Monday, December 26, 2011

ENV - "How Bright is the Future of Intelligent Design?"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Well, once my contribution(s) to the movement get underway I hope both the awareness and acceptance of ID becomes more widespread in my area. To think that today is the fourth anniversary of me becoming permanently interested in this debate; boy has time flown.

And Dover? Hard to say whether that harmed the "IDM" Jones decided to rule against or if it actually made people more aware of ID in the years that followed. The Scopes trial didn't stop undirected evolution from gaining a following, so perhaps Dover really should be taken lightly as well.

While it may not have garnered much attention until long after Fred Hoyle began to formulate the roots of ID as we know it today, I think it's far from dead.

If anything it's just getting started...


By the way, this might come in handy for anyone who wants an education in a field relevant to ID but does not wish to go about getting a full degree:

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2011/mitx-education-initiative-1219.html

Wish this option was around <i>before</i> I started college. Of course, MIT's new certification won't make you a tenured professor somewhere in the foreseeable future. But for any origins junkie on either side this could turn out to be useful.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (MingW32)
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=AyzG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Sunday, September 25, 2011

Reply to Nick Matzke on "Richard Lenski's Long-Term Evolution Experiments with E. coli and the Origin of New Biological Information"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


I've only had a chance to skim through some of what you've written, but here's my two cents
on things that caught my attention:

<blockquote>"1. Agree or disagree -- Michael Behe accepts that evolution can produce new
genes, and thus new information."</blockquote>

You've pretty much engaged in the very thing Luskin called out Dennis Venema for. Producing
 <i>something</i> is a far cry from producing <i>everything.</i>

<blockquote>"Please define "fundamentally new". Creationists/IDists regularly use such
vague language as an escape hatch when their claims are under pressure, but they never give
a precise, scientific definition of "fundamentally new"."</blockquote>

http://www.uncommondescent.com/comment-policy/put-a-sock-in-it/

Is their response to the question of <i>"What Do You Mean by “Constructive” Beneficial
Mutations Exactly?"</i> good enough?

And what is a "precise, scientific definition" supposed to look like to you? I agree that the
kind of information/traits we are talking about must be decided before a verdict can be
ruled about any evolutionary outcome. But if the standards for a useful definition are not
defined ahead of time, then all Design critics will do is just declare any new definition
someone puts forth for new traits/information as being insufficient.

<blockquote>"Please note that if "fundamentally new" means "no significant sequence
similarity to other genes, then, at the very least, most of most genomes is not
"fundamentally new" and thus could have evolved from common ancestors without violating
 Meyer's "law"."</blockquote>

I'm pretty sure there is a big enough difference between the genomes of <i>past</i>
ancestors (yes, I am assuming common descent is a fact here) and the species of
<i>today</i> to see plenty of fundamentally new sequencing in the process. Even if there is
significant sequence homology, surely a <i>new feature</i> would require a <i>new set of
information</i> to generate it, correct?

<blockquote>"A new gene with a new function has got to be a fair amount of new
information, doesn't it? If it isn't, you can't go around claiming that genes have lots of
information in them, which Meyer et al. clearly do."</blockquote>

Agreed (as I said above), but there's nothing about that which Meyer or Luskin would deny.
The disagreement is over whether or not new biochemical features touted as evolutionary
success stories are beyond the UPB threshold. (see below)

<blockquote>"So, if mutation and natural selection produce 10 bits, what magical process
stops them from adding another 10 bits, and another 10 bits after that?"</blockquote>

If low probability is a "process" then there's your answer. The main (but not the only)
argument made from the ID camp as I understand it is that it is unlikely for new traits to be
generated by evolutionary processes - just minor variations on what's already there to begin
 with.

But more importantly, you've missed the point that Meyer was originally making and that
Casey just pointed out below, namely that Meyer was referring to information in a
<b>pre-biotic</b> context and not in a biological/Darwinian sense. Thus you're focusing on
an <i>entirely different</i> problem from what Luskin and Meyer were referring to.

In your next paragraph you basically state that <i>seperate isolated</i> cases of
evolutionary processes producing a bit or two of information can all "add up" to 500 bits of
information; thus Meyer, Dembski, or anyone else who agrees with their work is wrong.

There are two main problems with this:

1. First, when anyone speaks in reference to the Universal <b>Probability</b> Bound in any
way, it refers to a <i>probability</i> of 10 to the negative 150th power; not necessarily
<i>500 bits,</i> and this is where I think you and Luskin are talking past each other. The
difference?

Generating 500 bits by <i>chance alone</i> is equivalent to the UPB, but it's clear that you are
 not referring to chance alone being involved in the production of new features. Thus 500
<i>bits</i> may be generated without it being something approaching an
<i>improbability</i> of 10 to the negative 150th.

So if there is <i>more than blind chance</i> involved in generating information, then the
question should not be, "Did we generate 500 <b>bits?</b>" but rather, "Is the
<b>probability</b> of generating this more or less likely than 10 to the negative 150th?"

2. Now here is the main issue I have with the idea that <i>seperately isolated</i> cases of
generating <i>smaller changes</i> that don't quite reach the UPB threshold can "add up to"
a total net increase in function that renders the UPB false. The difference between seperate
 cases of small information increase and an entire new feature that reaches the UPB
threshold makes all the difference.

Here are separate isolated cases (in this case, words) of information:

TO PROBABILITY THE LESS FIFTIETH RANDOMLY TO THAN GENERATE ONE POWER BOUND
SENTENCE OF PROBABLE THE HUNDRED TEN UNIVERSAL IS THIS 

Each word is less improbable to randomly generate than the UPB. But that does not mean
that they all "add up" to something meaningful.

Now here is a full string (or sentence) that - if you were trying to randomly generate it -
reaches the level of Dembski's Universal Probability Bound:

THIS SENTENCE IS LESS PROBABLE TO RANDOMLY GENERATE THAN THE UNIVERSAL
PROBABILITY BOUND OF TEN TO THE ONE HUNDRED FIFTIETH POWER

As you can see, there is a huge difference between <b>separate</b> cases of producing
something of a probability that is greater than UPB and a case in which a feature <b>as a
whole</b> manages to surpass that threshold.

<blockquote>"If you can't produce an explanation that is as detailed and well-evidenced,
why should scientists take ID seriously in this case?"</blockquote>

A few points on this one:

1. Didn't you say it makes no sense to expect that a theory must explain <i>everything</i> in
 order to be true?

2. If we find that undirected processes are incapable of generating something and we know
that intelligence has far greater causal adequacy of producing anything analogous, then
what should we conclude?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (GNU/Linux)

iQGcBAEBAgAGBQJOf9tuAAoJEAlY1kTu1KLhiI8L/2CxMHdA5EXeLMCfYhGBcPTx
vus09o6Zubf6WnKWTeSi/ioNlxGtwALlp+ddRd5SHRRywZqKf3UyQP1sR4wa9nhW
L13Hx0KkppKuCisNliDWCK4ERNRfUlCjLmUNMfoN7bUn3TKF54kxntxExUkiuDa/
RtnAYSsYPz8tO0IyRp/eGU2XaGR+gtVkdjkg80kayk/nT4pUmkwF/WALrNbRV8gt
dyyy2xdXTj8VDWK4lBnhjaGConubqtv4l2A9oQGGikqvqw6MXdblnb8zU3hzVvIz
kSI6ufDL429ebZeN+k+L3/VphxHoYJGUC5zqqZBKnh6oxnHff5iZcF4aSZSyIcWq
h/RQyxfqRNXTX/r4W64OSIViypKxXGxWNrBXlnm9O7mQ5yc8mTR7rPtQe5RLK0UM
DDNpYMCJUTyDLuBGTyi96z9upTNNCnJNNOcysTvkMW7bQeNQEj1jcP8eVC89nKiF
or+K9OP3KSf5l2R7PcjNpsEw6xsn7RCOsLixj+QBjw==
=gE09
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Friday, September 23, 2011

First Comment on "Richard Lenski's Long-Term Evolution Experiments with E. coli and the Origin of New Biological Information"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Oh just wait!

There will be a multitude of people arguing that evolutionary theory has not been
falsified because...


1. We didn't use the right microbial strain.

2. Different test conditions would've produced better results.

3. The experiment just needs a little more time.

4. Evolution never had a "goal" of producing new information, but it could.

5. There must be some kind of multiverse to give enough trials.


...all while simultaneously claiming that ID is untestable and has already been falsified.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (GNU/Linux)
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=rbjh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Tuesday, August 23, 2011

Second Comment on ENV - New Scientist Weighs in on Origin of Life

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

<blockquote><i>JonathanM naively assumed back then that a severe difficulty with the RNA
world was that you would have to first separately assemble base, ribose, and phosphate, and
then assemble all three.</i></blockquote>

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure producing <b>some</b> nucleotides (half in this case)
under <b>heavily orchestrated</b> conditions (manipulating pH, temperature, and UV
radiation levels) doesn't make his claim about <b><i>prebiotic</i></b> conditions any less
 true.

I found the following statement Charles Garner made a few years ago pretty relevant to this:

<blockquote>"The starting materials are "plausibly" obtainable by abiotic means, but need to
 be <b>kept isolated</b> from one another until the <b>right step,</b> as Sutherland
admits." [<i>emphasis mine</i>]</blockquote>

So do they only form independently or is the Sutherland paper just another case of citation
bluffing?

<blockquote><i>This shoots his credibility; scientists are supposed to admit their
mistakes.</i></blockquote>

I can agree with this, but deciding who is losing credibility is where we part ways.

In the meantime I would like to note that I envy you Jonathan M. I hope to acquire the same
depth of knowledge myself so I can put it to use and disseminate it to others.

- From behind seven proxies of course.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (GNU/Linux)
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=vYVI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Friday, August 19, 2011

ENV - New Scientist Weighs in on the Origin of Life

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Interesting how Nick Matzke (on the Pandas Thumb) thinks that the Sutherland experiments
(which you already address in this post) went right past your head - even though
you address that research in the last quarter of your post.

Not that those experiments haven't been addressed on ENV already though:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/07/scientists_say_intelligent_des022621.html
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (GNU/Linux)
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=mQJi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Friday, August 5, 2011

ENV- Question About Berlinski's Previous Work

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Speaking of Berlinski, does anyone know if the following got translated into English?


http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/05/yet_another_new_berlinski_book005949.html
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (MingW32)
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=3LqQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Wednesday, August 3, 2011

ENV - "The Glory Beyond: David Berlinski's Elementary Mathematics"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

<i>"You're supposed to be impressed not by the wisdom of anything that's said -- because no one says anything memorably wise -- but by the prestige of the job descriptions, titles, awards and academic affiliations that appear in quick succession in a corner of the screen."</i>

That would appear to sum up half the arguments presented on their part.

I remember first hearing the arguments that higher-level math capabilities developed in humans as the result of sexual selection - in the context that knowing Maxwell's equations should have the same effect as having colorful peacock feathers.

When I passed this on to a friend he cracked a joke about it on UD that I really think shows just how bizarre it is, but I can't say it's appropriate to repeat it here.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (MingW32)
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=vSMk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

ENV - "The Professor and the Madman"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Andrew,

No one denies he said many things in public that would encourage people to support his rise to
power.

There is a term generally used by people in the Darwin lobby to refer to taking individual quotes
out of context to attribute views to the person that they themselves never had. That term
escapes me at the moment...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (MingW32)

iQGcBAEBAgAGBQJOObOCAAoJEAlY1kTu1KLhWVAMAIB/G2WlcLJJLb0gSQeQ7+cU
m5dezUFL0xsvjZyPiRgyAdMy/qjUYa1/NDbrKwtWHc3W+HRS0ijtPUwLdTy+u8iL
Z2pdEkkEBvhARxDAm6sa2k57TRVrIby7Eh/EynqsRKDrllvS51SGutQrF+fH4XEN
NNAppE092HkoU7ykrz9IsPu0vu1/QWq8fxpuoCYYZ/ob3R4/an4oxdY56JYrcTF+
woiPWCCbAztd02FKUB0m/hsACoBj/evhJa110FaukCBk9cMfP3Z6VOfRKiO2ITJe
WukG6+QIMgaD5ym8JlFI3eeNYHCCaFz8sVY63jazvsMKPbLKKo31KqcGim4Rxerr
l75bmf35MYAJxowyaC5skvcqZ4C6eIhxvuFcQ0AjKoMloa5wCnhJFsywSjKPix3Q
Uzjw3GGZnQWv9liknPBxtTU3kBoBZ4R75sBJdcYB9VOVYN3yoE45kgUSfsu0ghcG
jC9cCZH0jNAR264nszSl1BjXDk/aBrmyI4th0qNHHQ==
=7phf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Monday, June 20, 2011

Comment on "Colliding With the Pharyngula"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

"Wow, you've really risen the ranks in a matter of months to become a top-notch advocate for this. I honestly wish I could take it upon myself to go to the same events and make it apparent which side I'm on, but my current circumstances don't allow it to be risk-free.

The other day I was pondering the fact that numerous critics of ID accuse it of being a religious movement - even in cases when they admit that it is based on cause and effect knowledge of what we can observe - and not on sacred text.

It turns out that by their logic there have been huge sums of money funding a key "creationist" movement for some time now...

http://www.seti.org/

Maybe we should call the ACLU on this one?"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (GNU/Linux)
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=bP9l
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Saturday, June 4, 2011

ENV - "Inherit the Wind at Christianity Today"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

It's about time we've seen something to correct the misrepresentations in Inherit the Wind. If
there happens to be any screenings of Alleged in my area I will be one of the first to register.

In the meantime, perhaps someone should send the folks at Christianity Today a copy of "Summer
for the Gods" so they can more accurately report what they're trying to cover.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (MingW32)
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=z91x
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Friday, April 22, 2011

UD: Comment (Actually a Critical Question) on "Good Friday Thoughts"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I asked this earlier, but didn't get an answer so I'll ask again.

If I hold that ID has the most powerful explanatory power, but don't think any real agency exists,
 am I still an IDer?

By this I mean in the context of an atomic model that - while not accurate to scale - still gives us
 a better understanding of how the whole thing works.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (MingW32)
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=W6/t
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

ENV: First comment on, "The New Evangelism"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Like all theistic evolutionists - he's either not aware of the discrepancy he's ignoring or he's really
just another front-loader unwilling to admit what he really thinks. Case in point:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/10/behe_to_miller_youre_an_intell004407.html
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (MingW32)
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=C+qf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Wednesday, April 13, 2011

First Comment on "Paradox of Randomness"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Interesting post! And pretty relevant to Behe's EoE as well. Amazing how many people accused
 him of making a pure estimate of his own in malarial resistance to chloroquine. Or claim that he
 ignored that there are already a trillion malaria cells in a single infected person.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (MingW32)
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=J/d/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Tuesday, April 12, 2011

Second comment on "Understanding Ontogenetic Depth, Part II"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In terms of PZ's response to you, the only claims he made related to the subject of your posts is
as follows:

"Step one is simply cell adhesion. Step two is gene regulation. Step three is epigenetics. That's it."

Now that's attention to detail. No surprise though that most of his response dealt with accusing
you of quoting out of context - the opposition can get pretty worked up when their own views
are put under critical scrutiny.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (MingW32)
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=MUnn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Monday, April 11, 2011

Understanding Ontogenetic Depth, Part II - Second comment

Apparently the use of the term "natural selection" over "evolution" requires justification when critiquing selection itself. Otherwise, the discussion becomes just plain confusing. Who knew?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I guess maybe I am pointing out the obvious, but whatever.

Nelson is elaborating on a hurdle that he holds selection cannot cross. Hence his use of the term "Natural Selection."
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (MingW32)
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=W1gZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

UD - "Does Life Use a Non-Random Set of Amino Acids?"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Wow, that was an excellent post on ENV! You've been doing an excellent job keeping tabs on some worthwhile arguments relevant to the debate at hand.

Up until now I didn't think much of the issue of amino acid compositions beyond the fact that there are 20 typically used, and they are all left-handed.

Looks like there's even more constraint to the picture than most in the field would be willing to accept.

Abiogenesis just got harder.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (MingW32)
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=c1g0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

First (sort of...) Comment on "I'm from Missouri"

Ran into this blog (and it's author) on the internet before, it's been quite a while. Glad he left a comment on ENV or I would've almost forgotten the whole ordeal.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

What up Larry! It's been years since I first came across your blog back in the day; I left a pretty
hefty amount of comments but that was then. I think we ran into each other on Youtube at one
point too and I didn't realize you were the same person.

I plan on being a new follower for as long as it remains active!

- -Jeffrey Helix
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (MingW32)
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=RLo7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Comment on UD - "The Nature of Nature - Sticky"

It's about time this book came out!

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

An excellent compilation! I recognize many of the contributions from elsewhere and even those
were worth rereading again. Fazale Rana's chapter on molecular convergence comes to mind; I
first read that chapter in "The Cell's Design" and it's amazing to see how relevant that subject
has become now that Morris has made some heavy contributions in that area (while taking a less
overt stance on what the implications are).

This book will take me a month to finish. It's one of those must haves that should be
included with some of the IDEA Center kits given to club start ups. It's a shame the Polanyi
Center was shut down, but it's great to see that something of real significance resulted from it
and will keep the memory of it alive!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (MingW32)

iQGcBAEBAgAGBQJNo4UcAAoJEAlY1kTu1KLh9oIMAKysctfxFT5x6r97LlqytLhu
tF/XFkmdUJDAYIC+U8dBfmFJWp9kNUforSuIg7JLI5blBqR5mBxGl6r+tH3WWVyn
UuZwGUQ2bfrNULCPmpgrto3nIg8hh6V+wpdD5Zb7qYPyDYmVCSSKWzO6gGNjMc9T
lZKRhWP/2VStVptcAmeDRvu86ZVGb/5Xiu7JRVzyLF/2U5FZqMotZ4i+prH58OfX
Up5NHa6mKnrtHxnsNNZwtEvWy9MgGsQXogS+9aqUKsK1ThUm30uKDq8iTO8Cbepf
0vziz7l+Oh5xvZTrAkR5d8wo9U6+uFzcDi2zY46Z2k9y5HVnloD+IdbiQri/QvlR
006vh8GiBKOdqfROUmm9MKXIQpcEph1UlA0ZxEEFh7gWryeN6gmGnG1oNpCC+1Rm
Zl9yreOZqmMSS40WmfI1HXXhJW4yIi9KzoNv7fktumaWgRmtUTRN+Pij2W73nGPA
uX2j6wAFWxHK9wMj+ttFgnYLbFrmDOFuyqbskP5uyQ==
=9Rvv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Friday, April 8, 2011

Understanding Ontogenetic Depth Part II - First comment

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

That sure was a long read, would've fit nicely in "The Nature of Nature."

On second thought, that book is probably going to take me AT LEAST another month to plow
through, so maybe space constraints would've been an issue...

Never thought I'd have any respect for a young-earther, but you Paul seem to be a major
exception. I guess I just don't care what anyone personally interprets from a sacred text, so
long as that same text in question isn't used exclusively to draw a conclusion (and yes, that
standard applies to Ken Miller and Francis Collins as well for those of you who wish to take that
out of context).

Now the waiting game begins for critics to tell you your explanation wasn't clear enough, and
demand that you try again.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (MingW32)
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=pzD/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Saturday, March 19, 2011

UD - "Congrats Nick Matzke for Publishing ID Sympathetic Paper in Nature!"

This may be the early beginnings of a new partnership...

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

**they won’t stay that way.

Also…

jonnyb, I looked over your site and I can already say for sure that we have a TON that we could
 work on! I’ve been looking for an IDer with a programming background for something… Well, I’ll
 just email you when I get the chance about it.

I’m currently set to publish three books on ID with an “emergent” publisher that is just
beginning to orient itself (it’s sole proprietor is already giving me the means to remain
pseudonymous).

There is one book I have in mind (outside the three for Janus) in particular that I may want to
 look into submitting a manuscript of for your consideration. Since it would help if someone had
 a programming background to understand it, and I’m especially glad to see you know a thing or
 two about Linux!

I’ll drop you an email soon with the details once I get the chance…
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (MingW32)
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=JZaK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

UD - "Congrats Nick Matzke for Publishing ID Sympathetic Paper in Nature!"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

John Sanford’s book, “Genetic Entropy” was one of the books shipped to me once the IDEA
Club I founded was approved. It took a few reads for it to sink in, but it definitely convinced me
 that front-loading had it’s fair share of limits.

More importantly it changed the way I think about neutral mutations; though they may not have
 any initial effects at the level of phenotype, the accumulating effects that follow generations
later guarantee won’t stay that way.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (MingW32)
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=G9Pc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

UD - "We Will if You Will"

 I think this might be the first time outside of Crypto-IDEA that I've used the term cybermormon.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Matteo,

You pretty much summed up everything that I think is wrong with the first generation of
cybermormons that have started to take any chance they can to spam on about non-belief.

I’d explain the origins of that conjunction, but it would require linking to a video that might
not fit the tastes of UD.

To the mods on UD: Is it okay if I link to a video featuring a consistently swearing agnostic
ranting against atheists (aka “…the Jehovah’s Witnesses of Youtube”)?

@ NielBJ-“His reasoning may be flawed, and it is certainly legitimate to point out where he
has gone wrong.”

Then by all means, please do so.



I do have a question though about what exactly distinguishes an IDer from a non-IDer. Here’s
 the definition that I typically refer to:

http://www.discovery.org/v/2

Now let’s say I do feel that taking a design-theoretic approach leads to a far greater
understanding of physical features than non-telic alternatives, but don’t actually hold that a
designer actually exists. Under this view I would hold that agency is sort of like the typical
textbook atom diagram which while not correct, does allow people to understand what
someone is actually working with.

Am I no longer in the ID camp if I take this sort of view?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (MingW32)
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=j+Zs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Friday, March 18, 2011

The Universe Is Haunted: Reflections on the "Nature of Nature" - First comment

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Just ordered it! I've been anticipating this for a while ever since Dembski
 mentioned it on Uncommon Descent. Glad to see such a diverse set of contributions whether
it be on the pro-ID side or non-ID (e.g. Michael Shermer).
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (MingW32)
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=OV21
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Thursday, March 17, 2011

Second Comment on UD - "The Conway Morris Disclaimer"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Dembski,

If I were devoting this comment strictly to explaining how much your work has changed my
worldview, I'm not sure I would find the words to explain it (Assuming that I would be able to
finish it of course).

Along with the other folks with the CSC, you really shifted my focus in life permanently, and I
mean that in a good way. We've met briefly over a year ago (signing a copy of the Design of
Life), and I really didn't say much because frankly I didn't know where to start.

In the coming years I hope to really boost the number of people who value your work for what it
 is. While we definitely have some disagreements in some areas, they are trivial compared to
the big picture that is ID.

Very glad to be a part of this now, and for everyone else, thanks for the welcomes/dialogue in
the last post about front-loading. I can tell I will be a regular visitor here for some time to come.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (MingW32)
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=P4ki
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

More on "Michael Behe Hasn't Been Refuted on the Flagellum"

In cases where I make multiple comments in short succession and don't have access to my key or VPN, I'll just sign multiple comments at once.

As I have promised...

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Stuart Rayner said: "So no one remembers how in the dover trial Behe admitted under
oath that intelligent design wasn't science..."


No one remembers because that's not what he said. You must be referring to the claim that
for ID to be science astrology would be included as well so therefore ID isn't science. Actually,
 there's more to the picture. His definition of science really doesn't differ much from the NAS.
 Casey Luskin did a post several years ago (and you thought Dover would be the nail in the
coffin of ID - boy did that turn out to be wrong) pointing out that the NAS definition leads to
the same conclusions as the one Behe presented:


http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/10/500_years_ago_geocentrism_aamp_astrology001085.html


The problem with astrology isn't that it's not science, it's just plain wrong. Period. It's been
tested and found wanting.


<i>"...and that he had read none of the material that showed his hypothesis to be, at the
very least, flawed?"</i>


Once again you fail to recall an accurate account of what actually happen in that local district
 case. You must be referring to the claim that Behe was presented with literature that
(supposedly) gave detailed evolutionary origins of the immune system. This has been
covered on ENV before:


http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/07/ken_millers_only_a_theory_atta_1023151.html


http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/02/ken_miller_and_the_evolution_o031531.html


http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/12/five_years_later_evolutionary_042001.html


Behe didn't read the material because (like many counter arguments made against him) it
 wasn't addressed at the anything he said.


<i>"When building a house, you don't make it rely on hundreds of parts that need to be
exactly right, so why would it be any different for a simple propulsion system?"</i>


Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe a house <i>does</i> require certain constraints to be
met in it's construction. The same goes for the flagellum. Below in a comment Luskin
highlighted the fact that showing the origin of parts alone doesn't mean we know for sure an
evolutionary origin to the bacterial flagellum is confirmed. Questions go from availability,
synchronization, localization, interfering proteins, interfacing, assembly order, to general
configuration.



SECOND COMMENT


"I have also read that certain long term tests with bacteria have shown that anything
requiring more than two mutations is hard to come by."



Not just any mutations per se, but in cases where there is nothing that is selectable enough
 to replace the wildtype unless two complementary changes occur. Here you have the
problem of evolution being limited by the fact that selection is pretty much incapable of
improving upon anything.



Ralph Seelke has done some pretty cool stuff in this area as well as Doug Axe (ID the Future
 recently did some interviews with him regarding his latest paper on this subject). Not to
mention Behe's latest paper on this very subject.



http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/12/michael_behes_first_rule_of_ad041461.html



But nonetheless you're pretty much right, you would be very hard pressed to find anything
 requiring multiple amino acid changes before selective benefit is present to easily be within
 the reach of evolutionary processes.

All in all the limit to evolutionary processes stem not so much from selection by itself being
 ineffective but rather because it frequently has nothing significant to "select" in the first place.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (MingW32)
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=u3ix
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Wednesday, March 16, 2011

Second Comment on Design Matrix - "Convergence Website"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I've had an interest in Simon's views on evolution ever since I heard of his book, "Life's Solution."
While I haven't had the chance to read it yet, I've heard elsewhere that he does hold a somewhat
telic view of evolution, so I look forward to what he presents on this site.

At any rate, he definitely is a go-to researcher on the Cambrian era.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (MingW32)
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=jHsX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

More Comments on Homologous Legs

UPDATE: The dialogue on this blog has given me an idea that I probably won't be able to cash in on until several years from now. Hopefully it will encourage people to raise the level of discourse on any subject really.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

"If i was going to say that, I would have. I did not..."


You did claim that Behe has done nothing beyond proofs by assertion, so I would think that

would apply to what he's written so far.


"I'm claiming Micheal Behe repeatedly restates that irreducible complexity is true when each

of his arguments he uses to support that claim has been contradicted, repeatedly."


Now we're beginning to scratch the surface here. Can you elaborate on what these repeated

contradictions are? Miller? Matzke? Anything along those lines?


+


"If I asserted "the sky is blue", and then wondered off into the distance, would you shout after

me "that was a Bare Assertion Fallacy you fool!"."


No, I consider that to be almost axiomatic, but if I someone argued that ID was either just as

self-evident or just as verifiably wrong, I would ask for a little more than just a bare assertion.


"I may make a 'Bare Assertion', but that does not mean it is unsupported, only that I have

not provided said 'support'."


Then why not provide the said support?


And we find no disagreement here on the bible.


"So, having addressed your implied claim that my assertion was 'unsupported',"


You admitted that you didn't provide said support so how did you address it?


"Arguing on the internet ROCKS! Love you!"


I wouldn't even consider this anywhere near an argument, I think you've been pretty civil so

 far.


+


"These posts are not written with the intention of being anywhere near argumentatively

airtight or particularly persuasive to those who are ID proponents."


This makes more sense in that case then. I thus won't hold you to a standard that nobody

 should intend to strive for since every disagreement is not settled by making the the other

 side change their mind.


+


"Assertion is fine if everyone already can see your point and follow your logic implicitly."


I guess that's a good description of your approach then.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (MingW32)
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=P8kK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Second (sort of) Comment on Homologous Legs

Lesson for all: Don't use bare assertions to accuse someone of making them.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

"No matter how much evidence and arguments are given in contradiction to irreducible
complexity, he still claims it is?"

Making a claim without substantiating it so...

"Logical Fallacy Fail!"

QED
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_assertion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bare_assertion_falla...

If you're going to claim Behe simply wrote two books based around bare assertion alone, then
at least give specific examples. Then the irony of your comment won't be as apparent.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (MingW32)
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=8NfD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Comment on the Definition and Nature of Irreducible Complexity

 This is continued from my last comments in the previous post. Because I'm dealing with a lot of stuff related to how Irreducible Complexity is defined (as well as misdefined), these comments require a separate post altogether.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

drs said: "Perhaps my understanding of "Irreducibly Complex" is incorrect..."

While it's not a total misunderstanding, I think it misses the point.

"...but I thought the concept meant that certain systems are too complex to have evolved."

Here's a good starting point on this subject:

Primer: Irreducible Complexity in a Nutshell

And in case you have some beef with the mousetrap example because an intelligent agent
can modify the parts to get a one-piece system (in which the analogy would no longer apply to
 features in question), see the following:

A Mousetrap Defended: Response to Critics
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (MingW32)
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=a89w
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Tuesday, March 15, 2011

My First (Really???) Comment on Uncommon Descent

I have followed this blog every once and a while but until a friend took the initiative for me, I was never sure about whether or not I should take part in any of the discussions on UD.

Can't believe this is my first comment there...

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

For several years now, I have considered joining a site like this. A friend finally registered me
saying I could use the fresh air, so I guess that settles it.

I would say more but to keep under the radar there’s a limit to what I can say for now. I’ll just
state right now that I’m honored to be a part of a community like this - period.

In terms of physics, I think front-loading should almost universally be the default view for
anyone in the ID camp. So far as we can tell, such constraints have remained the same since
 the singularity.

What I do in my reasoning is I try and take a minimalist view on apparent intervention;
meaning that I start with the assumption that everything is front-loaded. From there I look for
 examples that place a limitation on how far this can go (abiogenesis for instance).

For this reason I totally agree with that last paragraph of yours, life and physics (along with
 chemistry) are in an entirely different class when it comes to the efficacy of front-loading
explanations. Unlike laws, the constituents of life depend on more than just pure existence
to achieve their purpose.

This reminds me of the “Humpty Dumpty” dilemma that Jonathan Wells has highlighted in
the past. Break a cell membrane so the contents leak, and you no longer have a living cell
despite the presence of organic materials.

I think this gives us a clue as to where we can draw the line on front-loading. Simply ask
yourself, “Does the presence of a given law, element, or some set of circumstances allow for
 living systems to thrive or does there appear to be something else added to the picture for
 this to happen?”

As an example, Meyer has repeated countless times the fact that DNA and it’s chemical
 properties by itself cannot arrange into anything functional, hence front-loading loses it’s
 potential in the origins of life.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (MingW32)
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=kW8b
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

First Comments on Homologous Legs

A few years ago I figured it would be a matter of time before this blog would end up on Scienceblogs. While that hasn't happened, it seems like the teen turned young undergrad has scored the next best thing

MENTAL NOTE: Always take a moment to read the blog in question before giving it any kind of feedback...

Aside from the first two comments, this is the main one where I highlight my biggest criticism of the post in question, as well as Homologous Legs in general...

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

"Charged rhetoric, bold sweeping conclusions and cursory analysis? Where have I heard those
things before? Surely not from Casey Luskin, the King of Bloated Rhetoric! My irony meter
melted."

Interesting...

"It’s not “outlandish rhetoric” if it’s true."

"Again, it’s not outlandish if it’s true."

"It’s descriptive and rather accurate, I think."

"I see no outlandish rhetoric here."

"...but, again, it’s hardly outlandish."

"Nothing bad here, just accurate and calm descriptors of Behe’s definitions. Note that the
authors do spend the majority of the paper backing up these specific claims, so they’re
hardly throwaway lines used for argumentative purposes only." (how?)

"It’s emotive and not all that defensible, but again, not outlandish by any stretch of the
imagination."

"Again, that’s rather light stuff. Nothing to get worked up over."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_assertion
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (MingW32)
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=yKz9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Comments on "Michael Behe Hasn't Been Refuted on the Flagellum"

 Lately there seems to be a lot on ENV regarding Irreducibility and the Flagellum mainly because of a recent Quarterly Review of Biology Paper which Casey Luskin mentions here.

I've been waiting for posts like this for such a long time, particularly because I'm tired of hearing the same dead straw man over and over again which I will cover soon.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I'm glad to see a post like this. Surprised at how the straw man Ken Miller first formulated is still
alive and well though.


If anything, the only criticism that doesn't receive enough attention from either side of the
debate is Matzke's Evolution in Brownian Space. I think me and Casey would agree on this,
namely that while Miller and many others tend to flatly misrepresent what Behe actually tries to
argue, Matzke at least tries to make responses that keep Behe in original context.


Bookmarking this as one of the better posts on Irreducibility. In a moment though, there's a few
things that need to be said about Miller's argument because it's so prevalent. I'll get to that in a
moment...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (MingW32)
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=7/if
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


Here's my second comment replying to Nick Matzke:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

There's a lot that needs to be asked and said in this area...

Nick Said: "And that most of the required proteins have known alternative functions in
nonflagellar systems. Oh well."

You mean this?

"Flagellum evolution in Nature Reviews Microbiology"

I would really like to know the rationale behind using Default BLAST search settings to come
to the conclusion that you did. Exactly how similar are these homologies you present and how
 would we know each flagellar protein came about from the homologies and not vice-versa?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (MingW32)
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=secS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Saturday, March 5, 2011

Fifth/Sixth Comment and more on ENV - Reply to CRW

ieshttp://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/02/lobbyists_resort_to_myth-infor044241.html

I will digitally sign the comments on this post once I turn on my VPN again and paste the signed copies.

Update: Okay, I have done what I have promised.

Here's this comment below, followed by this one thereafter.


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

While I wholeheartedly doubt the alleged efficacy of things such as horizontal gene transfer or
duplication (I think they both just shuffle information that's already there while not producing
anything new), I understand that time and space constraints make that a difficult topic to
address here, but nonetheless the following caught my attention:

"ID is religious but not of a particular religion."

So it's not of any particular religion but it's still religious? Could you elaborate on this?

"To assert "intelligence" logically implies a designer/creator. Call it god, Yahweh, Allah, whatever.
ID requires a designer, which means some supernatural force is required."

I am the intelligence behind this very comment, so by your logic I must be a supernatural entity
right?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (MingW32)
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=cZE+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----





Now the next one:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Now here I find some things worth disputing:

"Unfortunately, there has yet to be a biological trait or attribute that is irreducibly complex. All
of the core examples from ID can be shown to be sliding scales from more to less complex."

This is probably one of the most common misunderstandings of Behe's arguments - he was
not arguing that IC systems are impossible to evolve any more than it's "impossible" to win
the lottery. It might happen, but this is not something we should treat as a real likelihood.

Are you claiming that not a single cellular system is unable evolve piece-by-piece while
retaining the same basic function or are you rehashing Ken Miller's straw man?

I think a good start in clarifying this dispute can be found here:

http://www.discovery.org/a/3408

...the fact the positive mutation is shown regularly in at least microorganisms..."

Can you give me a few key examples? And how do you define "positive" mutation?

I think Ryan has tackled the rest of what I disagree with on your comment but in the
meantime I look forward to your response to what I had said/asked so far.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (MingW32)
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=WaOR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Sunday, February 20, 2011

First Comment on Design Matrix Blog

 A comment on the blog of Mike Gene, someone who sort of inspired me to use the pen name I already have.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

There's definitely something compelling there, though I'm guessing the response by critics will be
along the lines of, "This must be proof evolutionary mechanisms work faster than we thought..."
Popper would be proud at such a defense don't you think?


Admire the fact that you almost single-handedly put front-loading on the discussion table. You're
bound to get your place in history for that alone. Glad to see a maverick voice in the debate over
origins is still active! You've given me hope that doing work under a pen name can wield just as
much influence as going public altogether; I suspect whatever role I might take will work out the
same way.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (MingW32)
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=gZVf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Saturday, January 29, 2011

Intelligent Design and More - First comment

http://www.intelldesign.com/2010/08/20/comment-at-darwins-god-iii/

I just discovered this blog today. And they just so happened to have something up that directly caught my interest.


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On this issue I would like to ask of design critics: How would you be able to treat diseases if you felt that
pathogens would just develop resistance to the very drugs you're using?

Behe had a lot to say about this in Edge of Evolution, pointing out that if one admitted there were evolutionary
limitations, one might be able to concoct a drug combination strong enough to wipe the given disease out in
no time without resorting to using drugs with more cost or side effects than needed. Simply formulate cures
that are beyond the reach of evolutionary processes and the disease won't adapt in time to overcome it.

On top of this, are critics aware that Louis Pasteur wasn't anywhere near an advocate for Darwinian theory?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (MingW32)
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=AvP5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Fourth Comment on ENV - "A One Hundred Year Old Challenge" (reply to Egnor)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Good to see you're back!

You're comment reminds me of an article you did for Salvo, "What Happens When You Write
Positive Blog Posts About ID?" I'm sure it must feel like target practice for the mods right now.

I have a question though about how you define "dualism." You said before that dualism predicts
that "If the brain is damaged, then mental function will not necessarily be damaged,"
as well as, "We will not always be able to correlate brain activity with mental activity -- no matter
how we choose to look at it."

Am I no longer a dualist if I allow the possibility that the mind uses the brain to manifest itself?
For example, if I damage the brain the mind itself is intact but cannot express itself through the
brain as well - and insisting we can only detect mental activity through brain activity?

Is this consistent with dualism when you view the brain as a vehicle but the mind is the
driver - damage the car, inhibit the driver? Or must I call myself a property dualist to make that
distinction?

I ask this because it seems like you've phrased dualism to mean it won't matter at all if there's
brain damage; the mind will still be able to perform physical tasks regardless of brain damage.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (MingW32)
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=50W9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Friday, January 28, 2011

Third Comment on ENV - "A One Hundred Year-Old Challenge" (in reply to "sonic")

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I wonder what this means for reductionism as more people in physics are forced to come to terms with Heisenberg's words of wisdom. Things no longer seem to be getting much simpler as we work our way down to constituents (ten-dimensional universe anyone?).

It's already pretty easy to see what implications it might have for neuroscience...

I sure miss those back and forth discussions that used to happen between Egnor and Steve Novella. This one remains one of the better posts by Mike.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (MingW32)
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=o/BN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Thursday, January 27, 2011

Second Comment on ENV - "A One Hundred Year-Old Challenge"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I know others on here might disagree, but I don't see how the term "Darwinist" is really useful for anything. For instance, is Michael Behe a "Darwinist" for affirming common ancestry between apes and humans?

And besides that, those that are critical or supportive of Intelligent Design come from a wide variety of fields and backgrounds besides just biology (physics for instance). I think discussions like this would be more fruitful if we simply abandoned that term and said design critics instead.

I'm not condoning the fact that people offended by the term fail to realize they were the ones who came up with it in the first place. Wells gave some pretty good coverage of this in his PIG guide.


Some questions about commenting:

Does it matter if we decide to use proxies, VPN or Tor browsers to hide our real IP address or do the moderators need that to confirm we are the same person that originally posted under a given name?

Or are they not even visible to you guys - making my use of someone else's computer unnecessary?

I ask because I'd like to be able to comment on here without there being any trace of which University it comes from...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (MingW32)
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=Aefc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

My First Comment on Evolution News and Views

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I can remember a short passage in a biology book that caught my attention in light of this uncommon knowledge. In short, it said that though he had a major role formulating evolutionary thinking, he is seldom recognized for his contributions.

It would appear that Wallace did for ID in biology what Hoyle did in physics. He definitely deserves recognition, but he probably won't get his fair share until after ID goes mainstream.

Until that time comes, anyone wanting to show support for ID, and is also on a tenure track should use a pseudonym.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (MingW32)
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=kGkE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

My Public Key (RSA - 3072 bits) - Jeffrey Helix

-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (MingW32)
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=1+4G
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----