Scientific American Throws in the Towel

jumping the gun there a little arent we?

jumping the gun there a little arent we?

**** LMAO ****

In their annual April issue, SciAm used to publish letters they received from crank theorists, but they stopped. That's unfortunate, because the crank theories can be quite entertaining.

Given what's happening at IMAX theaters in science museums, SciAm may be forced to publish this editorial for real in 20 years or so.

h th scntfc mrts f mkng fn f yr ppnts whl stll nt mkng vrfbl prdctns.......

Th prblm s tht whl yr scm ws mkng fn f n rgmnt t ws nbl t ddrss th rl ss n fvrbl lght.

Fcts->cnclsns

Hwvr thr r sm cnclsns tht r cmpltly nspprtd by fcts.

Fr xml, D s bttr r wrs thry thn vltn wth n ntllgnt crtr. Snc nthr rlly mk prdctns thr thn t prdct prvsly dscvrd dt thy r bth qs-scnc/hstry.

Thr s n crrnt vdnc tht spprts thr sd. D ws dsgnd t b vltn wth dffrnt WHY. s sch snc vltn hs ptfl spprt n th why t s cnstnt thrn n yr sd...

Th fct tht fcd wth ths dlsm whr th vltnsts wth gd r rddcld by th vltnsts wtht gd tr scnc wld b ntrl.

Bt y rn't bt scnc.....

Yep. You sure fooled me! I thought Sci Am was finally moving out of the dark ages. I guess we'll just have to wait... I did find this rather interesting though: a battle between design by the unobservable designer(s?) and design by humans...
battle of designed machines

DonkeyKong:

Here's a small sample of the list of sources of predictions that the theory of evolution made, and were borne out:

http://wilstar.com/evolution/predictions.html

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/defense_of_evolution.html

http://www.don;lindsay;archive.org/creation/evo_science.html
(replace semicolons with hyphens)
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA210.html

http://www.ebonmusings.org/evolution/evoevidence.html

http://www.nslij-genetics.org/duplication/yanai00.pdf

http://www.botany.org/newsite/announcements/evolution.php

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/religion/faith/discuss_01.html

http://www.ncseweb.org/icons/icon2tol.html

So what does ID predict? What has it predicted that was borne out? Please stop littering this site with this "no predictions" garbage until you address this.

Russell:
The problem with DK is that he muddles the meaning of "predictions" (intentionally??) He confounds predictions in the sense of the prophesies of Nostradamus -- which turn out to mean anything -- with predictions such as, "I predict that when I add 1 and 1, I will get the result of 2" with predictions of calculating the force of gravity and then testing that prediction experimentally, with the predictions actually used in evolution, that if a new species X is discovered, and it is found with properties A,B,C,D,... then it will be related to species Y, and if a fossil with properties E,F,G,H,... is found then it will be a transitional species between species L and species N...

DK intermixes all these types of "prediction" to make a mess of an argument, that in the end has no coherence or logic to it, and such that no facts presented to him will answer his challenge.

What DK seems to want of evolution, is for scientists to say, "Ok, here is our evolutionary prediction: We predict that in ten years, some botanist will find a new species of plant that has precisely these characteristics, a,b,c,d,...., lives only in this geological area, etc." To DK, what he wants to to pretend that evolution is nothing more than a group of Nostradamuses...

Rssl

Frm yr frst lnk

"n scnc, "prdctn" ds nt ncssrly mn dscrbng ftr vnt. t s smply th lgcl rslt y wld xpct frm th dt y hv."

Yr scnd lnk ss th wrd Gd 46 tms.

Yr thrd lnk ws dd

Frth lnk
" f vltn's lw pwr t mk ftr prdctns kps t frm bng scnc, thn sm thr flds f stdy cs t b scncs, t, spclly rchlgy nd strnmy."
gr fr th mst prt rchlgy s nt scnc nd strnmy s ftn nt scnc n tht mny f ts thrs r mssvly nspprtd, spc thr, wrm hls tc.

Ffth lnk cntnd
"n rcnt yrs, nw fld n cmptr scnc hs mrgd: s-clld "gntc lgrthms," whch tk dvntg f th pwr f vltn t slv xtrmly dffclt prblms." vltnry, slf rgnzng lgrthms hv fld msrbly. n gnrl th ttntn ndd t th nvrnmnt t gt thm t d ntrstng thngs wld rg fr n D xplntn f n wr nt bsd t th tst.

Th lst lnk cntnd
"Wlls clms tht txtbks d nt cvr th "Cmbrn xplsn" nd fl t pnt t hw ths "tp-dwn" vltn pss srs chllng t cmmn dscnt nd vltn." f tr ths s dmnng sttmnt rgrdng vltn n th clssrm bng frm f nt-rlgs brn wshng. Cmbrn xplsn hppnd hv t tch t.

rd yr lnks....y rd mn...

http://www.nkrbrg.cm/rtcls/_PDFrchvs/scnc/SC3W1199.pdf

http://www.nswrsngnss.rg/dcs2002/0228nt_scnc.sp

http://www.nswrsngnss.rg/dcs2002/0228nt_scnc.sp

http://www.crtnthry.rg/Yngrth/

fnd th lck f prmd lst shwng th fls prdctns f vltn trblng...

Fls prdctns f vltn ff th tp f my hd...

Sgn prdctns rgrdng vns, mrs, mn, Jptr.

Gntcs shwng mny prmtv rgnsms hv lrgr DN strnds thn hmns...Ths ws n nxpctd rslt.

Gntcs shwng mjr sss rgng gnst spctn bng s sy s vltn thry sggsts...Thr s n bsrvd vdnc fr chng n chrmsm strctr btwn p nd hmn whch rgs gnst th lnr prgrssn thry t th hrt f vltn.

Cmbrn xplsn ccrng n wy tht nvlvs mch fstr mttn rt nd spctn thn s prsntly bsrvd...

bgnss bng n-vrfd ftr 50+ yrs f ttmpts.

Th prdctn tht spcs drtn sms t b cmpltly rndm bng t dds wth srvvl f fttst Ntrl Slctn.

Flr t bsrv spctn r mcr-vltn t th rt ncssry t sstn vltn. rgbly flr t bsrv t t ll bt wll stck t th mr cnsrvtv ssrtn.

Gntc vdnc wll n r lftms prbbly slv/nd ths dbt n wy r th thr s DN ntrdcs mr dt thn ll th pln nd fssl dt cmbnd nd wll plc cnstrnts n vltn tht cnnt b shrggd ff nlss t s crrct.

Whn th dtls f wht vltn s skng y t blv r wll ndrstd s DN wll mk thm nd th gps n th lgc r clr vltn s w knw t tdy prbbly wll nt srvv jst s vltn n Drwns dy hs mstly nt srvvd.

Jff

Prdctns
Lvls f scnc nvlvd.

1) Strngst clm t prdctng s whn y cn stt prdcts B n n nvrnmnt f C nd nt . ll thr mdfctns t th nvrnmnt wll nt ltr th prdctn whn y th scptc tst t ndr yr wn rls prvdd y bsrv th ,B,C,D sttd ssmptns. Grvty s lk ths. Prsnc f tw bjcts wll ttrct ch thr nlss cnnctd by rgd bdy tht hlds thm pprt tc.

2) Wkr clm. ->B hwvr fr whtvr rsn th nvrnmnt cnnt b ltrd s tht w hv n wy t tst tht C s rlly th cs nd y cn't tst t yrslf. t ts bst vltn clms t prdct ths lvl.

3) ->B whr B s s vg tht t cn mn nythng. Nstrdms sd ths s dd Drwn. Ntrl Slctn cnnt b dsprvn s ts dfntn f B r whn ->B r vn r t vg t b tstd nd fnd fls n ny mgnd snr.

4) mltpl gss clm. ->B r C r D r r F r ........Z h lk ws rght ->D. vltn s cmmnly glty f ths s th scntsts wh prdct fls tcms dn't pblsh thr thrs gn ftr bng prvn fls. T gn th crdblty f thry tht xplns thngs y hv t prdct mltpl nknwn vnts wth th SM NLTRD thry.

5) bltntly fls ->B h lk ->D nd nt ->B nd my thry s stll vld. Cmplxty f DN bng nlnkd t cmplxty f prcptn f Blgy s xmpl f ths. Tht trs r mr cmplx gntclly thn y ws shck...nd ndrmns th whl prms f vltn.

DK: I didn't just ask you to look at those links. They contain a very small fraction of the predictions that evolution makes. I asked you what Intelligent Design predicts. Your response was, predictably nonresponsive.

DK: I even went to the trouble of looking up your links. Again - totally nonresponsive to the question at hand. As to your list of "false predictions of evolution" - so far as I can tell at first glance, not one of them really holds up as such. I don't suppose you have a reputable link for each of those do you?

Let's get back to the original topic, shall we? Please don't let this thread get de-railed by DonkeyKong's empty barrels.

Scientific American's announcemnt is especially humorous because it comes so close to the language actually used by ID promoters.

Examples:

"ID theorists" "unspecified" "fair and balanced"

The ID camp's prolific wordsmithing is definitely making it more and more difficult to recognize authentic satire. Sadly, I'm sure some readers of SciAm will be fooled.

Jeremy Mohn: Let's get back to the original topic, shall we? Please don't let this thread get de-railed by DonkeyKong's empty barrels.

Good point. An appropriate place to respond to my remarks, Donkey, if, and only if you have a response as opposed to empty slogans, might be "How to piss off a scientist".

Rssl.

Th whl pnt f D s tht t s vltn wth dffrnt why bt n nw prdctns.

t dds nthng. Bt t sbtrcts nthng. t s yr clm tht t mks D nt scnc bt pnt t tht D sts n ll th vltn spprt.

Why vltn fllws th nlkly pth tht t ds s prt f th ntrstng prt.

Ds t d s v n nflsfbl Ntrl Slctn r v n nflsfbl ntllgnt Dsgn?

Dsn't mttr t m bt nthr s scntfc thry.

Th scntfc thry tht hs spprt s tht lf sd t b mr smpl thn t s nw.

n tht w gr. ccpt th fssl vdnc. ccpt th DN vdnc. Lf s smlr. Lf sd t b mr smpl. nd y r t f ctl spprt fr vltn s th rsn WHY th thngs w rgr n r tr s srly lckng.

ts ll th why tht w dsgr nd n tht yr scntfc spprt s nt bttr thn th D crwd.

Y cn't mk thngs vlv, y cn't s thngs vlv s y rsrt t tryng t brnwsh kds. n dng s y scrm nd cry bt nyn ls prsntng thr why thry bcs y knw y dn't hv dt tht spprts yr why nd dsn't spprt thr why.

BTW lvd yr s f th wrd prdctn t mn bsrvtn ftr th fct.

Rssl

yr nblty t rd my lnks s tllng...

s t tht y dn't wnt t fc tht dffrncs btwn frwrd lkng nd bckwrd lkng "scnc".

Fr m scnc s bt th blty t prdct nd cntrl r nvrs.

Ths "scncs" tht fl n thr blty t d tht nd nthr nm s thy trly r dffrnt thng frm tr scnc.

myb qs-scnc? bg-scnc? vltn?

s t tht y dn't wnt t dmt tht th rsn vltnsts r tryng t brnwsh kds s bcs vltn fls th mst bsc tsts f scnc?

Nmly vltn fls t fllw th scntfc mthd fr th mjrty f ts clms.

Wht r y rnnng frm Rssl?

BTW loved your use of the word prediction to mean observation after the fact.

Donkey Kong-

Evolution predicts that the amino acid sequence of hemoglobin A of humans will be similar to that of chimpanzee, less similar to that of the Gibbon, and still less similar to that of the mouse. Retrieve the sequences (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Database/index.html) and check the prediction.

The Sci Am article makes an important point. As scientists, we can't ignore that there are those who have, do, and will manipulate science and the scientific process. Good journalism should not ignore the subjectivist's threats and distortions of science. An informed and educated citizenry is essential to a free nation.

Jelly

Please, please, please! Do what Mario would do!

There are two options:

1. You can jump over the barrels (ignore DonkeyKong's attempts to de-rail this thread)
2. You can smash the barrels with a hammer (attempt to obliterate DonkeyKong's "arguments")

I suggest option 1 because it is easier and wastes less of everyone's time. The problem with option 2 is that, although it can be amusing, the ape apparently has an unlimited supply of barrels.

Donkey - you'll find my response on the Bathroom Wall, where I suggest all your sloganeering belongs.

I have decided to implement a comment control policy similar to PZ's: disemvowelment of trolling derailments and jerky comments in general. The general guidelines are similar to those used on Infidels, interpreted as I damn well feel like interpreting them depending on my mood when I read the comment. Complaints about comment control in comment threads appended to my posts will be summarily deleted.

RBH

Jeremy,

You make a very good point. Engaging in a pissing contest will get you nothing more than wet shoes and yellow socks. There are plenty of people with open minds that are willing to engage in an honest conversation. Allowing the trolls to feed at will is bound to drag the blog down.

On a related note, what is the general opinion about encouraging the blog master to build a "troll feeding zone" where open season could be encouraged?

Jelly

Very nice.

An informed and educated citizenry is essential to a free nation.

— Earlier, Jelly

Earlier, Jelly wrote: An informed and educated citizenry is essential to a free nation.

Jeremy and Ed,

Indeed, it is a challenging issue. My response is to say that I get to decided what is informed and educated...at least with my children. Of course, parents with an alternative perspective will also make the same claim. The difference is that I expect that my children (and all children attending a public school) will be taught about science that is unbiased by religious opinion. God and spirituality are things that my wife and I will teach our children at home and in our church. Can you imagine how insane a government sanctioned and school board approved curriculum on God would be like. Please, stop the insanity! So, while all might not agree on "informed and educated," science should not be so difficult to define. Unfortunately, the challenge is that it's easy to mislead the uninformed about what is and what is not science. It is my guess that this is our best point of defense.

Jelly

OT serious question --

Musing about the possible forces that led to the evolution of this or that feature is a fun past time for me, but something has me stumped.

Humans have 23 chromosome pairs, while chimps have 24. The way I understand it, any offspring between two animals with different numbers of chromosomes will be sterile. This is why mules are sterile.

So, presumably the common ancestor species of chimps and humans had some number of pairs, then either two chromosomes fused in humans, or one split into two in chimps.

Yet how could this happen? Unless it somehow happened to a big chunk of the population all at once, wouldn't anyone with a different number of chromosomes end up with no grandkids?

Boronx,

You say that you understand that "any offspring between two animals with different numbers of chromosomes will be sterile. This is why mules are sterile."

Well, not all mules are sterile.

Jelly

"Well, not all mules are sterile."

True. But I understand that's the source of sterility in mules. I'm guessing an odd number of chromosomes generally confounds meiosis. Maybe most mules are fertile at some very low probability.

Forgive the suggestion, but has anyone tried crossing a human with a chimp?

Anyway, I'm not trying to start an argument. This is a question that I've pondered for three or four years now, and Panda's Thumb is really the first opportunity I've had to find someone whose put some thought or research into it, or has read something about it.

Well done RBH!

While it's foolish to divorce scientific knowledge and investigation from the real world, I admit that on occasion I find a Scientific American article on public policy to be only thinly related to scientific development and more of an opinion piece. There really isn't any relationship between, for example, how a nuclear weapon works or how it was developed, and whether Mutually Assured Destruction is an effective component of international policy. And nuclear physicists are no more qualified than house painters to evaluate such a policy.

In some cases, scientific knowledge isn't really the issue. Global warming isn't a question of whether the planet is warming up, or whether human activities are contributing to it. Global warming is an issue of economic tradeoff -- yeah, we're contributing, but is it a bargain? Yeah, we could use more expensive, less efficient methods, costing a bundle. How much would we be purchasing, and would it be worth the expense? This is really a political matter, because those paying the cost are not those reaping the benefits. Scientific American tends to ask whether global warming is scientificially supportable as an assertion, which is the wrong question. A better question is, would scientists support steps to alleviate global warming if the cost of those steps were subtracted from scientific funding across the board? This would quickly mean zero funding for anyone. NOW, you scientists, do you STILL support this policy? Welcome to politics.

Yeah, creationism is an easy target, since there is no real-world tradeoff. Teaching magic as fact would end up hurting even those who sincerely believe their magic will save our souls. When scientific knowledge is valuable, present it as an input. Scientific American should not be in the business of taking positions on political policies.

Comment #21297 Posted by Boronx on March 21, 2005 01:50 AM OT serious question --- Musing about the possible forces that led to the evolution of this or that feature is a fun past time for me, but something has me stumped. Humans have 23 chromosome pairs, while chimps have 24. The way I understand it, any offspring between two animals with different numbers of chromosomes will be sterile. This is why mules are sterile. So, presumably the common ancestor species of chimps and humans had some number of pairs, then either two chromosomes fused in humans, or one split into two in chimps. Yet how could this happen? Unless it somehow happened to a big chunk of the population all at once, wouldn't anyone with a different number of chromosomes end up with no grandkids?

— Boronx

"This is not true. While different number of chromosomes may seem to cause hard and fast barrier it doesn't
In humans it happen with a well known condition. Downs Syndrome. Females with down syndrome are normally fertile."

Ok, thank you. I suspected something like that, but was put off by the seeming lack of variability in chromosome number.

"Kay G. A foal from a mule in Morocco. Vet Record 2003;152 (3): 92."

Thanks, if I can find it I'll check it out.

Forgive the suggestion, but has anyone tried crossing a human with a chimp?

Flint: "Yeah, creationism is an easy target, since there is no real-world tradeoff. Teaching magic as fact would end up hurting even those who sincerely believe their magic will save our souls. When scientific knowledge is valuable, present it as an input. Scientific American should not be in the business of taking positions on political policies."

I agree. Another problem is Scientific American's inability to distinguish between ID and Creationism. It's common knowledge that anyone looking for a blast of ID insight from SciAm has a skull full of rocks, insofar as its editors couldn't find the difference(s) between ID and religion if Michael Shermer's life depended on it...and I say this as a subscriber who appreciates the magazine's value.

But what strikes one as positively strange in this thread is the promulgation of an anti-ID April Fool's satire by the author of "Multiple Designers Theory", promoted as a sane version of ID theory. One could scarcely be more surprised if Austin Powers were to suddenly freeze in the middle of a frug, dash his hornrims on the dance floor, and hold forth on his utter contempt for the Swinging 60's!

But perhaps it's just my own failure to realize that MDT itself was a meaningless satire. While its author seemed to be quite serious about it in the thread where I saw it mentioned (9-23-04), and thus seemed to be holding himself up as a serious ID theorist, things aren't always as they seem.

Difference in chromosome number does not seem to be a problem for muntjac deer

But perhaps it's just my own failure to realize that MDT itself was a meaningless satire. While its author seemed to be quite serious about it in the thread where I saw it mentioned (9-23-04), and thus seemed to be holding himself up as a serious ID theorist, things aren't always as they seem.

— neurode

Flint,

As citizens of a free country, physicists and house painters are equally qualified to decide if they want their government to pursue a policy of mutual destruction. Politicians are supposed to serve the people.

Global warming is a bargain if we're willing to rape future generations' opportunity for our own gain. Is that what you're about? Is your goal to consume without consideration of the consequence? Is this the bargain you're suggesting?

Regarding you question about whether scientist would fund measures to mitigate or eliminate the effects of global warming, government funding agencies already spend a great deal of money in this area. Wouldn't it be nice if global warming wasn't a threat so that this money could be spent in areas of world health, welfare, and education? But, your policy seems to be "spend now and let the next guy pay."

In response to your last paragraph, I made a few substitutions in the (blind?) hope that it would clarify the issue for you.

"Yeah, ignorance is an easy target, since there is no real-world tradeoff. Teaching religion as science would end up hurting even those who sincerely believe their religion will save our souls. When religious knowledge is valuable, present it as an input. Scientific American should always be in the business of taking positions on political policies where it attempts to offer information to help citizens make informed decisions."

Jelly

April Fools jokes are better when they are early.

Good one RBH!!!!

(I will admit to telling my spouse that I'd kill myself if it were true).

But perhaps it's just my own failure to realize that MDT itself was a meaningless satire. While its author seemed to be quite serious about it in the thread where I saw it mentioned (9-23-04), and thus seemed to be holding himself up as a serious ID theorist, things aren't always as they seem.

Jelly:

Well, yes and no here. I'm not taking a position on global warming in my post (as an aside, I think it's a lousy bargain). I'm taking a position on whether it is a scientific issue (I say no) or a political issue (I say yes). I don't read Scientific American to get articles taking sides on political issues. I tried to point out that it's a good wind that blows nobody ill. There ARE genuine, real, serious costs to reducing human contributions to global warming. I wrote that those who would pay these costs are not the same people as those who would reap the benefits. That's why it's a political and not a scientific issue.

As for your "clarification", I'm partially in agreement with you, but I already said that. I said (to Scientific American), when scientific information informs a political debate, present the information. Don't take sides in the debate. This is very difficult to do. You will notice (if you re-read my original post) that I was meticulously careful to take no sides AT ALL about whether global warming is a net benefit or loss. And you will note that my failure to take YOUR side was interpreted (with flagrant fabrications galore) as taking sides against you. Do you see the difficulty of being disinterested? I suspect I could have written "I am NOT taking sides here" every other sentence, and you would STILL think I was killing future babies or whatever.

Why do I not see any vowels in DK's posts? Is this some sort of protest on his part?

Jelly,

A simple rephrasing of Flint's eloquent statement above is: Explaining a problem is not the same as defending (or the correlary, opposing) any given position surrounding the problem. The current Neo-Con battle cry of "for us or against us" is the most egregious example of this forced false dichotomy.

Sincerely,
Paul

Why do I not see any vowels in DK's posts? Is this some sort of protest on his part?

How is everything with your precious Avida? That seems to have died on the vine.

— Jhn . Dvsn

Michael,

The DL Lab site at CalTech has been off the air for (at least) a couple of days. I didn't see anything on the list about it. Know anything about that?

RBH

The DL Lab site at CalTech has been off the air for (at least) a couple of days. I didn’t see anything on the list about it. Know anything about that?

— RBH

Towel Throwing
I just read Scientific American thing. Ha Ha.
I thought it was true and ready to give up on America. If Congress can call a special midnight session for what?

Micheal Rathun: It's not dorkitacity, it's drktcty.

The terminology "Religion vs science" is an inaccurate term.
Evolution is a religion, it is a FAITH based on what has been taught by a leader. Tell me if the big bang was a result of an intense rotation of the paticles...why are two planets spinning backwards?

>>Tell me if the big bang was a result of an intense rotation of the paticles . . . why are two planets spinning backwards?

Tell me if the big bang was a result of an intense rotation of the paticles . . . why are two planets spinning backwards?
Travis,
Holy crap! That may be the most ridiculous comment I have ever read. One just marvels at the ignorance mixed with the arrogance, seasoned with a dash of contempt. This is semi-literate boobery at its finest. Congratulations!!!

If you guys haven't, I suggest you read Thomas Kuhn's _The Structure of Scientific Revolutions_. It might teach you a thing or two about how to discriminate between paradigms rather than simply call each other morons or disparage the others' theory.

Michael Rathbun

I see you got to my Avida post before RBH managed to delete it. Thank you for reprintimng it for all to see.

As for Avida, or any other computer simulation based on allelic mutation and selection, it has absolutely no significance for evolution because that sort of mutation never played a role in the emergence of any new life form. I thought I had made that indelibly clear to all some time ago. Don't you people ever listen?

Avida is the Alamo of Darwimpianism, Darwin's last stand as it were. Now quick read this before your fearless leader deletes it and be sure to include it in your response as you were thoughtful to do the last time I tried to post on this thread.

John A. Davison

"... that sort of mutation never played a role in the emergence of any new life form."

You can assert this all you want. Unless you provide empirical evidence the assertion is worthless. What are you, as a scientist, doing in the lab or in the field, to provide data supporting your hypothesis?

I thought I had made that indelibly clear to all some time ago. Don’t you people ever listen?

— Jhn . Dvsn

There is no need for me to provide evidence for the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis as it is being provided by modern molecular biology and chromosome karyology as any fool would know if he took the time to peruse my manuscript and the sources it cites both ancient and modern.

To paraphrase an old saw:

"You can lead a man to the literature but you cannot make him read or comprehend it."
John A. Davison

Evolution is a religion, it is a FAITH based on what has been taught by a leader. Tell me if the big bang was a result of an intense rotation of the paticles…why are two planets spinning backwards?

Well, according to the Dr. Rev. Kent Hovind, http://www.algonet.se/~tourtel/hovind_seminar/seminar_part1a.html, "God did it that way on purpose just to make the Big Bang Theory look stupid." This of course completely stumped the " professor from Berkeley University" with whom Hovind was conversing. Seems like an honest guy.

Davison, did I miss your explanation of apple maggots?

Johnny, I have read your 'manifesto' to the end and, I think, you deserve a new nicname : Davison, the cranky quote miner

"You can lead a man to the literature but you cannot make him read or comprehend it."

You can lead a horticulture but you can't make her think.

Wikipedia says: Some significant examples of retrograde motion in the solar system: Venus rotates slowly in the retrograde direction. The moons Ananke, Carme, Pasiphaë and Sinope all orbit Jupiter in a retrograde direction, and are thought to be fragments of a single body that Jupiter captured long ago. Many other minor moons of Jupiter orbit retrograde. The moon Phoebe orbits Saturn in a retrograde direction, and is thought to be a captured Kuiper belt object. The moon Triton orbits Neptune in a retrograde direction, and is also thought to be a captured Kuiper belt object. The planet Uranus has an axial tilt which is very near to 90°, and can be considered to be rotating in a retrograde direction depending on one's interpretation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrograde_orbit

My Manifesto was specifically designed to inflame devout Darwimpians wherever they may be found. That is why I have never attempted to publish it in hard copy. Have a nice random, pointless, aimless, gradualist and Godless Darwinian day. Apparently I have been quite successful in producing my desired result. Thanks for the verification.

John A. Davison

Oh, johnny, my verification of darwinism
( one of several this year, because I habitually employ genetic algorithms in my work, once the problem gets too hairy )
finished at 18:01 this evening with just an other success.
I had to implement arccosine comptutation on a processor which lacks anything like Intel's "acos" instruction under truly draconian requirements for speed and memory use.
After dwo days-or-so of futile tries, I've given up and instead have writen a simple genetic algorithm to search usefull approximations instead of me.
And, after a couple of hours running, it has found a approximation which one can't outperform no matter how hard he would try...
just because it is giving *exact* number, precise to the very last bit. ( and with 20 times the speed of original code )

Apparently I have been quite successful in producing my desired result.

— Jhn . Dvsn

Why do you feed the troll of a weak and little faith?

Michael,

CalTech's DLife web server is wonky. They're working on it.

With that I'm closing comments on this thread.

RBH

CalTech’s DLife web server is wonky. They’re working on it.

— RBH

I have tried all my adult life to reason with Darwinians. It simply can't be done. Their condition is genetic, no question about it. I have secret reasons to believe their malaise is localized on human chromosome number 12 right next to the liberal and atheist loci. Their genetic formula then is DDLLAA. Being very closely linked these genes tend to remain together as is obvious to anyone with half a brain. That is why its very difficult finding an atheist who isn't also a political liberal and a Darwimp.

John A. Davison

So what does ID predict? What has it predicted that was borne out? Please stop littering this site with this "no predictions" garbage until you address this.

"And I think I just wrote the Dover ACLU's opening brief for it. :>"

Err, nice work there Rev. Perhaps you should submit this to be used in Dover. :) Seriously.