opened interest for many, certainly galvanized creationists, and persuasion has resulted for some.
Ten years from now , I think, there will only be five years left for evolutions status as a theory in bio science.
Robert uttered This Canadian is confident Yankee freedom will prevail and just needs more attention in the public. Court cases help this and then a finale one, observed and studied by the public, will establish once again mans and Americans natural right to truth and teaching it in subjects dedicated to truth.
ReplyDeleteThis European is horrified at the stupidity of North-American creationism. Isn't their creationism a legacy of Calvinism?
Attempts at infecting our country with ID/creationism so far have been unsuccessful but who knows, with the modern variant of gross migrations, demographic distribution of illiteracy, religious fanatism and superstition may soon enough send us back to the darkest middle ages. I don't like what's going on in the Western hemisphere.
Hey, let's not include Canada in the legion of science deniers. The USA is preeminent in this endeavor. Evolution deniers, climate change deniers, anti-vaxers, cigarette smoking/lung disease deniers, HIV/AIDS deniers are legion in
DeleteCanada's southern neighbor. And of course, the reason is fundamentalist religion which affects a far higher fraction of the population in the USA then in
Canada or Western Europe. The equivalents to the Rethuglican clown car are far weaker in those jurisdictions.
Colnago80: "Hey, let's not include Canada in the legion of science deniers. The USA is preeminent in this endeavor."
DeleteWell, the Canucks gave us newfie George M. Price, the founder of Flood Geology whose ideas were stolen by Henry Morris. Thanks for that.
They also gave us clownish "paleontolgist" Ian Juby in his Tilly hat, UDite Denyse O'Leary, and... our own Bobby Byers.
In addition, Australia gave us Ken Ham, and NZ gave us Ray "Banana Man" Comfort.
So we're kind of the victims of the English-speaking world.
Everything, almost, in North America is a result of calvinism. Whjo's complaining?
DeleteI don't know what you mean by gross migrations but its probably not creationists.
creationism is not stupid but likely in a society that questions, more, establisments and does a sharper job of questioning.
It follows a line of reasoning to see creationism successful here, more, if its the right answer.
just like Democracy and capitalism andso on.
Everything, almost, in North America is a result of calvinism.
DeleteHave you ever been to Mexico? or Quebec? Did you see all the people that turned out to cheer the Pope on his recent visit to the USA? They didn't look like Calvinists to me.
I lived in Geneva for four years. That's where John Calvin preached for in the mid 1500s and eventually established a theocracy. I know what the modern version of Calvinism looks like in Switzerland. It looks nothing like the typical North American society.
"I think we need to show that Intelligent Design Creationism is bad science but Kitzmiller v Dover concentrated on showing that it is not science. This view is easily refuted by the IDiots who have continued to publish sciency books and blog posts supporting their position."
ReplyDeleteA 'sciency book' is not a science book. ID proponents (aka creationists) attempt to *sound* like scientists, but that does not make them scientists. So rather than bad scientists, they really are just pretending to be scientists. Which in my book means they are not scientists.
So ID-ers are not refuting the 'no science' judgement at all - they just claim they did. As they claim a lot of stuff, easily refutable and all.
Prof. Moran keeps ignoring the fact that there is no US Constitutional provision preventing bad science from being taught in public schools. If the plaintiffs in the Dover case had limited their presentation to proclaiming the ID shouldn't be taught in public schools because it is bad science, they would have lost the case.
Delete@Eelco van Kampen
DeleteMichael Behe, and Michael Denton are scientists. Even Jonathan Wells has the appropriate credentials to use science as a way of knowing. It's silly to say they aren't scientists just because you don't like their ideas about science and how they interpret data.
Many "true" scientists have written books about science. Some of them are deeply flawed, in my opinion, and I've criticized them on this blog. I don't reject them out of hand because they are not science.
Same with "Darwin's Doubt," "The Myth of Junk DNA," and "The Edge of Evolution." We discuss the science in those books to show why the authors are wrong - and in some cases why they are right. We behave as though the ideas were attempts at legitimate science in order to show that they have other interpretations. In other words, bad science.
What we don't do is just dismiss those books as "not science" because they're using some other way of knowing to attempt to prove their case.
@colnago80
DeleteI'm doing no such thing. I fully recognize that the case was about whether ID was religious and therefore should be banned from schools for that reason alone. What I'm saying is that repeatedly winning court cases on this point over the last half century seems to have no effect on changing hearts and minds.
Maybe it's time to try something else?
Laurence, people like Michael Behe and Michael Denton are both scientists *and* ID-ers. And like Andrew Snelling, they seems to have two different lives (see http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/realsnelling.htm ): one as a scientist, where ID is not featuring at all, and one as an ID-er, where science is not featuring at all. In the latter case they have the credentials to use science but don't actually do that.
DeleteSo that fact that some ID-ers are (sometimes !) *also* scientists (while keeping these occupations separately: see Andrew Snelling again for a nice demonstration of that) does not make ID science. Not even bad science.
Of course one should also not reject ID/creationist books out of hand because they are not scientific: I've read quite a few over the years myself. But one should not call them science books because they look sciency: that is only pretence, and often deliberately so.
"What I'm saying is that repeatedly winning court cases on this point over the last half century seems to have no effect on changing hearts and minds."
DeleteThat seems to be very true, sadly ...
"Maybe it's time to try something else?"
Kickstarter campaign ? Money seems to be flowing freely in ID land ...
Re Lawrence Moran
DeleteMaybe it's time to try something else
I am open to suggestions. Given the strength of organized fundamentalist religion, I don't think that better education will do the trick. I think that Jerry Coyne is right, the only answer is reduction in the prevalence of fundamentalist religion, which seems like a stick in the wind, considering the success of science denying right wing Rethuglicans in the electoral process. The Rethuglican Party is now dominated by the tea baggers to whom the presidential candidates kowtow. In the meantime, we are stuck with the legal system as the court of last resort.
I am open to suggestions.
DeleteHere's what other countries do with respect to what's taught in schools. They have science experts develop a curriculum for the nation, or for large regions, then they pass legislation saying that all teachers have to teach that material. They don't allow local school boards to meddle with the curriculum.
They also pay teachers a decent salary and insist on certain standards of education and continued learning. They develop a society that respects teachers and they fund schools at an appropriate level to ensure high quality education for all.
... I don't think that better education will do the trick.
Yes it will. It will be hard to do in the USA but it's time for Americans to stand up and fight for better public schools and better teachers.
I know that achieving the goal seems hopeless right now but not so long ago that was also true of gay marriage and any form of government health care. The USA managed to (partially) catch up on those issues so there's hope.
In the meantime, we are stuck with the legal system as the court of last resort.
That's defensive and self-defeating. All it takes is one new Supreme Court Justice and you're screwed.
Here's what other countries do with respect to what's taught in schools. They have science experts develop a curriculum for the nation, or for large regions, then they pass legislation saying that all teachers have to teach that material.
DeleteThose other countries, like Canada, Britain, Germany, France, Scandinavia, etc. don't have a large section of their populace under the spell of fundamentalist religion. In addition, the US doesn't have a centralized school system like those other countries and there is no prospect of it having such a system. Generally, curriculum decisions are made by state boards of education, which is fine in those states where fundamentalist religion is weak (e.g. Massachusetts, which Mike the mad biologist claims has a secondary education system second to none in the world). It doesn't work in the former states of the Confederacy where fundamentalist religion is strong.
Prof. Moran thinks that better education will do the trick. Unfortunately, we seem unable to get there.
IMHO, as good as Prof. Moran's suggestions are, I don't see any way to get there from here unless there is a very significant reduction in the power of fundamentalist religion.
Incidentally, the issue of public school teachers is an interesting one. Apparently, the good professor is unaware that government employees are looked down upon in the US as people who can't get a "real" job and public school teachers are no exception. AFAIK, this isn't true in Canada and Western Europe.
That's defensive and self-defeating. All it takes is one new Supreme Court Justice and you're screwed.
That's the best reason I know of to prevent any of the clowns in the Rethuglican clown car from winning the election in 2016. Unfortunately, all too many of my fellow progressives are too busy whining that the current leading Democrat is insufficiently progressive, just as they were in 2000 when enough of them voted for Ralph Nader to give New Hampshire and Florida to the Rethuglican candidate. If the Democratic candidate had been elected in 2000 and reelected in 2004, we wouldn't be faced with the current situation on the SCOTUS as Roberts and Alito wouldn't be there.
Hi Professor Moran,
ReplyDeleteFrankly, I'd be a lot more impressed with the claims of evolutionists (of whatever stripe) of they were willing to take criticisms by Intelligent Design scientists seriously.
Case in point: consider the 2010 paper by Lynch and Abegg, titled, "The Rate of Establishment of Complex Adaptations" (Molecular Biology and Evolution 27:1404-1414. doi:10.1093/molbev/msq020, available online at http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/27/6/1404.full ), purporting to show that under the neutral theory, complex adaptations could get established in a population a lot faster than previously assumed.
Dr. Doug Axe wrote a response to that paper ("The limits of complex adaptation: An analysis based on a simple model of structured bacterial populations," BIO-Complexity 2010(4):1-10.doi:10.5048/BIO-C.2010.4, available online at http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2010.4 ). Lynch did not reply.
I emailed Lynch a couple of months ago, inviting him to comment on Axe's paper. To my surprise, he said he hadn't seen it before. But when I asked him what was wrong with Axe's criticisms, he declined to be drawn into the discussion.
I also invited you to point out what was wrong with Dr. Axe's criticisms of Lynch, in an online post on Uncommon Descent at http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/id-like-a-straight-yes-or-a-straight-no-professor-moran/ . I'm still waiiting.
I also wrote several times to Professor Joe Felsenstein, inviting him to say what was wrong with the paper. At first he promised he would respond, but he hasn't gotten back to me, after several weeks. I've given up sending him reminders.
Something very, very fishy is going on here. It sounds like the evolutionists have given up debating Intelligent Design advocates, and are preferring to either ignore them or lampoon their views, instead.
I might mention that I fully accept common descent, and the presence of up to 50% junk in my DNA wouldn't bother me a lot. By the way, I really don't think that "Any objective outside observer would have to agree that scientists have effectively demonstrated that ... 90% of our genome is junk." That's a bit over the top.
Perhaps if Axe had published his critique in a real journal instead of his personal online vanity press, more people would have noticed it. So why didn't he?
DeleteIt sounds like the evolutionists have given up debating Intelligent Design advocates
DeleteThat's probably because IDiots are incapable of coming up with anything original. It's always the same argument from ignorance, and the same tornado-in-a-junkyard stupid strawman that's been debunked a zillion times.
Vincent Torely says,
DeleteI'd be a lot more impressed with the claims of evolutionists (of whatever stripe) of they were willing to take criticisms by Intelligent Design scientists seriously.
If you and your fellow Intelligent Design Creationists want to be take seriously then you've got to start acting serious. The vast majority of stuff you guys publish is rubbish. It's no wonder that 99% of scientists don't pay any attention.
Just look at the list that Casey Luskin posted, for example. He said, "Huge victories for ID in the area of junk DNA, thanks to the ENCODE results." Why should I take him seriously if he doesn't even admit that there's a legitimate scientific debate over junk DNA?
Look at the posts on Evolution News & Views if you really wnat to know why people don't take you seriously. Here's what Dr. Howard Glicksman said recently ...
"As is common with many of the chemical and physiological parameters the body must control to stay alive, blood pressure must follow the Goldilocks principle. Everything has to be just right for the body to be able to function well enough to survive. The current theory of evolution does not even begin to explain how any of this works in real life."
Seriously? Evolution can't explain why humans have blood pressures that are not too high and not too low?
How about what Ann Gauger said last week when she was discussing the differences between humans and chimpanzees?
"Is that possible? Durrett and Schmidt published a paper examining how long it would take to have two coordinated mutations (one inactivating and the other activating) take place in an evolving hominin population. They found it would require in excess of 100 million years. Obviously, the hominin population did not have that long to wait for regulatory change. We supposedly diverged from chimps six million years ago."
She says that it's impossible for humans and chimpanzees to evolve from a common ancestor in spite of the fossil record and the sequence evidence? Do you really want us to take her seriously?
Clean up your act. If you don't start policing yourselves to eliminate the kooks then don't be surprised if you're not taken seriously.
Vincent Torely says,
DeleteI also invited you to point out what was wrong with Dr. Axe's criticisms of Lynch, in an online post on Uncommon Descent. I'm still waiting.
Unlike you and most of your creationist friends, I'm not an expert on everything. In this particular case it requires expertise in mathematical modeling of evolution and I know very little about that subject.
Presumably you don't either yet you imply that Doug Axe has challenged one of the world's leading experts on the subject. Why should I take you seriously?
Jeffrey Shallit has expertise in mathematics and information theory, and has commented on Doug Axe's 'work' in the past:
Deletehttp://recursed.blogspot.com/2013/03/doug-axe-doesnt-understand-information.html
Maybe he could help you out, vjtorley
I took a look at the paper -- it will take anyone, no matter how proficient in the subject, a few days to work out all the math himself, and to examine the assumptions behind each step, and it is those assumptions that the dead bodies are buried underneath.
DeleteI don't have that kind of time at the moment, probably the people you e-mailed did not either.
Is there a serious response to the Axe claims or is he just wrong by association?
DeleteIt's typical for responses to be punished in the same journal as papers they're critiquing, in this case MBE. Do you have any idea why Axe didn't do that, publishing instead in a "journal" of which he is the editor?
DeleteJohn: serious Freudian slip there ...
DeleteAutocorrect is responsible for more slips than Freud, these days.
DeleteVincent Torley recently reminded me of his request (and my excessively optimistic promise) that I look over the math of Lynch and Abegg vs. Axe. I will get that done.
DeleteI don't know about the rest of people here, Vince, but I don't take creationists of any stripe seriously. No matter how they want to brand themselves (ID proponents, cdesign proponentsists, whatever). Why not? Well, because gods are unreasonable assumptions, and therefore, not worth considering at all.
DeleteNow, let's say that Doug Axe happened, by some miraculous accident, to actually do some math and simulations right (why would I doubt it? Because my experience is that creationists might try and hide their bullshit, but the bullshit is invariably right there). Would that mean that evolution is false and that god-idid-it? Nope. It would just mean that something in the models about evolution/fixation/etc is missing. Maybe that there's some phenomenon we have not taken into account. That's it. You insist on gods? Sorry, but no. Irrational answers are not answers.
photosynthesis says,
DeleteI don't know about the rest of people here, Vince, but I don't take creationists of any stripe seriously. ...
I have taken many of them seriously including Michael Behe, Michael Denton, Doug Axe, Stephen Meyer, Vincent Torley, and Jonathan Wells. There are other creationists like Ken Miller and Francis Collins who I take seriously. You need to take them seriously in order to show that their arguments are wrong. And you need to concede that from time to time they are correct.
On the other hand, there are plenty of creationists who have been given the chance but turned out to be IDiots who are not worth taking seriously. (You know who you are!)
It's a bad idea to lump all creationists together just as it's a bad idea to assume that all atheist scientists are honorable and sincere and worth taking seriously.
Professor Felsenstein,
DeleteI look forward to hearing from you soon. Thank you.
Professor Moran,
By your own admission, you know very little about the mathematical modeling of evolution. I respectfully put it to you that the plausibility of evolution as a theory stands or falls on the underlying mathematics. You can't prove it simply by pointing to fossils, DNA or what have you. Before evolution can be shown to be probable, it must be demonstrated to be possible. Demonstrating common descent is not the same as demonstrating evolution. Evolution is not only a theory about what happened but how it happened.
That being the case, it seems that you (and many other scientists) are forced to rely on the testimony of a few scientists who specialize in the mathematical modeling of evolution, that there are no credible challenges to the theory. In other words, you're taking their word on faith, just as laypeople do.
But if there's one thing I do know, it's that the mathematics of Darwinian evolution is in serious trouble - a fact freely admitted by Darwinist mathematicians who model evolution. See my post http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/at-last-a-darwinist-mathematician-tells-the-truth-about-evolution/ on Uncommon Descent.
You will tell me that the neutral theory isn't in serious trouble. Maybe you're right, but after having a look at Dr. Stephen Meyer's comments on Michael Lynch's theory of neutral evolution in "Darwin's Doubt" (pp. 321-329), I am inclined to be skeptical. I've had a look at your reviews of Meyer's book, and I was surprised that you never addressed this critical area. Neither has any other reviewer, to the best of my knowledge. So how do I know that the neutral theory is mathematically viable? Douglas Axe (who has published in PNAS) says it isn't, and Lynch hasn't deigned to reply. That's not a good sign.
I don't know why Dr. Axe chose not to publish his rebuttal in MBE. Be that as it may, it is mathematically substantive. It certainly warrants a reply from someone in your camp.
Lastly, you reproach Dr. Ann Gauger for saying "it's impossible for humans and chimpanzees to evolve from a common ancestor in spite of the fossil record and the sequence evidence," but the evidence you cite merely establishes common descent, not common descent via an unguided mechanism.
but the evidence you cite merely establishes common descent, not common descent via an unguided mechanism
DeleteDoes it establish common descent via Inter-Dimensional Input/Output Transportation? (IDIOT)
I'm pretty sure mutations happen because of IDIOTs
Vincent Torley says,
DeleteBut if there's one thing I do know, it's that the mathematics of Darwinian evolution is in serious trouble ...
Hmmm ... as I recall, your highest degree is a Ph.D in philosophy from Melbourne University in 2007, I also recall that only a few years ago you were surprised to learn that the differences between chimp and human genomes could be explained by the mathematics of population genetics.
Why should I take you seriously when you say that the mathematics of Darwinian evolution (whatever that is) is in serious trouble?
Vincent Torley says,
DeleteThat being the case, it seems that you (and many other scientists) are forced to rely on the testimony of a few scientists who specialize in the mathematical modeling of evolution, that there are no credible challenges to the theory.
Yep. That's correct. There's lots of things I don't know so I rely on the opinions of experts. That doesn't mean that I trust everything they say all the time but it's far better than relying on the opinions of non-experts.
In those areas where I have some knowledge, the opinions of the scientists who specialize in that area have always been far, far more accurate than the opinions of Intelligent Design Creationists. I extrapolate that observation to include those areas where I have less knowledge.
In other words, you're taking their word on faith, just as laypeople do.
Wrong. I know the IDiots are wrong in my areas of expertise. My working hypothesis, based on the evidence before me, is that Intelligent Design Creationists are rarely correct about any part of science. That's not "faith," it's common sense.
Classic creatard equivocation of faith. Relying on the opinions of experts on their field, doesn't mean believing something or someone a priory, unconditionally, no questions asked. No authority or theory is sacred or unmovable. Can you say that of Jesus and the Bible? No. right? That's blind faith, and what's much worse, blind faith in demonstrably false myths
DeleteAs I said above, and will elaborate on here, by publishing a dense paper in your own journal, subject to no peer review, and then coming here to ask us to refute it, you're taking the Gish Gallop to a whole new level. This is not to say that you are wrong by association, but in order to read the paper and comment on it, anyone would have to spend as much time as they do on reviewing a regular research paper. That is more effort than most people can afford to spend on a conversation in a blog comments section.
DeleteBut you could have done what is the normal practice, and submit it to a real journal, such as MBE, where the Lynch and Abegg paper was published. It would have been reviewed by several real experts in that sort of stuff, who would have had to do it as part of their job (as opposed to not doing their job so that they can review it in comments section on a blog). If no issues were found with your analysis, then Lynch and Abegg would have had to reply, in the same journal.
Which would have been such an incredible PR boon for you -- ID theorists defeat the world's foremost evolutionary biologists. How does that sound?
But you didn't do that
Why?
I was looking through my e-mail alerts today, and I saw this:
Deletehttp://www.nature.com/articles/srep15786?WT.ec_id=SREP-631-20151103&spMailingID=49926347&spUserID=ODU5MjAzNDExOAS2&spJobID=800359730&spReportId=ODAwMzU5NzMwS0
So apparently it is not impossible for legit journals to publish papers rooted in woo. Note that I am not saying the paper is bogus, I have to read it carefully to determine whether it is or not. But the facts are that it is based on a rejected by modern science idea, and that it got past peer review.
So there is nothing that prevents you from going that route instead of publishing in your own "journal".
I have to say my jaw dropped when I followed your link. We now need a similar study conducted by Greek scientists to vindicate the Hippocratic theory of the four humours.
DeleteI have no idea how this got through to be honest.
DeleteToo bad I do not know enough about this sort of analysis to be in a position to thrash it publicly, but we know what the priors are on it being true.
torley said:
ReplyDelete"Frankly, I'd be a lot more impressed with the claims of evolutionists (of whatever stripe) of they were willing to take criticisms by Intelligent Design scientists seriously."
Well of course you would, as long as the criticisms are from "ID scientists" (LOL) who push your christian stripe of ID-creation (or close enough to it, for now). Would you also be impressed if "evolutionists" were willing to take criticisms from astrologers, scientologists, and wiccans seriously? And how about muslims and hindus? Would it be okay with you if muslim and hindu versions (of whatever stripe) of ID-creation were taken seriously by all evolutionary scientists and were taught in schools worldwide? That's the least you want for your christian version of ID-creation, isn't it? You actually want total acceptance, belief in, worship, and promotion of your version of your religion, don't you?
By the way, you claim to be a catholic, and the poop (your weirdo leader in a dress and funny hat) is an "evolutionist", well, sort of. Doesn't the poop and the catholic cult say that they 'officially' accept evolution/evolutionary theory with the proviso that humans were injected with 'souls' by yahoo-yeshoo-holy-ghost (or something like that)?
"Neo-Darwinism does, indeed, face serious criticism among biologists. That's because the strict version is incorrect as has been pointed out to creationists repeatedly over the past 25 years."
DeleteHave there been any additions to evolutionary theory over the last 5 years that address Axe's challenges?
Have there been any additions to evolutionary theory over the last 5 years that address Axe's challenges?
DeleteNo. Doug Axe doesn't have any serious challenges to evolutionary theory. That's why nobody takes him seriously.
Hi Larry
DeleteHow do we know if the challenges are not serious if we don't look at the paper in detail? Attached is a paper from Art Hunt who worked w Doug to challenge his work. Art was very complementary of Doug's willingness to work with him in a sincere way.
Author Hunt (2007) : http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/01/92-second-st-fa.html
How do we know if the challenges are not serious if we don't look at the paper in detail?
DeleteI've read those papers. I understand that part of his science. I agree completely with Arthur Hunt and many other biochemists that Doug Axe's papers on the evolution of protein folds present no serious challenge to modern evolutionary theory.
I don't know how any intelligent person could read the Panda's Thumb post and think otherwise [Axe (2004) and the evolution of enzyme function].
Here's the conclusion ...
To summarize, the claims that have been and will be made by ID proponents regarding protein evolution are not supported by Axe’s work. As I show, it is not appropriate to use the numbers Axe obtains to make inferences about the evolution of proteins and enzymes. Thus, this study does not support the conclusion that functional sequences are extremely isolated in sequence space, or that the evolution of new protein function is an impossibility that is beyond the capacity of random mutation and natural selection.
Maybe because Axe's results are experimentally flasified
DeleteFunctional proteins from a random-sequence library
This has been discussed here ad-nauseam, because you know, IDiots only hav a handful of publish papers, they're all the same crap, and none of them make a case for ID anyway: attacking one particular aspect of evolution is not making a case for an alternative theory that doesn't exist to begin with
https://molbio.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/publications/Szostak_pdfs/Keefe_Szostak_Nature_01.pdf
DeleteProfessor Moran,
DeleteYou write: "I agree completely with Arthur Hunt and many other biochemists that Doug Axe's papers on the evolution of protein folds present no serious challenge to modern evolutionary theory." You also cite a 2004 paper by Hunt, purporting to refute Dr. Axe.
Maybe you are unaware that Douglas Axe responded to Arthur Hunt several years ago, in the following post:
https://web.archive.org/web/20111101120447/http://biologicinstitute.org/2011/05/04/correcting-four-misconceptions-about-my-2004-article-in-jmb/
I've had a look at it, and I have to say it seems to me that Axe gets the better of Hunt. I invite readers to judge for themselves.
Incidentally, Professor, I know that you've frequently criticized Axe over the years, but as far as I know you've never critiqued his 2010 paper, "The Case Against the Darwinian Origin of Protein Folds." It's available here: http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2010.1 .
The importance of this paper to the biological case for Intelligent Design cannot be overstated. It forms the lynchpin of Dr. Meyer's books on ID, as well as much of Dr. William Dembski's work. If anyone could refute that paper, they would have mortally wounded Intelligent Design, in my opinion. I have yet to see a halfway-decent rebuttal.
Dazz,
DeleteYou cite an article by Keefe and Szostak which purports to refute Dr. Axe's arguments (without mentioning him by name). You might like to have a look at my post at http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-dirty-dozen-twelve-fallacies-evolutionists-make-when-arguing-about-the-origin-of-life/ on Uncommon Descent (scroll down to fallacy number 11).
Here's an excerpt from a personal communication I received from Dr. Cornelius Hunter on that paper and on one by Taylor et al. (2001) titled, "Searching sequence space for protein catalysts":
“First, Keefe and Szostak is not relevant as they were not seeking functional proteins, but merely mild ATP binding. Second, Taylor, et. al. deals with a simple, helix only, protein (homodimeric AroQ), biased the sequence toward helix forming amino acids and sequence patterns, did not fully randomize the sequence but only randomized regions, and is vague about how they arrive at their 10^24 tries required. Even if their calculation of 10^24 is reasonable, you’re dealing with a pretty simple protein… AroQ is toward the simple end of the spectrum… And finally there are several studies on slightly more complex, challenging proteins, all of which come in at around 10^60 – 10^80 attempts required.”
One might object that early life-forms may have required only simple proteins, but as Dr. Hunter remarks, the experimental evidence indicates otherwise: “The larger ones appear to be needed, and there are not obvious gradual pathways to forming them.”
which purports to refute Dr. Axe's arguments (without mentioning him by name)
DeleteAre you serious? Keefe and Szostak's paper was published 3 years before Axe's!
from Dr. Cornelius Hunter...
DeleteI stopped reading right there, LMFAO
Dear Prof. Moran
ReplyDeleteI think your comments about Dover are self contradictory and naive. You are right that it is a battle for "hearts and minds" but then you dismiss the Dover case as just about legalisms. Wrong. If ID had won at Dover, they would also won the hearts and minds battle, hands down. Most people (i.e. not your students or colleagues) are seriously uninterested in evolution, it's too techy and it all happened billions of years ago anyway. All they know about evolution is what they remember from school.
And what will they remember? The boring techy bits, or ID which speaks to them of a God who loves them and takes them into Heaven when they die? Let the least mention of ID into the textbooks, even a purely negative one, and it will be widely remembered as scientific evidence for, if not outright proof of, the existence of God and disproof of evolution. ID proponents understand that, even if you don't. That is why they fight so hard, not because they are stupid ("IDiots") but because they "get" what is going on.
You rightly say people should learn biology basics before they talk about it, you should learn more about American politics before you talk about it.
You are right that it is a battle for "hearts and minds" but then you dismiss the Dover case as just about legalisms.
DeleteIt was just about legalisms. That's why it was lawyers who were fighting against the creationists and not scientists.
If ID had won at Dover, they would also won the hearts and minds battle, hands down.
Yes, that's probably true. Challenging them in court was a big risk. And it was completely unnecessary since by the time the case was decided most of the school board had been replaced in an election and Intelligent Design Creationism would not have been taught anyway.
Politics is the the way this battle should be fought. Another judge and another time could be a disaster because the pro-science side is putting all it's eggs in one basket and hoping that lawyers can keep creationism out of the schools. That is not going to win the war.
You rightly say people should learn biology basics before they talk about it, you should learn more about American politics before you talk about it.
What part of American politics do you think I don't understand?
It was just about legalisms. That's why it was lawyers who were fighting against the creationists and not scientists.
DeleteWrong. Read the judge's opinion. There was extensive expert testimony on feather evolution, the immune system, etc. ID's claims and pretentions were extensively refuted, leading to admissions from Behe and other ID witnesses that the plausibility of ID depends on belief in God, that ID can't be a science unless the rules are changed, which would amount to treating astrology as a science, and that
IDs claim that we can know ID when we see it is demonstrated by people recognizing ID in science fiction movies! Don't you think this had far more impact on hearts and minds than school biology?
Challenging them in court was a big risk. And it was completely unnecessary since by the time the case was decided most of the school board had been replaced in an election and Intelligent Design Creationism would not have been taught anyway.
Wrong. It would have been stopped in Dover, but would have sprung up all over the country.
What part of American politics do you think I don't understand?
...sprung up all over the country.
The judge's decision was based on the Lemon test that required proof that ID is religious and the school board was trying to introduce religion into the classroom. The Lemon test is based on legal opinions that the Constitution forbids teaching religion in public schools.
DeleteIt didn't really matter that ID was bad science. There's no law against teaching astrology or homeopathy in public schools. What mattered was proving that ID is not science and there are a lot of philosophers and scientists who disagree with the expert testimony during the trial.
I have no doubts that if ID had won then lots of school boards all over the country would have introduced ID into the schools. That's not the point. The point is that the Dover decision is just a defensive victory and it has done nothing to change people's minds.
If that's all people mean when they say that Dover was a great victory then I don't disagree. But don't you think you need a lot more than just those kind of victories?
The judge's decision was based on the Lemon test that required proof that ID is religious and the school board was trying to introduce religion into the classroom. The Lemon test is based on legal opinions that the Constitution forbids teaching religion in public schools.
DeleteWrong. When throwing out earlier "equal time for creation science" laws, the Supreme Court said that scientific alternatives to evolution, if any existed, might be taught without violating the constitution. ID claimed to be that scientific alternative so it was essential that it's "evidence" be exposed as the crap it was. Which the trial did. ID likes to portray Dover as an exercise in philosophic hair splitting about the definition of science, but the trial really turned the evidence. It was not just the painfully self evident religious motivation of ID which damned it, it was the lack of scientific evidence. Evolution didn't win on a legal technicality, it won on it's merits. Since when do you believe "IDiots?"
the Dover decision is just a defensive victory and it has done nothing to change people's minds.
Wrong. In the first place people believe in something more if there is a political cause associated with it, take the cause away and their interest flags. In the second place creationists often WIN debates but they invariably lose trials, because in a trial you can't lie or weasel. That's another thing you should know about USA politics. That's why trials are a good way of fighting creationism.
Your wrong on many points but especially a few whoppers.
DeleteYou accuse creationists of lying. WELL creationists say no lying involved. ID/YEC are persuaded in our integrity that we invesyigat and contend on conclusions in origin subjects based on the evidence of nature. WE INSIST.
These judges are incompetent and unworthy to judge the masses of creationist, the thinkers, or the essence of our investigations and teachings.
WHEN EVER did judges judge content of common, popular ideas on subjects called science. SURELY we can accuse, without finding guilty yet, opponents(including judges although i think they are dumbish) of dismissing our science investigation because of hostilty to conclusions that allow for God or genesis.
anyways.
The judge said ID was based on religious presumptions and methodolgy and unrelated to studying natures evidence.
ANOTHER COURT CASE PLEASE.
ID/YEC are not based on religious evidence or presumptions.
ITS based on evidence of data.
YES there is a history of belief in GOD, CHRIST, BIBLE.
Is the court saying these are false conclusions?
Thats illegal surely.
Finally if teaching RELIGION is illegal, as decided by the protestant Christian Yankees and southerners back in the day, in schools THEN teaching religion is false in its conclusions is also illegal.
its about separation and not decision of accuracy.
SO if truth is the objective in science teaching on origins and creationism is banned then the state is saying officially its not true otherwise one would be banning a option for truth in a subject dedicated to truth.
These cases are oppressive, un-American, and tyrannical and plain poor jurisprudence.
This cAnadian knows Americans will prevail against these Bull Runs and truth and freedom will resturn.
By the way these cases still are obscure and off radar for most americans and even creationists.
The more cases the better to show the illegal, and unintelligent "decisions" of obscure lawyers, in robes, in obscure towns.
The people only are to decide what is censored if anything.
Why do you not believe in freedom of thought and speech?
What is the fear? Defeat before most kids?
Creationists welcome full disclosure of the evidence and are ready for any cage match.
Your wrong on more points too. If its legal to say SO!!!
So then, byers, since you're so strongly in favor of freedom of speech and full disclosure you'd have absolutely NO objection to satanism, astrology, scientology, wicca, islam, rastafarianism, pastafarianism, Fifi the Pink Unicorn God-ism, old earth creationism, voodoo, hinduism, judaism, mormonism, raëlism, jediism, frisbeetarianism, vampirism, cao dai-ism, aetherius-ism, aum shimrikyo-ism, buddhism, nuwaubianism, and ALL other beliefs that any and every human has ever had being preached/taught to kids in science classes and other classes and inserted into all aspects of governments/laws/policies around the world, right? After all, you would INSIST on not censoring beliefs that don't match your own, wouldn't you?
Delete"Why do you not believe in freedom of thought and speech? "
DeleteAh yes, freedom of speech. Using this freedom I can say pigs can fly, and the sun is purple. I can also deny holocaust, and I could say blacks are inferior.
In case of the former, there's massive evidence this utter disgrace to humanity did happen. Still people claim it's a zionist false flag or what ever.
In case of the latter, once again, there's zilch evidence black people are in any way inferior to whites. Still people claim it's true.
Using FoS you can say what ever you want, there's no need for evidence.
Now we turn the camera to science. Hard, cold science. In science you can't get away with invoking FoS, because the scientific method says you need evidence to back your claims. Using the scientific method on the holocaust denial and blacks are inferior to whites, quickly unveils that yes you used FoS to claim something, but it's clearly not true. The evidence shows millions of people slaughtered and skin color doesn't mean shit. But still there are people who deny the evidence. How can this be??
Thus, FoS <> Facts and evidence.
@Tom Lawry
DeleteHere's the conclusion from Judge Jones' decision in Kitzmiller v Dover.
A declaratory judgment is hereby issued in favor of Plaintiffs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 such that Defendants' ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and Art. I, § 3 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
I said earlier that the case was decided by applying the three prongs of the Lemon Test and that's true but I forgot that Jones also applied the Endorsement Test. The trial showed quite convincingly that the proposed statement to be read in class was motivated by an attempt to introduce religion.
The four parts of the decision related to the Endorsement test are ...
1. An Objective Observer Would Know that ID and Teaching About "Gaps" and "Problems" in Evolutionary Theory are Creationist, Religious Strategies that Evolved from Earlier Forms of Creationism
2. Whether an Objective Student Would View the Disclaimer as a Official Endorsement of Religion
3.Whether an Objective Dover Citizen Would Perceive Defendants' Conduct to be an Endorsement of Religion
4. Whether ID is Science
It's very unclear how that last section relates to the Establishment Clause of the American Constitution since the teaching of astrology, which according to the plaintiffs is also not science, would not violate the Constitution.
If the school board had ordered the reading of a statement in support of astrology or homeopathy then I don't think that could be challenged in court as a violation of the Establishment Clause. Thus, whether ID is science or not seems to be irrelevant because even if it were admitted as science it still promotes religion. That's why Ken Miller and Francis Collins can't teach courses in the public schools based on their books.
As I've noted before, the most amazing thing about Judge Jones' decision is his statement that even if ID were true it still couldn't be taught in school.
To conclude and reiterate, we express no opinion on the ultimate veracity of ID as a supernatural explanation. However, we commend to the attention of those who are inclined to superficially consider ID to be a true "scientific" alternative to evolution without a true understanding of the concept the foregoing detailed analysis. It is our view that a reasonable, objective observer would, after reviewing both the voluminous record in this case, and our narrative, reach the inescapable conclusion that ID is an interesting theological argument, but that it is not science.
So it doesn't matter whether an intelligent designer exists or not and whether he/she/it/they actually designed bacterial flagella. Apparently you can't prove that's true by "science" so even if you can prove that it's true by some other way of knowing you can't teach the truth in science class because it violates the US Constitution.
Apparently, even if we knew the truth (veracity) we still have to tell students that evolution only involves natural processes.
I always knew that truth wasn't that important to lawyers but it's still amazing to see it in writing.
My view is that ID is wrong and that's why it isn't taught as truth in Canadian schools—which aren't governed by the US Constitution. Astrology and homeopathy are also wrong and that's why they aren't taught either except as examples of bad science. In my view, the really important thing is not whether the intelligent designer is a god but whether there's any good evidence that he/she/it meddles in evolution. I think that the veracity of ID as a supernatural explanation is the most important issue and I want to teach students how to think critically about that issue. They can't do that if lawyers prevent them from ever hearing the arguments.
The judge was asked by both sides to rule on whether the evidence presented showed that ID was a scientific proposition. That's why he commented on it. Had neither side made such a request, IMHO, he would not have so ruled.
DeleteOh boy, the hits just keep on coming.
DeleteI always knew that truth wasn't that important to lawyers but it's still amazing to see it in writing.
Wrong. The LAW is important to lawyers, it's their job. If the law doesn't care about the truth it's the fault of the politicians, not the lawyers. Canadian science is now suffering the onslaughts of a gang of politicians who care nothing about facts or science, you have said so yourself. If there were some laws stopping them and lawyers to enforce the law, you would be delighted. Saying lawyers don't care about truth is lazy and sloppy thinking. (I am not a lawyer BTW.)
As for the law, when the US constitution was written, no one dreamed that science might provide evidence for God, so there is no science exemption in the law. Lawyers not caring about truth doesn't enter, but bio professors making hasty and insulting statements, does. A non-expert dismissing a whole field of expertise as dishonest, who does that?
From the Dover verdict section H.
The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board’s ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the
seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious,antecedents.
When the Establishment Clause was written, it's main purpose was to prevent the murderous wars of religion, which had devastated Europe, from happening here. The courts have had to adapt it to over 200 years of change. That's why the Supreme Court held, (Edwards v Aguillard) that "teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to school children might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction."
In other words, ID could "uncouple itself" IF it had real evidence in it's favor. I am sure you would agree that if there were valid evidence supporting ID then it would be science. That is why the Dover trial spent so much time on refuting ID's evidence.
Let's stop pretending that ID has anything to do with science. Yes, it is a scientific question whether evolution can make brains and eyes from single celled creatures. But “answering” the question based on your religious beliefs, and forcing the public schools to publicize your “answer” because you hope to influence the beliefs of others, that has nothing to do with science, it's religious proselytizing on the taxpayer's dime.
In Canada, you don't have a large section of the public clamoring for anti-evolution propaganda in the schools. How nice for you. We do have that problem, but we also have laws. Making ill-informed and offensive remarks about our solutions to our problems helps no one.
At last. We finally agree that it's all about the law.
DeleteTed Lawry
DeleteIts easy to understand.
If the government censors ideas/conclusions being offered as options/facts in SUBJECTS dedicated to accuracty in conclusions/facts/methodology toward them THEN the gov't is ifficially saying same censoresd ideas etc are WRONG. Otherwise accutacy in a subject would not be the objective.
IF the gov says they are wrong because they are religious then they are breaking the very cocept invoked for the original censorship.
The gov is breaking the establishment clause .
The founders of America never imagined about such important ideas the government censoring ideas. Its an absurdity to say or think so.
Even laying aside a very protestant society.
In fact they might of been seduced into censoring ANY teachings against God or Genesis.
Anyways the bigger dumb thing about this is that they never thought the government equaled the schools JUST because they paid for them. I suspect they didn't pau for them in a federal way and so all the more embarrassing the present censorship legal jazz.
What is taught or censored in public institutions is only the matter of the people. if freedom of thought and speech in important matters, especially well supported on all sides, is a identity and ideal then this alone crushes the unjust and foolish censorship movement.
These obscure judges missed achance to make juducial history by overthrowing the government censorship in public insitutions on conclusions of religion, science, truth.
The momentary fame and thumbs up for maintaining giv censorship will be their shameful legacy.
Creationists and freddom lovers and American government lovers TAKE THEM TO COURT on this censorship of ID/YEC.
Then Canada and then the free world.
For the past decade's most scientifically useful information (for the ID movement) I must nominate Salvador Cordova who wrote the Repetitive DNA and ENCODE article and did a fine job of getting it around, to the right places:
ReplyDeleteOne thing the ENCODE consortium drove home is that DNA acts like a Dynamic Random Access memory for methylation marks. That is to say, even though the DNA sequence isn’t changed, like computer RAM which isn’t physically removed, it’s electronic state can be modified.
With all that Sal knows about how genetic systems work (in part from over a decade debating against scientists) I want to see more good science, like that. Please excuse my having to give credit where due, so it's not ignored. Thank you..
With all that Sal knows about how genetic systems work (in part from over a decade debating against scientists)
DeleteHeh! Amazing what tidbits of knowledge you can pick up from arguing against scientists.
For the past decade's most scientifically useful information (for the ID movement) I must nominate Salvador Cordova who wrote the Repetitive DNA and ENCODE article
DeleteLOL
I appreciate humor and sarcasm as much as the next person but be careful. You made it look a little too much like you meant to be taken seriously. Most people won't realize that you are mocking Cordova's ridiculous post.
You were mocking it, weren't you?
From theory:
DeleteBehavior from a system or device qualifies as intelligent by meeting all four circuit requirements for this ability, which are: [1] Something to control (a body, either real or virtual representation) with motor muscles (proteins, electric speaker, electronic write to a screen). [2] Random Access Memory (RAM) addressed by its sensory sensors where each motor action and its associated confidence value are stored as separate data elements. [3] Confidence (central hedonic) system that increments the confidence level of successful motor actions and decrements the confidence value of actions that fail. [4] Ability to guess 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”.
What Salvador explained applies to very serious network related cognitive models. No fooling...
So Gary, your device is intelligent when it can control something, can memorise, keep track of confidence levels, and guess when confidence is low ?
DeleteSounds more like a politician with low poll ratings.
Are you really (very) serious ?
This is a well tested model that provides insight into how our brain works. The following is from the preliminary software for the ID Lab-5:
DeleteTHEORY OF OPERATION – HOW IT WORKS
The Intelligence Design Lab-5 has behavior that is guided by a neural navigational network system that maps out an “internal representation” of the external world, our “internal world model”. It's a vital part of our imagination. During human development it is common for this to cause children to stretch out their arms and say “I can fly!” as they run around while using this to visualize themselves navigating the sky.
Activity patterns in the network recreate important properties of the places mapped into the network. Signal flow propagates outward in all directions from an attractor location, where food or other thing it wants to navigate towards is located, which flows around places to avoid that it can bump into or in some way shocked by along the way. Its confidence in motor actions (forward/reverse and left/right) depend on the magnitude and direction it is actually traveling matching the magnitude and direction of the signal flow at the corresponding place it is currently at. Where there is more than one pathway the shortest path dominates, will be the first to propagate to that point and be favored. Where there are two or more paths of equal distance it may become indecisive but will soon favor one path over the others.
To establish a benchmark that assumes error free signals from parts of the brain that use dead reckoning to convert what is seen through the eyes into spatial coordinates in its external environment the program simply uses the already calculated X,Y positions that are used to place things in the virtual environment. In the real world our brain oppositely converts visual signals to these spatial X,Y locations, which a virtual environment has to instead start with. Where this dead reckoning system were added to this model and working perfectly that's what you would get for coordinates. Using the exact coordinates that the program already has provides ideal numbers to work from, which in turn gives this critter an excellent sense of where visible things are located around itself even though in this Lab its eyes cannot visually see them.
To test its place avoidance behavior a hidden moving shock zone slowly rotates counterclockwise, while the critter chases food in a clockwise direction heading straight towards the hazard. Although the test is demanding the confidence system of this intelligence strives for perfection, as does a human athlete. The relatively high confidence levels shown in the included line chart indicates that the virtual critter is having fun. In the research paper “Dynamic Grouping of Hippocampal Neural Activity During Cognitive Control of Two Spatial Frames” (see notes) that the arena and some of the navigational network is based upon it was found that; some live rats preferred to chase after the treats even though they are not hungry enough to need to eat, while others preferred to remain in the shock free center zone. Even a live animal has to first be willing to accept the challenge. For the virtual critter several If-Then statements that compare actual travel magnitude and direction to that of the internal representation is enough to make it want nothing else but to chase the food around its arena.
Getting out of the way of an approaching shock zone requires a good temporal sense of what is expected to soon happen. This was added by alternating between maps of both current cue card angular time and the next time frame ahead. Either way the time dependent room related memory RoomAvoidBit(X, Y, Time) has to be given a time frame to recall, even where that is present time. Only difference is that more than one moment in time is recalled. It this way ahead of time knows when it's in the way of the shock zone and gets out of there pronto.
DeleteAfter avoiding being surrounded by the approaching zone it has to have the common sense to go around to the safer zone behind and wait for the food to be in the clear, while at the same time knowing where the food is located even when it's surrounded by places to avoid that can (where signal timing is way off) block its signal activity. Where the signals from attract and avoid locations combine: the wanting to go both towards and away from the food results in it becoming nervously anxious, skittish, as are real animals with such a dilemma.
The signal timing that was found to work best closely follows Hebbian Theory. Neighboring cells that fire together, wire together a network with activity patterns that recreate the physical properties of what is in the external environment. It can also be conceptualized as a conservation of energy strategy where at each place in the network an incoming charge is transferred to uncharged neighbors on the opposite side, outgoing direction. The signal energy is moved from place to place, not destroyed then regenerated all over again.
This navigation system demonstrates how simple it is to organize a network that provides navigational intuition like we have. Even where some tweaking is possible it still works surprisingly well. It helps explain why animals (insects are also animals) seem born with a navigational ability that is there from the start. The origin of this behavior in living animals does not have to be a learned instinct that slowly developed over many millions of years of time by blundering animals passing on slightly less blundering behavioral traits to offspring. It's possible for these neural navigational networks to have existed when multicellular animals first appeared, just prior to the Cambrian Explosion. There are then no complex brain centers that had to slowly be “programmed” or hardwired. The origin of these inherent navigational behaviors may best explained by the activity patterns in these relatively simple cellular networks.
The origin of these neural networks may in part be from yet to be explained subcellular networks that work the same way in unicellular protozoans (single celled animals) such as paramecia, which have eye spots, antennae and other features once thought to only exist in multicellular animals. Testing such a hypothesis using this computer model requires additional theory, which may have a controversial title but going further into biology this way meets all of the requirements of the premise for an already proposed theory. In a case like this science requires developing the theory that already exists for this purpose, regardless of it being controversial or not.
Awesome scientific theory. When are you going to publish it in a peer reviewed journal?
DeleteComputer software like this really needs to be on a software download site, where the programmers that code in the language are. And with nearly all of the major science publishers already having publicly stated that ID is not science it is best that I at least for now give them what they asked for, nothing:
Deletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_bodies_explicitly_rejecting_Intelligent_design
I cannot afford the publishing fees, do not want to have to beg for a freebie, or have the time and patience to rewrite everything to address all the religious politics I got dragged into.
My heart and mind needed to find ways to do without "journals" that are for lab results anyway. As it ended up the best tactic was to more or less "use the enemy" and now I rule from places like AntiEvolution.org while Sal rules from places like The Skeptical Zone. Directly confronting the most vocal opponents makes it possible for publishers do not have to get stuck in the middle of protests against whatever they did publish. And the theory is not dragged down by science politics that can add a year or more just to say anything at all to anyone.
But this morning I uploaded a new IDLab5-Preliminary so that among other things in the Notes folder it contains a pdf of the ID Theory and takes care of programming housekeeping chores that made it not yet ready for publishing at Planet Source Code:
[url=https://sites.google.com/site/intelligencedesignlab/home/IDLab5-Preliminary.zip]IDLab5-Preliminary.zip[/url]
Even though I wanted to rush the ID Lab-5 I had to try using the code forms/modules in other applications before getting the often missed details right. I also needed to write a description, which will come from the theory of operation shown above that now has a better worded second paragraph.
This is a one step at a time process that's a challenge enough to get ready for where I normally publish software like this to my peers. But it looks like it's now good enough to go. I now just need to run it by at least a few of the best neuroscientists in the world in case they find something out of place that needs work, or object to how their work is represented in the model. They probably prefer to see it before publishing anywhere and only need the above link and info to be current on the model and its theory. Expecting me to start off by publishing in a journal sort of puts the cart before the horse, and even where I did there is no knowing whether the right people even saw it so I'm still back to directly emailing those it most concerns.
Publishing something at a fancy venue might be a great symbolic victory for me personally, but that does not help develop theory that makes possible a stunning victory for the ID movement. Something like that is best coauthored with Sal and at this point there are no plans but the ID Lab-5 looks ready for launch, to PSC. After that I can start planning for what comes next.
For now I think I should get the latest to Edvard and others who need to have the opportunity to review the latest. As it turns out having a model like this that really needs to first be presented to greats of science before published anywhere is like a dream come true in regards to having something worthy of their time and interesting enough to want to at least take a quick look at. I start by inviting review from those best able to know what I'm modeling, which at the same time gets the word out to neuroscientists and others who most need to know. It's like the best of both worlds where the academic labs publish papers on what they know about how real brains work while I work on models to help make sense of what is going on that only have to be Planet Source Code simple. It's a niche where I participate in the greater scientific process but I don't have to head a university type lab that publishes test results.
And please excuse my having used the wrong url format that should have been: IDLab5-Preliminary.zip
DeleteI was in too much in a rush, to get the latest out for review.
In my experience, one seldom changes minds. One or two, now and then, but not wholesale.
ReplyDeleteWhat is happening -- slowly -- is that religion (the revealed kind) is losing ground in most parts of the world. This is happening in part because of the internet and because nonbelievers are becoming less afraid of coming out of the closet.
It won't be more that a few decades before they are allowed to marry.
As usual with this subject, I hardly know where to begin.
ReplyDeleteIt's very unclear how that last section relates to the Establishment Clause of the American Constitution since the teaching of astrology, which according to the plaintiffs is also not science, would not violate the Constitution.
You are much smarter than this. If ID is science, it affects all the factors in the endorsement test. How does it bear on the endorsement test if you want to teach science in science class? How does it bear on the endorsement test if you want to teach something that is not science in science class?
Yes, that's probably true. Challenging them in court was a big risk. And it was completely unnecessary since by the time the case was decided most of the school board had been replaced in an election and Intelligent Design Creationism would not have been taught anyway.
Who are you to tell people who'd risked their jobs, and/or had themselves or family members threatened with death by the good Christians of Dover, that hey, there's been an election, so the principles you risked everything for are now meaningless and let's all kiss and make up?
If you could clarify how the various parts of your argument interrelate I would be grateful, because I am confused. The central clash is between science and superstition, so we should never accommodate - science? After all, you are arguing that ID is science, and criticizing the Dover decision for finding otherwise. What is it precisely, then, we ought not to accommodate, since so many creationists, whether they are proponents of guided evolution, intelligent design, or scientific creationism, are doing science in your view?
ED.
ReplyDeleteTHEN you are saying you don't believe in freedom of thought or speech.
Well the people do, its the law, and everybody invokes it when they need it.
If these freedoms do not, should not, exist then who decides? A creationist government . by your rules, would right;y decide NO MORE evolution etc.
The courts don't claim to be stopping these freedoms. They are but they have their trumped up excuses as usual.
Yes evolutionists are forced to vote for suppresion of freedom of thought and speech by the government.
Thats why, as more people pay attention, this censorship agenda will flop and these judges will be shamed along withy many in the past.
Moran is absolutely right about it being a battle to win hearts and minds but it doesn't seem to occur to him and his ilk that part of the reason why science has failed to win hearts and minds in the battle against ID is the abuse of science by people like Jerry Coyne and Richard Dawkins who seek to use their scientific status to attack religion.
ReplyDeleteDawkins was appointed to the chair for the Public Understanding of Science at the University of Oxford, a position that could have offered tremendous opportunityto generate better public awareness of the great advances made in science over the last generation. Instead, Dawkins used it to carry out his campaign to be become one of the best - if not the best - known attackers of any form of religious belief.
He and Coyne and others seek to perpetuate the entirely unfounded notion that science has shown that anyone who continues with religious belief in the face of scientific advance is stupid, deluded or superstitious. In Dawkin's case he labels those who teach religious beliefs as child abusers.
Is it really any surprise that science is failing to make an impact when people like these are at the public forefront to win the battle for hearts and minds?
Mairtin doesn't seem to have noticed that Americans are slowly abandoning religion. A trend that has accelerated in the past decade. In the long run, this will spell the end of creationism as a powerful force in American society. That success was achieved much earlier in other countries and, as we see in the USA, it was not due to lawyers.
DeleteIt is absolutely true that anyone who continues to believe that evolution is wrong is stupid, deluded, and/or superstitious. All we have to do is convince the general public in America that this is the truth and hearts and minds will have been won. At that point Americans will never again have to worry about creationists who want to push religion in public school science classes.
Mairtin is right to be worried about the inluence of people like Jerry Coyne and Richard Dawkins and many other vocal supporters of rationalism. They represent the real threat to his/her worldview, not judges.
Mairtin doesn't seem to have noticed that Americans are slowly abandoning religion. A trend that has accelerated in the past decade. In the long run, this will spell the end of creationism as a powerful force in American society
DeleteWhile the ranks of some main stream religions are dwindling, some evangelical religions are actually growing, mainly the ones that did not accept the theory of evolution like the Catholic Church. Unfortunately, the ranks of Darwinists are not increasing as fast as they would hope.
Your point can only prove one thing; people are disillusioned with most religions and that doesn't make your religion true, even if you, for some unexplained reason think it is true.
Ignoring the Darwin of the gaps by saying "I don't know how the life started" or "how the first replicating molecule evolved" doesn't make your beliefs necessarily true, unless you view "the truth" the way you want to hear it or the way you want to believe it. This kind of approach does't make it your beliefs really real. It is a delusion you chose to believe in and you are simply deceiving yourself and others.
Larry
DeleteYour statement that "It is absolutely true that anyone who continues to believe that evolution is wrong is stupid, deluded, and/or superstitious" is exactly the sort of duplicity for which we rightly attack Fundamentalists and ID supporters.
I wasn't talking about people who reject evolution, I was talking about people who accept evolution alongside religious belief.
Ken Miller is generally accepted as the main contributor to the utter demolition of ID as science at Dover. He is a practising Catholic so what category do you put him into - stupid, deluded or superstitious?
Listen Salvita, you can't attack someone of being religious when you are religious yourself. It's epistemological surrender. If good science is the way to go and you think that "darwinism" fails for being religious, you should:
DeleteFirst and foremost, abandon your religious beliefs, if only for coherence.
Second, stop ignoring that we are not religious, no matter how much you keep repeating that, your straw man projection won't cut it. But note that you can't use this argument against us, because we don't accept religious episitemology to begin with, so we have no religious motivations.
If you can demonstrate that evolution is religious, then we can agree to ditch it on the base of scientific epistemology and go back to being plain "atheists". But first, you have to renounce your own religious beliefs. Are you game?
Mairtin, you said ...
DeleteHe [Dawkins] and Coyne and others seek to perpetuate the entirely unfounded notion that science has shown that anyone who continues with religious belief in the face of scientific advance is stupid, deluded or superstitious.
This seems to be referring to the following statement by Richard Dawkins, "It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that)."
If that's not what you meant then I apologize. If this is what you meant ....
I wasn't talking about people who reject evolution, I was talking about people who accept evolution alongside religious belief.
Then please provide some evidence that Jerry Coyne and Richard Dawkins actually said anything like that.
Ken Miller is generally accepted as the main contributor to the utter demolition of ID as science at Dover. He is a practising Catholic so what category do you put him into - stupid, deluded or superstitious?
He is clearly superstitious and he is deluded, in my opinion, but I wouldn't say he was stupid. If you aren't a Roman Catholic like he is then I assume you will agree with me. If you are a Roman Catholic then I assume that believers of all other religions, like Hinduism, must be superstitious and deluded. Right?
LOL, you dismiss as deluded and superstitious one of the most successful opponents of ID and then you wonder why you are failing to win hearts and minds.
DeleteAnyway, I'll leave you to get on with it as I've found over the years that there is little point in trying to have a rational discussion with those inflicted with self righteousness - and it makes little difference whether that self righteousness is pro-religion or anti-religion.
I've found over the years that there is little point in trying to have a rational discussion with those inflicted with self righteousness ...
DeleteI've found the same thing.
BTW, I notice you didn't answer my question.
I live in Europe, in a country where Roman Catholicism is the prevalent religion and creationism has essentially no adherence whatsoever.
DeleteEven practicing catholics, for the most part, don't read the bible, don't take it literally, don't believe in miracles or simply don't mention it because they know it's absurd. It's more of a cultural thing, something they rely on when they need spiritual support, like a supernatural shrink that only charges a few coins on Sundays.
I would think Miller is a bit like the Catholics I'm used to deal with. Could be wrong though, but I don't see Ken Miller believing in virgins impregnated by pigeons and tales about zombie deities so obviously ripped off from earlier civilizations
Dazz, have you read either of Ken Miller's book Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution and Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul?
DeleteAdmittedly, no, I haven't, and it's not that I didn't know that he wrote books trying to reconcile his faith and his science, it's just that I don't really care, but I guess that makes my post above an example of willful ignorance plus uninformed opinion
DeleteOK, in regard to your question - yes, I am a Roman Catholic but I do not regard believers of all other religions, like Hinduism, to be superstitious and deluded.
DeleteYou see, I recognise that once it comes down to non-evidential belief and opinion, it is foolish to assume that I have some sort of superior intellect that makes me right. You on the other hand, are willing to reject non-evidential beliefs as deluded, superstitious or just plain stupid simply because they seem that way to you - just like you assumed that my Catholicism would make me regard believers of all other religions, like Hinduism, to be superstitious and deluded.
That actually makes me the open-minded one who is following scientific principles but somehow I think you will not be able to quite grasp that.
I've ordered "Finding Darwin's God" and will be reading it soon. I hope I don't end up regretting this decision XD
DeleteWell, I'll put on my "evil relativist" shoes and try to see it from the perspective of someone who lives in a country where creationism is much more prevalent.
I agree, by the way, that this is a political issue, and maybe people like Miller can be more effective at convincing fundamentalists that there is a way to be both religious and open to science. Even if I may not (and probably won't) agree that there is a way to reconcile religion with reality, if it serves the purpose of abating creationist ignorance, then I'm all for it.
So Mairtin, you don't think that believing that Mohammed flew to heaven on a winged horse is stupid and deluded?
DeleteDazz, I simply don't have any knowledge of what that belief actually entails, whether, for example, it is taken as literal or as allegorical - just like the Genesis story.
DeleteI therefore have no opinion whatsoever on whether it is deluded or stupid.
whether, for example, it is taken as literal or as allegorical
DeleteWell, exactly my point. Do you agree that those who take it literally, as in it really happened that way, are being stupid and deluded?
What part of "I therefore have no opinion whatsoever" do you actually not understand?
DeleteWell, you said you have no opinion because "I simply don't have any knowledge of what that belief actually entails"
DeleteI specifically asked you about beliefs that entail literal belief that those events were factual. But it's OK if you want to dodge the question.
I can't remember who said this, I believe it was Neil De Grasse Tysson
If someone claims that he can turn crackers into the body of Napoleon, he's a lunatic, but if it's bread into the body of Jesus instead, that's just religion
I'm pretty sure you'd think I'm insane if I claimed that I flew to heaven on a winged horse, but apparently it's fine to just ignore the lunacy when it's a religious claim.
I take it you would approach Osiris, who according to the ancient Egyptians died and then rose from the dead on the third day, with the same skepticism as you approached Mohammad's story, right?
Mairtin says,
DeleteThat actually makes me the open-minded one who is following scientific principles but somehow I think you will not be able to quite grasp that.
You are correct. I have trouble seeing the underlying logic whenever a Roman Catholic says that to me.
Re Dazz
DeleteThe first half of Miller's first book, Finding Darwin's God, is a quite good defense of evolution and take down of ID. The second half is mostly an attempt to reconcile his scientific beliefs with his scientific beliefs, not very successfully IMHO.
Thank you Colnago.
DeleteIt should be worth it even if it's only for the first half
the entirely unfounded notion that science has shown that anyone who continues with religious belief in the face of scientific advance is stupid, deluded or superstitious
ReplyDeleteI would argue that we should differentiate between beliefs:
Deism is unfounded, I would say it falls in the category of superstitious.
Particular deistic mythologies, like judeo-christian religions are stupid, superstitious and deluded.
Literal interpretations of scriptures of the above religions, contradicting and rejecting a priori the scientific evidence is all of the above and just plain retarded
Ironically, its modern technology that is evolution's grestest threat, not creationism.
ReplyDeleteTechnology guarantees observations that defy evolutionary explanations.
The amount of patches required to maintain the fiction of evolution is starting to rival windows.
Its only a matter of time before larry starts mumbling about those good days when it was all so easy to explain away.
Hmmm ... let's think about that for a minute. Advances in technology could have had three possible effects on our understanding of evolution.
Delete1. they could have confirmed the fact of evolution
2. they could have had no effect
3. they could have refuted the fact of evolution
Anyone with an IQ over 100 knows that #1 is what happened.
Steve, do you believe it was #3?
Speaking of irony, how about a petulant child in an adult body using the results of science and technology in a pathetic attempt to rationalize a delusional belief in goat herder snuff porn ?
DeleteA little OT but what say Prof. Moran about a post on Jerry Coyne's blog relative to a textbook published in Canada, which he considers friendly towards creationism?
ReplyDeletehttps://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2015/10/10/canadian-human-biology-textbook-flirts-with-creationism/#comments
I agree with Jerry that I'd like to see the rest of the book but the section that's shown on his blog is not correct concerning evolution.
DeleteFrom my knowledge of kinesiology and similar heath programs, which I suspect are the target audience, there's probably a ton of other stuff in the book that would upset me even more.
Wow, that's Kent Hovind's wording about "microevolution" and "macroevolution."
DeleteIf that's really in that book, well, it's not a good start. I'd like to see what else is in there.
Re Lawrence A. Moran
DeleteAccording to Wiki, there is a distinction between kinesiology and something called applied kinesiology, which seems to be a technique used by chiropractors.
AFAIK, kinesiology is not considered pseudoscience, although applied kinesiology probably is.
I don't think kinesiology is pseudoscience. I just think that those type of programs, especially at colleges, are not very rigorous when it comes to basic biocemistry and physiology. That's why they need special textbooks.
DeleteWow, I'm late comer here but I think that the debate is getting hot.
ReplyDeleteWell, I am the Founder, Father, Discoverer and Promoter of the real intelligence and new Intelligent Design .
There are almost 80+ definitions of "intelligence" so if we used all of these definitions for Intelligent Design, we will have 80+ versions of IDs! My goodness! They are so many!
Oh wait! If we use that 80+ definitions to calculate for IQ, we will have 80+ IQ calculations! My goodness, you will never study Cognitive Psychology again!
Why there are so many definitions? ToE should be blamed for this!
But wait, I've already solved the problem of "intelligence". And all of you guys are all wrong...Some of the guys here are familiar to me...
Here are my science books to show you the real Intelligent Design .
http://www.amazon.com/Edgar-Postrado/e/B00GXV028K/ref=dp_byline_cont_ebooks_1
"Well, I am the Founder, Father, Discoverer and Promoter of the real intelligence and new Intelligent Design "
DeleteWell, good for you.
"Here are my science books to show you the real Intelligent Design ."
I had a look at the Physics one. Quite obviously *not* a science book. And insane indeed (see Dazz's comment above).
I've been debating dazz in another forum and he was so lazy to read some of my posts. I told him to shut up since he has no science at all.
DeleteWell, you will never understand all of my science books even Physics if you don't know the real intelligence. TAKE NOTE: real intelligence
It is like that you will never understand the shape of the earth if you assumed that the earth is flat...
You're just confirming my previous statements.
DeleteI mean it that you really have no clue on real intelligence! My goodness, what will you answer if I ask you if complexity= intelligence? Will you agree?
DeleteYour days are numbered here Posretardo. This is a serious science blog. Go back to whatever institution you escaped from
DeleteLOL! Did you escape from mental hospital that you are so really upset about me?? Lol!
DeleteYou had still assignments to do...Did I not told you to study "empirical evidence" since you had been lacking this info from your head? What are you doing here? Lol!
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=561ba5a54d814452;act=ST;f=14;t=9680
Your stuff could be funny, but it is way over the top, which pretty much ruins the comic effect it could have had.
DeleteOh crap. This new kook, Postrado, is worse that Gary Gaulin.
Deletehttp://www.amazon.com/Edgar-Postrado/e/B00GXV028K/ref=dp_byline_cont_ebooks_1
DeleteO_o
Yeah, I told you this Postrado guy outcranks even Steve and Robert Byers!
DeleteSome of his gems:
Universe's age? I don't know but I think that it is young since if the universe is old, we will never find any blackholes...
erroneous scientists were not even punished for their crimes of mis-informing people of their wrong science [evolution, of course].
I think that time has many dimension since in the new Intelligent Design , time is defined as this
t = A ----> A'
Space is a concentration of photon of light.
space is just photon of light but inactive. And when light travels, it travels to its own that is why light is so fast...
And the more gravity is there, the more photons of light are expected
That is my ideas and I think I'm right since if I'm going to make this universe, that would I do.
I see Mr Postrado has a set pattern of behaviour. He joins a forum and immediately starts promoting his ... uh ... books. When they kick him out or give up talking to him, he finds another blog or discussion list to infest.
DeleteCorrect Piotr, also when pointed out to him that he hasn't sold a single copy of any of his books, he claims he only published them for his personal use or reference. Then the next post he will accuse you of not having read his books. He also loves to claim that he must be right because he has "published many science books".
DeleteAnother hilarious trait of Mr Postrado, spite of being (or so he says) an engineer, is his funny idea of what counts as mathematics:
That is math since it uses an additional sign
And even though he insists that he's a scientist, affirmed that
Biological Interrelation, (BiTs - this is Edgar's alternative to evolution) is unproved and un-provable. We believe it only because the only alternative is evolution, and that is unthinkable
"Biological Interrelation", Edgar's alternative to evolution is a sophisticated theory that only has one prerogative:
"Life doesn't evolve, just "interrelates" with other life and the medium"
He's also compared himself favorably to Galileo and suggested that we contact the Nobel price committee...
Thus, help me to get my Nobel Prize in both Physics, Biology, Philosophy, Psychology, mathematics…
True story, he want to be awarded Nobel prizes that don't even exist
Oh, almost forgot. He also affirms that
DeleteThose who will agree with me will surely be safe
it is unclear to me if he means that his theory "saves", or he's threatening those who disagree... or both
True story, he want to be awarded Nobel prizes that don't even exist
DeletePerhaps they have a spare Fields Medal to award for the discovery of "an additional sign".
The epitome of the Poe's Law, LMFAO
DeleteYes. I considered MrIntelligentDesign's first post to be a spoof so far over the top it wasn't even funny. I'm wrong again. Sigh.
DeleteSame here (see my last reply above).
DeleteHe does seem to have a mental health problem, or he is a bored rich kid.
10 years after Dover and evolutionists still don't have any scientific explanation for irreducible complexity. Go figure...
ReplyDeleteNonsense: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity#Response_of_the_scientific_community
DeleteAnd make that "alleged Irreducible complexity", as it is not a fact but an argument (from creationists only).
And of course there's this...
DeleteBacteria evolve over a weekend
Yes, wikipedia is nonsense. And irreducible complexity is real. If it isn't then why are evos trying so hard to refute it?
DeleteAlso the genetic code is a real code. It is not a metaphor nor an analogy. There isn't any known physio-chemical processes that can produce a code. Only intelligent agencies have that capacity.
Nobody cares what YUCK's are OK with. Fact is that the flagellum, the IC poster child, was missing a part (the flagellum itself!) and evolved it back.
DeleteCheck mate Behe.
Also the genetic code is a real code
Prove it dimwit. Pray real hard for some empirical evidence and the Flying Spaghetti Monster may show up to touch you with his noodly appendage
Joe G: "Yes, wikipedia is nonsense. "
DeleteI obviously meant that your comment was nonsense, as the wikipedia page clearly shows.
The alleged irreducible complexity is an argument or a claim, not a fact. If you can't even distinguish those ...
Science has already proven that the genetic code is a real code.. And the wikipedia article is evidence-free. And IC is a fact as it is real and science has shown it exists.
DeleteAnd ... and ... and ... and ... and ... and ...
DeleteOh, the wikipedia page lists the evidence. With references. You do need to put some effort in - it's called reading. I know, hard ! But with some encouragement from friends, a good cup of tea, you'll surely manage to read a few lines.
Take some pauses in between paragraphs ! Makes it more enjoyable, especially when you're not used to reading, like yourself.
YEC joey g blurted:
Delete"And irreducible complexity is real. If it isn't then why are evos trying so hard to refute it?"
Hey joey, let's apply the premise of your blurt to something else:
Evolution is real. If it isn't then why are IDiots trying so hard to refute it?"
Do you think that's a good argument, joey?
ID is OK with bacteria evolving. YECs are OK with bacteria evolving.
ReplyDeleteYes, my grandmother is also OK with bacteria evolving.
DeletePretty hard to deny such a fact.
And bacteria will always be bacteria. There isn't a mechanism that can allow them to evolve into somethimg else
DeleteA major problem with the familiar "bacteria will always be bacteria" phrase is that bacteria are so incredibly diverse that this is even worse than saying, "Evolution among fish, horses, mice, humans, cats; so what? vertebrates will always be vertebrates". Sigh.
DeleteBacteria has always been bacteria and will always be bacteria captain obvious... but it also evolved. Poor creationists are invariably mindfucked by this. They somehow believe evolution consists on full populations of squirrels waking up one day mutated into
Deletechickens
And bacteria will always be bacteria
DeleteWould you like to wager on that? Ever heard of Wolbachia?
From the Abstract Jim just linked to:
DeleteThe genomes of wBol1-b and wPip are similar in genomic organisation, sequence and gene content, but show substantial differences at some rapidly evolving regions of the genome, primarily associated with prophage and repetitive elements.
I hope you got that one Sal!
Great job Gaulin. Instead of reading a few paragraphs below the abstract where there's a conclusion, let's ignore that and make up some wild conjecture that has nothing to do with Wolbachia and the fact that it contains eukaryotic genes. After all I'm sure your Grand Theory of Intelligent Design Lab has HGT covered anyway, right?
DeleteDazz, study this then let me know what it says as it relates to "repetitive elements":
DeleteRepetitive DNA and ENCODE, by Salvador Cordova
The theory covers all in biology, on into all the other sciences. And look, MrIntelligentDesign just helped too!
Do you realize how dumb you look when you post a link to an article from Cordova, that starts his conclusion with a very telling:
DeleteSo it’s just my conjecture...
precisely after I called you out for making wild conjectures instead of reading what the paper actually supports?
The theory covers all in biology, on into all the other sciences. And look, MrIntelligentDesign just helped too!
DeleteYour theory doesn't need to cover all fields like Posretardo's, of course not, but covering some of one field of study would be cool, you know. What does your "theory" do to help us understand HGT and it's impact on biodiversity? I have an overclocked Sandy Bridge here in case you want me to run some advanced simulation of your Crap Bug Lab
Then explain what you believe the paper actually supports.
DeleteAnd a bawitdaba to you too.
Then explain what you believe the paper actually supports
DeleteI shouldn't have to explain anything when you can read and try to understand what the actual conclusion of the paper is. I'm not a biologist so I have no expertise in the field, but unlike you, I don't have delusions of grandeur. I don't claim to have a revolutionary new theory, you do.
I interpret that result as supporting evidence that (some?) bacteria is more prone to "absorbing" external genes than we thought and that suggests that the case for endosymbiosis as the explanation for the prokaryote to Eukaryot transition is reinforced by this experiment
I could be wrong, but unlike you or posretard, I'm not out to turn the scientific world upside down, and the point I'm trying to make is that nobody cares what a lunatic like you thinks he can quote-mine from that paper, it's what the experiment supports what matters
P.S. you lost all the musical respect points you got for the Simple Minds reference with that Kid Rock BS, and then some
DeleteYour theory doesn't need to cover all fields like Posretardo's, of course not, but covering some of one field of study would be cool, you know.
DeleteA (real or modeled) system that is constructed of and powered by the behavior of matter first relies on physics then must cover size scale levels on up to the whole universe, which brings us to astronomy and even rocket science. Music, dance and other products of intelligent cause are included in its framework. I seriously do not know of any science field that outside of the territory that this one has to cover.
What does your "theory" do to help us understand HGT and it's impact on biodiversity?
Without a predictive model to show what the underlying circuit looks like and what intelligence adds to its behavior you are just plain lost. But since all look busy it seems like you're making great progress understanding how living things work.
I have an overclocked Sandy Bridge here in case you want me to run some advanced simulation of your Crap Bug Lab
Be my guest. Try it in your favorite computer language. Give the critter hearing or something. Or try to model from physics on up, see how fast your computer slows way down after trying to form a single cell. Then read the theory for how to try getting past that and keep going up in scale.
P.S. you lost all the musical respect points you got for the Simple Minds reference with that Kid Rock BS, and then some
DeleteConsidering how Joe G reeled in a good one that time the chaos level is way too tremendous in this forum for love song embedded metaphors to make any sense.
I seriously do not know of any science field that outside of the territory that this one has to cover
DeleteIs this supposed to read...?
I seriously do not know of any science field that's outside of the territory that this one (your theory) has to cover
Yes but more precisely: I seriously do not know of any science field that's outside of the territory that the "Theory of Intelligent Design" has to cover, regardless of who was the first to figure out how to scientifically explain what its premise is describing.
DeleteOf course Gaulin, because "God did it" explains it all. There's no field of knowledge outside of the scope of such an amazing finding.
DeleteP.S. you have now officially leveled up to Crank Mogul Omni Fucktard and you can now compete with Posretardo for the Golden Crocoduck award. You can also show up as Cordova's sidekick, it's going to be a tie anyway
We have been practicing out science moves. You do not stand a chance against us:
DeleteBest Jukes In Football History
YEC joey g drooled without thinking, as usual:
Delete"And bacteria will always be bacteria. There isn't a mechanism that can allow them to evolve into somethimg else"
Hey YEC joey, thanks for admitting, again, that ID is anti-evolution even though you often say that ID is not anti-evolution. Thanks too for admitting that 'design' is not a mechanism.
Ya see, joey, if ID were pro-evolution and relied on 'design' as the mechanism for evolution you wouldn't have said what you said above and you would never put any limits on evolution. Instead of constantly claiming that this can't happen and that can't happen and this can't change into that and that can't changes into this and this can't evolve and that can't evolve you and all the other IDiot-creationists would be claiming that all of that and more CAN and DOES happen, change, and evolve BECAUSE 'design' (the alleged mechanism used by your imaginary sky daddy allahoo-yahoo-yeshoo-holy-spook) makes it happen, change, evolve, and more.
Every time you put your fingers on a keyboard you dig a deeper hole for the ID agenda. Keep up the good work!
Then explain what you believe the paper actually supports.
DeleteIt quite clearly shows that Wolbachia's genome is following the same route proposed for those of mitochondria and chloroplasts, based on current thinking on the symbiosis theory. Sadly we will be dead, and will not observe the outcome, but give this process a few hundred million years, and I predict this "bacteria" will be indistinguishable from an arthropod/nematode specific, DNA containing organelle.
The comment was to rebut JoeG's "bacteria always bacteria" claim - these bacteria are excellent candidates for bacteria that will cease to be recognized as a bacteria, and will likely become a part of their Eukaryotic host.
The question of how bacteria evolved into something else (eukaryotes) is an area of ongoing research, but quite a bit is known about it, as reviewed in Koonin 2015, http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2014.0333
ReplyDeleteHere from Koonin's paper this transition is extremely complex and there are no id.entified intermediates. Several mega multi protein complexes evolved (spliceosome and nuclear pore complex) that take up hundreds of thousands of base pairs in the genome. There is some evidence of endosymbosis but it describes just the beginning to the journey. From the paper:
Delete"The origin of eukaryotes is one of the hardest and most intriguing problems in the study of the evolution of life, and arguably, in the whole of biology. Compared to archaea and bacteria (collectively, prokaryotes), eukaryotic cells are three to four orders of magnitude larger in volume and display a qualitatively higher level of complexity of intracellular organization [1–3]. Unlike the great majority of prokaryotes, eukaryotic cells possess an extended system of intracellular membranes that includes the eponymous eukaryotic organelle, the nucleus, and fully compartmentalizes the intracellular space. In eukaryotic cells, proteins, nucleic acids and small molecules are distributed by specific trafficking mechanisms rather than by free diffusion as is largely the case in bacteria and archaea [4,5]. Thus, eukaryotic cells function on different physical principles compared to prokaryotic cells, which is directly due to their (comparatively) enormous size.
The gulf between the cellular organizations of eukaryotes and prokaryotes is all the more striking because no intermediates have been found."
You read the abstract, but apparently not the Addendum about the "game-changing discovery" of "a remarkable group of archaea from marine sludge that combined the two key properties expected of the eukaryotic ancestor" (phylogenetic position as sister-group to eukaryotes and a gene repertoire predicted for the last common ancestor of eukaryotes and their non-eukaryote relatives.
DeleteBetween abstract and addendum, the article has a lot of good information, too.
Just to note I deleted my quote above. After "Mr. ID's" comment disappeared, it looks like I am disagreeing with bwilson295, which is not the case.
DeleteHi bwilson295: I did read both. Did the identified ancestors have a functional nucleus with chromosomes, a spliceosome and a nuclear pore complex? If not the I think that Koonin's statement in the abstract is valid.
ReplyDelete"The gulf between the cellular organizations of eukaryotes and prokaryotes is all the more striking because no intermediates have been found."
I don't know enough about this recently discovered archaea to answer your question about them, and it is likely that no one knows yet. It's going to be exciting to see what more is learned about these and presumably other unusual archaea.
DeleteI just scroll down th write this. I sincerely hope the infestation of this blog soon may come to an end. Until then, I'm out of here.
ReplyDeleteThe judge failed to cut through all the jargon and come to the essence of it. If freedom is real and relevant in the universe, then intelligent design theory is basically valid. The judge went the way of denying freedom is real. It was a victory of evolutionist intellectuals playing philosophy games, over real people who need practical knowledge about how things are chosen in order to live their life.
ReplyDelete