-----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-----
Saturday, March 19, 2011
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)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=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)
iQGcBAEBAgAGBQJNglXsAAoJEAlY1kTu1KLhgRwL/2yqZ/5JWKTRJI8Yn2hxxb77
WsgXRHkBEYxA6gMCrgXGV6UWl3zPwGzGaNt6W85oBJMZMawzSgvSDzLw5XKbCriZ
rRMKX7Bf4kTBMhtFrjttgJb7gPPDgtn9p8oP1/AKkHAmYQ0hgEiJUvOFc+ay09Sc
NzWZNmmWCLQ2rXvt+b998za1BaRPuotJyxvctEuVE5IG1SMp02WiKG2P+ZKgF2ud
lV94U3mJuUIpNIr0vApQaIY4YuM51COQqNASaJj4987GVym/xEBJpGvojKLdMNr3
ZwO0TrnQzq8IRxHWG+s1e5HbletXdcDsZg5Ms0n6NRkiyb4+rw80x2wt8BBpyzyd
ZwnwT1e4mvq/EEdwEVZQ5SAxlJpMFViqkdpTGAi8Le2tvJtRN+unYiggnow+5q6B
jNNsc6assTY4NYoFsyDgWNlLEJLpmu5KY3LF1U/K/8BAEtBVT89xnT6s6rQHRLm+
rimIczNicwxvQeq2iQp43yb6Wuehy+/asm/X6qGn7A==
=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-----
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)