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-----
Saturday, March 19, 2011
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-----
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-----
-----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-----
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)
iQGcBAEBAgAGBQJNgtkaAAoJEAlY1kTu1KLh3EAL/3H7tAvn2D+r2VUAQM10WcA+
21C6f0gFEzPFCEQMGvVxEDPRkowHOlq+V3aC4QHX897aPFyo3sjxEp6vASkB5Ce2
wzH1lXqLoZanMNLwkc5DjDJ8SS5TkkWhZvDzxczzUBT9c++dCNVkV21L80poEaBQ
HQwbYlSM0P2RffHd/2SUhoThVwItVO51LpGiRV0QNEQEPHdHI1CrEsVQaT5lcsjW
RCo7dii+5RAmzWJMv6LO+hYAEY5ejkfAMxko2LzDsX7G+W4cMAHHg+ITs4rG2xt1
SsxTK/yDne847FhogOY3hqiZV6C+sGnOwsGyFYV9lPXKqevjBnAsic11efT/SqzN
Bmh+4A5Tt2P5T2q8zLFVWHtu93mYNQfcthQIvvrcJfPlgJAH9MkXZu0rHs7c1B5N
NoV/wBLlI2qY0aC2yBz6IMnL8Jo3UUw1xJkDWvbdZuB2k9f9xzbkVIknGmovHzJC
S+ZCAHZ0uGhEQc0goZ5RbcC28CcpOIWruPaMqZ5ucw==
=P4ki
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
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-----
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-----
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-----
-----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-----
-----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-----
-----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-----
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-----
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-----
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-----
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-----
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)