Sternberg and the "smear" of Creationism

I could use a refresher on the different brands of creationism. Here are the types I am familiar with:

Young Earth Creationism (YEC): The Earth, indeed the entire universe, is less than 10,000 years old; humans were specially created and are not descended from another species. Usually but not always associated with Biblical literalism.

Old Earth Creationism: Accepts the evidence for age of the universe and Earth, but denies common ancestry, particularly between humans and other species

Progressive Creationism: Accepts age of Earth & Universe, and accepts common descent, but believes that a Creator stepped in from time to time to do things that couldn't be done by evolution alone (I think Behe would probably fall into this group, and Denton as of the time he wrote 'Evolution: a Theory in Crisis')

Omphalos, or 'Last Thursday-ism': Claims that the Universe is recent, (less than 10,000 years up to last Thursday) but was created with a 'history', evidence of past events that didn't in fact occur, possibly even including memories. Although this is consistent with known evidence and unfalsifiable, it is quite unpopular amongst the zealots because it makes the Creator out to be a trickster.

Bayesian Boufant, FCD:
This is a good write-up by Eugenie Scott.

Very useful. Thanks.

Andrea, have you ever hear of the "Velikovsky Affair"? I see an interesting parallel here.

A small bit of information: the term "baramin" is a combination of two Hebrew words. "Bara" means "created", and "min" means "kind." If the "kinds" were created, as baraminologists seem to believe, why is Sternberg offended when referred to as a creationist?

If it walketh like unto the duck kind, and it quacketh like unto the kind of the duck, yea and verily I say unto you ...

Omphalos, or 'Last Thursday-ism': Claims that the Universe is recent, (less than 10,000 years up to last Thursday) but was created with a 'history', evidence of past events that didn't in fact occur, possibly even including memories. Although this is consistent with known evidence and unfalsifiable, it is quite unpopular amongst the zealots because it makes the Creator out to be a trickster.

As an aside, my great-uncle firmly believes that dinosaur bones were created by Satan to confuse humans and lead them astray. He refuses to budge from that viewpoint. He also believes that, if one runs out into the road & throws themselves under a truck, that it was not self-determined; God willed you to do that.

So, yes. I can believe that there are zealots out there who follow the quoted concepts. Which frightens me to no end.

Blast:
I know a little about the Velikovsky saga. What aspect exactly parallels Sternberg's dealing with the Baraminologists?

Mark:
Sternberg does not argue baraminologists are not creationists. He's just saying that he's not one of them. That is probably true, but sure as heck he did a great imitation of one, up until his dealings with BSG became widely known.

Hey Blast, I believe you were about to show me a front-loaded sequence in the genome of the house mouse that "unfolded" to become the genes in the recently-discovered Super Mice.

Or were you just about to dodge the question. Again.

As an aside, my great-uncle firmly believes that dinosaur bones were created by Satan to confuse humans and lead them astray. He refuses to budge from that viewpoint.

If it walketh like unto the duck kind, and it quacketh like unto the kind of the duck, yea and verily I say unto you ...

"I have had three separate creationists, on three different occasions, inform me, in all seriousness, that flying saucers are actually time machines being used by atheistic scientists to travel back into the past and plant fake fossils in order to manufacture phoney evidence for evolution."

Ack! How on earth did you manage to maintain your sanity in the face of such a virulent case of stupidity?

or did you...

Ack! How on earth did you manage to maintain your sanity in the face of such a virulent case of stupidity? or did you...

Monday to Friday at 6pm (4pm in WA), repeated at 3am Should Intelligent Design Be Taught In Our Schools Tuesday 23 August 2005 The theory of intelligent design has reignited debate about evolution by challenging Darwin's theory. US President George Bush wants it taught in schools. And here it's won the qualified backing of education minister Dr Brendan Nelson. Should intelligent design be taught in our schools?

I'm just curious: does Andrea have any objective reason to take Wood and Sternberg at their word? Given what Sternberg said in Cedarville, his denials seem implausible. And let's just say that in my interactions with creationists, a scrupulous devotion to the truth never struck me as one of their more obvious characteristics.

Maybe Sternberg is just angry with the "Young Earth" part of being called a "Young Earth Creationist". Still, most ID Creationists try to avoid the "creationist" term altogether, unless they are with a sympathetic audience.

What Pierce said. ;c)

ya know, this is just so appropriate to discussions about what motivates ID supporters, i just can't believe it hasn't been discussed here before. Has it?

http://www.mercatus.org/pdf/materials/465.pdf

the man himself, trivers, attempts to tackle self deceit from an evolutionary standpoint.

if this hasn't been discussed before, i would really think we should start a thread to do so.

Maybe Sternberg is just angry with the "Young Earth" part of being called a "Young Earth Creationist".

As an aside, my great-uncle firmly believes that dinosaur bones were created by Satan to confuse humans and lead them astray. He refuses to budge from that viewpoint.

As an aside, my great-uncle firmly believes that dinosaur bones were created by Satan to confuse humans and lead them astray. He refuses to budge from that viewpoint.

"I can top that one ---- I have had three separate creationists, on three different occasions, inform me, in all seriousness, that flying saucers are actually time machines being used by atheistic scientists to travel back into the past and plant fake fossils in order to manufacture phoney evidence for evolution."

How can that be, since the rapture starts in mid-October.

Andrea: The way in which the scientific community vilified someone who wanted to publish something that did not fit the prevailing orthodoxy, and, which had religious overtones.

I must say, I found the entire affair almost unbelievable. But my view of scientific "objectivity" has grown beyond the naive stage.

Hey Blast, I believe you were about to show me a front-loaded sequence in the genome of the house mouse that "unfolded" to become the genes in the recently-discovered Super Mice.

— GWW

I think Sternberg's association with YECs is an example of a phenomenon I've noticed before: cranks attract cranks. Cranks often feel comfortable in the company of other cranks, even if they don't share their particular brand of crankery, because they share a high tolerance for nonsense and a feeling of persecution by the establishment.

"I can top that one ---- I have had three separate creationists, on three different occasions, inform me, in all seriousness, that flying saucers are actually time machines being used by atheistic scientists to travel back into the past and plant fake fossils in order to manufacture phoney evidence for evolution." How can that be, since the rapture starts in mid-October.

The most likely explanation is that Sternberg is an OEC. An OEC could be largely or even entirely in agreement with "Baraminology". An OEC could not honestly join the BSC because that requires an explicit commitment to YEC - but an OEC could support it without making reference to the age of the Earth. And this is what Sternberg has done.

OEC is still creationist though (NB the hint is in the name!).

Lenny, I just ran across the Table of Contents for "No Free Lunch," by Dembski. He has a chapter on "Front-Loading." Maybe you can read it.

Andrea: The way in which the scientific community vilified someone who wanted to publish something that did not fit the prevailing orthodoxy, and, which had religious overtones.

If any religionist suggests that human time travel is possible (atheist or otherwise), they have just eliminated any need whatever for a god, because the "creation of life" could then be a closed loop, with humans going back in planting the seeds of life, which evolve into humans, which go back to...and so on, in a Nietzsche-style eternal recurrence. Poof...god disappears in a cloud of logic, just like in Doug Adams.

By the way, Kesh, your great-uncle is absolutely right about human determinism, if he believes in an omnipotent and omniscient creator who set the boundary conditions in full knowledge of how everything would play out. The weird thing is that his god apparently leaves Satan to frolic, installing fake fossils. And to what purpose? If got determines everything humans do, this would presumably include their faith or lack of it...so what would the point possibly be in leaving Satan free to play trickster, when the outcome of the prank is entirely controlled by God?

Kesh, I'm not suggesting for an instant that you think any of that stuff makes sense. I just marvel at what passes for reason, or even faith, in some people's life. It's possible to believe things without evidence, I think, without tossing every last vestige of thought overboard at the same time.

Mr. Sternberg needs to learn that if you lie down with dogs, you get fleas. And he needs to get off the "victim" train.

Intelligent Design Creationists consider it a smear to be confused with Young Earth Creationists. Teach the controversy!

As for the second, of course scientists get upset at transparent attempts to sneak in religion under the guise of science, especially where the "science" part is as bad as that in Meyer's screed. Or are you of the idea that scientists should accept any sort of religious non-sense into their journals, just because it conforms to majority opinion?

— Andrea

Now quit changing the subject and answer my question. Where in the mouse genome can we see the front-loaded sections that became the genes found in the Super Mice. Indeed, where can we see an example of ANY frontloaded information in any genome. Any at all.

— 'Reviled Dr.' Lenny Flank

Lenny, I just ran across the Table of Contents for "No Free Lunch," by Dembski. He has a chapter on "Front-Loading." Maybe you can read it. Front-loading, as much as you want to disparage it, flows from information theory. It also has its parallels in nature, specifically, in bird feather evolution.

— BlastFromThePast

Read it. It's crap, just like all the rest of Dembski's drivel.

— Lenny Flank

it's a shame you don't read Dembski.

— BlastFromThePast

Lenny, I just ran across the Table of Contents for "No Free Lunch," by Dembski. He has a chapter on "Front-Loading." Maybe you can read it.

— BlastFromThePast

First, the super mouse isn't an example of "front-loading".

Well, you overlooked the conjunction---both conditions must be met for the scientific community to lash out. Now, let me ask you, Andrea, what in Meyer's article can you point to that is religious? If the mention of design, in your opinion, is tantamount to invoking religion, then there is some merit in your argument. But the idea of 'design' in Meyer's paper is meant to contrast and compare the 'explanatory power' of various models. What's wrong with that? How is that unscientific?

Lenny, I just ran across the Table of Contents for "No Free Lunch," by Dembski. He has a chapter on "Front-Loading." Maybe you can read it.

— BlastfromthePast

Read it. It's crap, just like all the rest of Dembski's drivel.

— Lenny

Second, it's a shame you don't read Dembski. (I hope this doesn't mean you berate someone with which whose writings you are not familiar.)

— Blast

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank:

"Indeed, where can we see an example of ANY frontloaded information in any genome. Any at all."

Actually, it is EVERYWHERE IN EVERY GENOME!!!!!!

Without frontloaded genomes, there wouldn't be no genome! Every genome comes from preexisting gnomes! If that aren't frontloading, I don't know what is, and I is an expert!

Your problem is that you look backwards from the result. What you need to do is look backward to the beginning, THEN look FOREWARD to the result! Do that and you will clearly see that frontloading HAS to be there!

Mendaciously yours,

Shenda

Again, you did not trouble to deny that you were contending for "front-loading," but disappeared from the thread for a different reason (promising to "chew on" quetzal's comments---how's that coming, by the way?).

— Steviepinhead

Mmm, I wonder if BlastFromThePast reads Dembski and the Bible with the same level of reading comprehension as he managed with Lenny's post. Par for the course.

— Heinz

So BlastFromThePast, given that the original author of the "No Free Lunch" theorems agrees with Lenny that Dembski's work is crap (although he expresses his sentiments a bit more diplomatically), perhaps it's time for you to give it up and concede defeat gracefully.

— caerbannog

... it's a shame you don't read Dembski. (I hope this doesn't mean you berate someone with which whose writings you are not familiar.)

Right on, Russell (flashes power fist) !

Indeed, we may need to rechristen Blast the Inartful Dodger, or something along those lines.

First, the super mouse isn't an example of "front-loading".

'Reviled Dr.' Lenny Flank

Second, it's a shame you don't read Dembski.

Read it. It's crap, just like all the rest of Dembski's drivel.

Behe danced around using the word "complexity" for a while, and one of the microbiologists noted that some example Behe had used as design was less complex than one he had mentioned might have evolved. Finally, Behe said, 'Well, I can't tell you how to tell, but' "I know it when I see it." That is religion. It's not law, it's not science. It is pure faith, pure belief.

— Ed Darrell

Blast, in trying to make sense of your comments on the Super Mouse thread, http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/07/supe..., several of us clearly suggested rather early on that you were again invoking the "front-loading" mechanism, one of your standard "evolution-doesn't-really-generate-new-information" dodges. You continued to comment and argue, but never denied that "front-loading" was a possible mechanism for the size changes manifested by the island Super Mice. Noting that the mouse genome has now been completely sequenced, Lenny directly challenged you to point to any indicia of "front-loading" in the mouse's genome. Again, you did not trouble to deny that you were contending for "front-loading," but disappeared from the thread for a different reason (promising to "chew on" quetzal's comments---how's that coming, by the way?). But NOW, on this entirely different thread, you reappear to (a) admit that front-loading has nothing to do with Super Mouse's leap in size, while implicitly claiming (b) that you never urged to the contrary. Blast, methinks a little act-cleaning is in order, before you start to exude that permanently-disingenuous air wafting off of Dembski, et al. Say, right down from the pizza place (you know, the one that Lenny's pizza delivery boy works for), there's a good car wash---maybe you ought to duck in behind the next paying customer's car and take a quick washy...

But on further reflection, I come back to the same conclusion (which, by the way, was part of my rebuttal to Reuland and is now floating about in digital space somewhere) that random mutations won't cut it.

it bespeaks of "directed" mutation

Directed by what.

How.

When.

Where can we see this direction happening today.

(sound of crickets chirping)

This is the part where you run away again, Blast . . . See you in a couple weeks.

... it's a shame you don't read Dembski. (I hope this doesn't mean you berate someone with which whose writings you are not familiar.)

— Blast

Blast: you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink

Dorothy Parker: You can lead a horticulture, but you can't make her think

All this talk of front loading and irreducible complexity and such, i'd like to see how the IDers deal with those polar bears in Singapore who recently developed a symbiotic relationship with some algae. The algae live inside the hollow hair shaft of the bear, and the bear gets some protection from the hotter singapore sun. The cute green polar bears made news for a few days.

Now, on Planet ID, they would have to say this is an IC system. the hair is hollow, the algae is green, it's an IC system. take any part away, it doesn't work. Yet we just saw it happen.

Gosh, Blast, thanks for the grammar lesson.

Now for the punctuation lesson--an interrogative use of the phrase would ordinarily be signalled with the "?" mark.

Actually, your only reasonable explanation would have been that you had, um, read it as a future injunctive: "Read it! Blast and then we'll see if you have anything sensible to say about it..."

Which, of course, you haven't.

Any reasonable person would, in the absence of significant contrary evidence, based on their respective reputations and credentials, conclude that Wolpert is right about NFL, and Dembski is not.

They act as if they come from some far, distant planet and have never seen a dictionary nor have lived life on earth---all so that the argument against them is unsustainable because they choose to be 'agnostic' about the plain meaning of words. ... "Read it", in English, can be the present declarative, the present interrogative, or simply the present (rare), or the past tense. I read it (past tense) as the interrogative, for whatever reason.

— BlastOfHotAir

P.S. I shouldn't leave the impression that I think Lenny's "Read it." was ambiguous -- it wasn't. BlastOfGas wrote "Maybe you can read it." and Lenny responded "Read it. It's crap ..." There's only one plausible, intelligent, or honest interpretation. And then there's Blast's interpretation: "he gives the impression that he won't bother reading it because he thinks it unworthy of his attention. Maybe I'm wrong" -- and yet Blast complains that "they choose to be 'agnostic' about the plain meaning of words...". Hypocrisy from an IDist -- what a surprise.

Blast, no need to thank me for pointing out that your frontloading crap doesn't have anyhthing to do with the Super Mice. Just as thier is no need to thank me for (1) mentioning Baldwin and Waddington to you (since you never heard of them before I told you about them, or (2) mentioning _Caudipteryx_, _Ambulocetus_ and _Pakicetus_ to you, since you never heard of them either before I mentioned them to you. I also won't ask you to thank me for pointing out that all of your quoted info about Goldschmidt came from a website written by some fruitloop who refers to himself as an "ecological visionary" ---- I assume you already knew when you regurgiquoted it that it was written by a nutjob.

— RDLF

I assume you already knew when you regurgiquoted it that it was written by a nutjob.

— RDLF

Lenny, so what if you pointed out "Caudipteryx_, _Ambulocetus_ and _Pakicetus_ " to me. What does it matter? What do any of these forms prove? Nothing!

Now, on Planet ID, they would have to say this is an IC system. the hair is hollow, the algae is green, it's an IC system. take any part away, it doesn't work. Yet we just saw it happen.

— steve

...snicker...

— ts(not Tim)

I've looked for a probable, reasonable answer to species formation; and neo-Darwinism isn't the answer. And I don't mind telling you.

Darwinism will one day be looked upon like the plague; as something that almost knocked the life completely out of biological sciences.

I dare you! Go ahead!

First, the super mouse isn't an example of "front-loading".

How can you tell? What *is* an example of frontloading? How can you tell? Or do you just want everyone to take your word for it?

Read it. (past tense) Read it. (present declarative)

— BlastOfIgnoranceStupidityAndDishonesty

Lenny, every time you get involved with a post, the entire post goes down the drain. Maybe that's something you ought to reflect on.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Lenny often gets involved in order to give IDiots a well-deserved paddling. It's the presence of IDiots such as yourself that tilts things downhill. Threads often recuperate when the IDiots wander off.

BTW, have you read http://www.bostonreview.net/BR27.3/orr.html ? Or are you just throwing up these smokescreens in order to avoid the burden of understanding or responding to its content?

BFTP

I'm new here and don't have any axes to grind. Would you be so kind to explain to me what facts you are referring to when you said "the details of a theory disproven by the very facts that are intended to prove it" and how they disprove the theory?
Could you expand on "the weaknesses that exist in Darwinian theory" that Gould admitted to?
Could you give more detail on "Darwinism will one day be looked upon like the plague; as something that almost knocked the life completely out of biological sciences"
Have you found "a probable, reasonable answer to species formation". If you have, will you share it with me? I'm always willing to learn.

Lenny, every time you get involved with a post, the entire post goes down the drain. Maybe that's something you ought to reflect on.

First, the super mouse isn't an example of "front-loading".

How can you tell? What *is* an example of frontloading? How can you tell? Or do you just want everyone to take your word for it?

Blast wrote: Well, you overlooked the conjunction-both conditions must be met for the scientific community to lash out. Now, let me ask you, Andrea, what in Meyer's article can you point to that is religious? If the mention of design, in your opinion, is tantamount to invoking religion, then there is some merit in your argument. But the idea of 'design' in Meyer's paper is meant to contrast and compare the 'explanatory power' of various models. What's wrong with that? How is that unscientific? If you think that neo-Darwinism has greater explanatory power, then simply demonstrate it-rather than attacking someone who permits a perfectly legitimate article to be published. Admit it, the outrage of the scientific community at the publication of Meyer's article is simply because its publication undermines one of neo-Darwinism's arguments against ID: viz., "Well, what 'peer-reviewed' articles have they published?" So, the neo-Darwinists demonstrate through their attacks on Sternberg just how disengenous their argument really is. You know, if the truth is on your side, you have nothing to fear. Only frightened people take desparate measures. It seems that ID unnerves the neo-Dar's. How come? Is it because, deep down, you really don't believe what you're saying?

Bottaro: I want you as my lawyer.

Darwinism will one day be looked upon like the plague; as something that almost knocked the life completely out of biological sciences. But, of course, you can always prove me wrong. I dare you! Go ahead!

— Blast

It's all on how you want to understand him. Maybe you think what Behe said is a telling discredit of his ideas on irreducible complexity. But I think what Behe meant was that "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink."

Over the years, I've seen time and time again that when liberals are confronted with evidence that discredits their thinking, they then resort to simply denying reality. They ask questions like: "Well, what do you mean by 'ultimately'?" "What do you mean by 'normally'?, etc. They act as if they come from some far, distant planet and have never seen a dictionary nor have lived life on earth---all so that the argument against them is unsustainable because they choose to be 'agnostic' about the plain meaning of words. That's what Behe was likely dealing with; and his words can easily be understood in that way. So, keep trying.

And, about "faith" and all that stuff, why not read the Origins of Species? Here's just one example chosen at random: "In attempting to estimate the amount of structural difference between allied domestic races, we are soon involved in doubt, from not knowing whether they are descended from one or several parent species....I do not believe, as we shall presently see, that the whole amount of difference between the several breeds of the dog has been produced under domestication; I believe that a small part of the difference is due to their being descended from distinct species...." Well, is this law, science, or just pure "belief"?

Andrea, if things are indeed as you have stated them, then I can see why you are troubled (and obviously deeply so) about what happened. Now, I've observed some of these goings-on from the periphery. I don't get the same sense that you do; specifically, the relationship between Meyers and Sternberg. So I'm tempted to think this is an over-reaction on the part of the establishment. But perhaps you can kindly direct me to a news item or two that deals with the alleged relationship between Msrs. Sternberg and Meyers. I say that sincerely. (I'm going to look for some in the meantime.)

But it seems to me that the scientific community should nevertheless take note of what's happened here: the man has been completely marginalized, his marriage is broken up, and I would imagine it won't be easy moving forward in his professional career. That's a big price to pay. As well, it would seem that the Dep't of Justice thought that he was harassed in his workplace but didn't follow up on said harassment simply because, technically, he wasn't paid directly by the Smithsonian. So I don't think the scientific community can maintain that it's beyond fault here. Don't you think it's important to remember that we're dealing with people's lives here? I think some caution and deference would have been in order. The pall of the Velikovsky Affair still hangs in the air--so all the more reason to go forward taking into account Sternberg's rights as a citizen and as a member of the scientific community.

Again, and I say this with all sincerity, I don't see what the big deal is. It's not like Meyers is writing something that he hasn't, in one form or another, written about already. But I'm beginning to think that the anger develops because you don't believe that Meyers' article conforms to what is considered, let's say, "hard science"? In other words, he's not in the lab doing something? So your issue would be that Meyer's article belonged more in a journal that deals with the philosophy of science, or something along those lines. That would certainly strike me as being a legitimate concern. (But I can't go so far as to say there isn't reason for reproach, for, after all, as they say, "the end doesn't justify the means.)

Cheap psychology or not, there is an edginess here that goes beyond what meets the eye. But, again, I'll look for some more info on the background of Meyers and Sternberg's relationship.

Ciao, paisano.

THat ID is unable to present its own hypothesis is one thing, that it relies on our ignorance is nothing remarkable, that however people see this ignorance as evidence of the demise of a good evolutionary theory seems quite silly.

— PvM

And, about "faith" and all that stuff, why not read the Origins of Species? Here's just one example chosen at random: "In attempting to estimate the amount of structural difference between allied domestic races, we are soon involved in doubt, from not knowing whether they are descended from one or several parent species....I do not believe, as we shall presently see, that the whole amount of difference between the several breeds of the dog has been produced under domestication; I believe that a small part of the difference is due to their being descended from distinct species...." Well, is this law, science, or just pure "belief"?

Over the years, I've seen time and time again that when liberals are confronted with evidence that discredits their thinking, they then resort to simply denying reality.

I think that it is possible to create new theory of evolution - deterministic(not Darwinian and not creationistic).
For example:
Melkikh A.V. Internal structure of elementary particle and possible deterministic mechanism of biological evolution. Entropy. 2004. 6. 223-232.

I'm not so wedded to ID as I'm convinced that Darwinism is correct in only in a limited way

Should we just accept things because Darwin "believes" them.

— the stunningly ill-informed Blast

... We're left to simply accept his opinion in many places. That sure doesn't fill me with loads of confidence.

Aren't you right to conclude that whoever wrote those equations was intelligent---even though you can't explain them?

— blast

Over the years, I've seen time and time again that when liberals are confronted with evidence that discredits their thinking, they then resort to simply denying reality.

— Blast

I am sick unto death of half-brained idiots who play religico-political games with science. I will soon be resigning my position with the party over that very issue.

— RBH

apples and oranges. that science recognizes intelligence in such areas as archaeology, criminology etc is based on positive knowledge ID is purely eliminative and proposes no explanations beyond poof

— PvM

Who ever suggested such a thing?

— Russell

Name one of those places.

— Russell

And, please tell me, why, with Darwin, that you agree that variation can proceed up to the "class" level, but not beyond. What's the reason for "believing" that such a barrier exists? From whence does such a barrier arise? I guess I'm ill-informed. So, please, inform me.

— BFTP

...beets, therefore, given enough time can give rise to T. Rex's?

— BFTP

Andrea: I did a google search and didn't find much. So maybe you can send me something.

But I did find this:
http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=001929;p=1

I say forget Velikovsky; this is now the "Smithsonian Inquisition". What Klinghoffer points out is really pretty bad.

Criminology and archaeology also operate in an eliminative way. For example, to be sure that a piece of stone is more than just a piece of stone, you have to eliminate the possibility that its shape/form is NOT the result of natural forces. To conclude that somebody died of natural causes---and hence that you are not dealing with a homicide---you have to "rule out foul play."

— Blast

As I said in the prior post, advancing technology and knowledge will decide this issue for us one way or the other.

— Blast

Now give me the proof that Darwin gives for this---where's the proof? Is it the fossil record? Is it in extant species? Is it found in recorded history?

— Blast

Darwin says that he can envision that species give rise to genera, genera give rise to families, families give rise to orders, and even that orders give rise to classes. Do you believe that? And if you do, then why don't you likewise believe that classes give rise to phyla, and that phyla give rise to kingdoms, and that beets, therefore, given enough time can give rise to T. Rex's?

— blast

And, please tell me, why, with Darwin, that you agree that variation can proceed up to the "class" level, but not beyond.

Until the quote mismatch is repaired, let me reiterate that phylum is a later addition to Linnaean hierarchies.

What Klinghoffer points out is really pretty bad.

— blast

BlastfromthePast wrote: In fact, Caudipteryx causes more problems for evolutionary theory than if it weren't there.

BlastfromthePast wrote: Front-loading, as much as you want to disparage it, flows from information theory. It also has its parallels in nature, specifically, in bird feather evolution.

Criminology and archaeology do not rely on pure elimination but rather on motive, means, opportunities. Let's not confuse common design with rarefied design shall we?

That you consider QM to be where ID is hiding is not surprising as QM provides us with just those gaps where ID can hide away from our observations.

The point is moot, as taxonomical categories above species level are artificial constructs.

— Pastor Bentonit

Front-loading, as much as you want to disparage it, flows from information theory. It also has its parallels in nature, specifically, in bird feather evolution.

— blast

Hypotheses for the initial function of feathers are reviewed. The aerodynamic theory of feather origins is falsified, but many other functions remain developmentally and phylogenetically plausible. Whatever their function, feathers evolved by selection for a follicle that would grow an emergent tubular appendage. Feathers are inherently tubular structures. The homology of feathers and scales is weakly supported. Feathers are composed of a suite of evolutionary novelties that evolved by the duplication, hierarchical organization, interaction, dissociation, and differentiation of morphological modules. The unique capacity for modular subdivision of the tubular feather follicle and germ has fostered the evolution of numerous innovations that characterize feathers. The evolution of feather keratin and the molecular basis of feather development are also discussed.

if taxonomical categories above the species level are artificial, then why did Darwin bother talking about them?

— blast

Whence this variation? And why is variation variable? ... Since Darwin is unable to articulate either position, then (bio)logically his theory implies that beets become beasts.

— blast

Let's not confuse common design with rarefied design shall we?

— PvM

That you consider QM to be where ID is hiding is not surprising as QM provides us with just those gaps where ID can hide away from our observations.

— PvM

We were talking about "intelligence", not design.

— blast

ID is about CSI---information. And what are scientist racing to perfect: quantum computing: the most powerful computing system the "mind" can imagine and capable of storing vast amounts of, yes, you guessed it, information. Maybe somebody beat us to it?

— blast

I've read extensively through the primary literature on bird evolution, and I'm unaware of any problems that Caudipteryx causes. What problems did you have in mind?

— Augray

I'm unaware of any need for "front-loading" in the evolution of feathers.

— Augray

Nice diversion. Why not address the point...

— PvM

Is silicon intelligent because it is used so commonly in computer chips?

— PvM

Equivocating on concepts like information. ID is about probabilities, not information..

— PvM

Prum and Brush were more or less saying that the "primitive" follicle seemed to "know" what was coming.

The tubular feather follicle and feather germ led to subsequent evolution of numerous additional morphological and developmental novelties. This complexity appears to have exploited an inherent capacity of the innovative tubular form of the feather follicle and feather germ. Future research on the evolution of feather keratin and the molecular mechanisms of feather morphogenesis will provide additional insights into the innovative nature of feathers.

Lenny, so what if you pointed out "Caudipteryx_, _Ambulocetus_ and _Pakicetus_ " to me. What does it matter? What do any of these forms prove? Nothing! In fact, Caudipteryx causes more problems for evolutionary theory than if it weren't there. And as far as cetacean evolution is concerned, both of those forms only point out the more the missing links that exist. Admit it; they look like whales! None of this has any "explanatory power" when it comes to Darwin's theory---so why should I bother myself with the details of a theory disproven by the very facts that are intended to prove it? I'm really not interested.

— BlastfromthePast

You make my point. The "silica" is not intelligent of itself; but it can nevertheless be the carrier of "intelligence." If "silica" can carry "intelligence", then why can't "carbon" (of the same chemical family) not also be a carrier of "intelligence"?

— blast

CSI is fundamental to the thinking and theorizing of Wm. Dembski: complex, specified, INFORMATION. How is this equivocating? How can you say that ID is about "probabilites" as if it has nothing to do with information. It has to do precisely with the "probability" that "information" can come about in a NON-"intelligent", random fashion. The two are interlinked. Why have you tried to unlink them?

— blast

Evolvability seems to require neutrality and neutrality is a selectable trait... Now that is fascinating isn't it.... Think about it.

— PvM

Re: Blast's request for evidence of connections between Sternberg and Meyer/the DI.

In 2001, Sternberg, with Meyer, was one of the first 100 signatories of the Discovery Institute-organized "List of 100 scientists who doubt Darwinism". Sternberg was invited to talk at the 2002 RAPID (Research and Progress in Intelligent Design) conference at Biola, a small, closed-door affair from which non-ID supporters were actively excluded (Meyer and practically the entire Discovery Institute CRSC leadership were there too). In 2003 Sternberg wrote a glowing endorsement for "Darwin, Design and Public Education", a book edited by Meyer and another DI fellow, John Angus Campbell.
In 2004 Sternberg, with the DI's Jonathan Wells, was scheduled to talk at an ID/Creationist meeting in Finland (I don't know if he actually ended up doing it, because the meeting was after the Meyer affair broke out).

There are more examples, I just don't have time to dig everything up. However, I think this is enough to foster the suggestion that Sternberg has closed personal contacts with the ID leadership, that they see him at least as as a sympathizer, and more specifically that he knew Meyer personally, and that he participated - before, after and possibly while the Meyer paper was submitted for publication in PBSW - in several high-profile activities organized or arranged in part by Meyer's employer, the DI, or its affiliates (I have no knowledge of any of these activities providing monetary compensation or other perks, like free travel).

Regardless of whether impropriety occurred, the appearance is there, and good professional practice at least would have required Sternberg to make the review process as transparent and open as possible, and not as secretive as PBSW editorial rules or custom allowed. He chose to do the latter.

For everyone else:
Blast here is engaging in his own form of "Gish Gallop". Don't indulge him, and try to stay on topic.

Ved Rocke:

You're getting all this stuff out of context. RDLennyFlank used Caudipteryx in a vain effort to provide a "missing link" for the bird lineage. When you have a form that has anatomical features that are very similar to modern birds, and that has very nearly modern feathers (my understanding--I could be wrong), then how does that provide a "missing link."

I'm sure you might see it differently. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. It just doesn't, logically, to me, fill the bill.

Blast here is engaging in his own form of "Gish Gallop". Don't indulge him, and try to stay on topic.

Comment #44639 Posted by BlastfromthePast on August 24, 2005 12:32 PM (e) (s) PvM wrote: " Evolvability seems to require neutrality and neutrality is a selectable trait... Now that is fascinating isn't it.... Think about it." Therefore, by definition, "neutrality" can't be a "selectable" trait, per Darwin. Logically, "neutrality" can only come about by an "internal" cause (though it's possible for an "outside" trigger---but this wouldn't be N.S.), but, of course, this presents serious problems for Darwinism. So, though you say "neutrality" is "selectable", this "selectibility", logically, confounds Darwinism. Back tomorrow. Have to go off. Ciao.

BlastfromthePast wrote:

Augray wrote: I've read extensively through the primary literature on bird evolution, and I'm unaware of any problems that Caudipteryx causes. What problems did you have in mind?

Did, or did not, the discovery of Caudipteryx cause the entire lineage leading to modern birds into question? Isn't the position of Archeopteryx relative to this lineage still problematic?

BlastfromthePast wrote:

Augray wrote: I'm unaware of any need for "front-loading" in the evolution of feathers.

In Prum and Brush's 2003 article on the bird feather, they mention that the primitive follicle seems to have, in their words, an "inherent capacity" for the development of the remaining features that make the follicle a bird feather. "Front-loading", "inherent capacity", have an etiological resonance. Prum and Brush were more or less saying that the "primitive" follicle seemed to "know" what was coming. This is very suggestive of informational "front-loading."

The tubular feather follicle and feather germ led to subsequent evolution of numerous additional morphological and developmental novelties. This complexity appears to have exploited an inherent capacity of the innovative tubular form of the feather follicle and feather germ.

Our developmental theory proposes that feathers evolved through a series of transitional stages, each marked by a developmental evolutionary novelty, a new mechanism of growth.

Proposing that feathers evolved for flight now appears to be like hypothesizing that fingers evolved to play the piano. Rather feathers were "exapted" for their aerodynamic function only after the evolution of substantial developmental and structural complexity. That is, they evolved for some other purpose and were then exploited for a different use.

Creationists and other evolutionary skeptics have long pointed to feathers as a favorite example of the insufficiency of evolutionary theory. There were no transitional forms between scales and feathers, they have argued. Further, they asked why natural selection for flight would first divide an elongate scale and then evolve an elaborate new mechanism to weave it back together. Now, in an ironic about-face, feathers offer a sterling example of how we can best study the origin of an evolutionary novelty: focus on understanding those features that are truly new and examine how they form during development in modern organisms. This new paradigm in evolutionary biology is certain to penetrate many more mysteries.

Blast gassed: When you have a form that has anatomical features that are very similar to modern birds, and that has very nearly modern feathers (my understanding---I could be wrong), then how does that provide a "missing link." I'm sure you might see it differently. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. It just doesn't, logically, to me, fill the bill.

Incidentally, the information you provide seems plenty enough to suggest that Sternberg would have done himself a big service by recusing himself from the process.

the same virtual list

"Incidentally, the information you provide seems plenty enough to suggest that Sternberg would have done himself a big service by recusing himself from the process. But again, the end doesn't justify the means. A severe reprimand, exclusion from future editorial work, would have been in line. But taking away the keys to his department, ostracizing him, etc.---a bit uncalled for."

That you can spout such nonsense should exclude you from any conversation based on fact or reason.

I'm being attacked on anything I say.

Over the years, I've seen time and time again that when liberals are confronted with evidence that discredits their thinking, they then resort to simply denying reality.

That's a line that infuriates me. I am old enough to have voted for Barry Goldwater (a genuine conservative) back when you had to be 21 to vote

And, please tell me, why, with Darwin, that you agree that variation can proceed up to the "class" level, but not beyond.

I'm being attacked on anything I say.

We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture.

It's a prediction, actually, and he was right.

— Ed Darrell

Front-loading", "inherent capacity", have an etiological resonance. Prum and Brush were more or less saying that the "primitive" follicle seemed to "know" what was coming. This is very suggestive of informational "front-loading."

— BlastOfGas

I'm being attacked on anything I say.

Until the quote mismatch is repaired, ...

— PvM

You seem to have avoided the thorny issue of gradualism's constant need for variation.

— Blast

Are you suggesting that gradualism's needed variation "stops" because N.S. "chooses" neutrality?

— Blast

But N.S. functions after the fact, so how can it function on something that's not functioning. That is, if the organism does not change, then natural selection cannot act since it has nothing to act upon.

— Blast

Therefore, by definition, "neutrality" can't be a "selectable" trait, per Darwin.

— Blast

Logically, "neutrality" can only come about by an "internal" cause (though it's possible for an "outside" trigger---but this wouldn't be N.S.), but, of course, this presents serious problems for Darwinism. So, though you say "neutrality" is "selectable", this "selectibility", logically, confounds Darwinism.

— Blast

I'm being attacked on anything I say.

— blast

It gets even better, but I will save this for later.

I've been collecting the ones I think are the best (as long as I can find reasonably decent source attributions for them - which has been a problem with some). I haven't been storing them in an organised manner though according to the vintage and the particular variety of sour grapes (underlying cause, religious and institutional affiliations, qualifications, state or whatever etc). There's definitely potential for a proper web-site page on these

— SEF

I'd seen the winace collection before. However, I do like the Chez Watt item in which someone erroneously asserts that "feathered animal that flies ... accurately describes the bat". If they didn't flunk primary school biology they certainly should have.

I'm only collecting those by people in prominent positions who are clearly holding themselves up for public ridicule though. So that's typically politicians, clergy, media personalities and any misguided doctors or scientists prostituting themselves to the cause of religious stupidity and ignorance.

But those who see no place for intelligent design in the realm of science - and that includes us - will ruefully give him credit for maneuvering a brief for intelligent design into a peer-reviewed journal, although how rigorous that review was remains a point of contention.

Blast, what specific features are you talking about, beyond the feathers? Who, other than your befuddled self, has characterized these features as "very similar" to the homologous features of modern birds? Likewise, as to the "very nearly modern" feathers? What scale or measure of comparison are you---or your source, if you have one?---utilizing in arriving at these judgments? Where, to begin with, do you understand Caudipteryx fits into the sequence of bird evolution? Because, um, if it fits relatively late into the sequence of the development of bird-from-small carnivorous dino traits, then you don't really have any point at all, do you? (And please note that it's the relative position in the sequence that's meaningful here, not some absolute date in time---after all, mammals alive during the Age of Dinosaurs presumably had already evolved "modern" mammalian features, including "very nearly modern" fur, right?)

— Steviepinhead

And so at least until the initiating tidbit for this essay appeared in the August 17, 2000, issue of Nature, one running dinosaur with utterly unambiguous feathers on its tail and forearms seemed to stand forth as an ensign of Huxley's intellectual triumph and the branching of birds within the evolutionary tree of ground-dwelling dinosaurs. But the new article makes a strong, if unproven, case for an inverted evolutionary sequence, with Caudipteryx interpreted as a descendant of flying birds, secondarily readapted to a running lifestyle on terra firma, and not as a dinosaur in a lineage of exclusively ground-dwelling forms (T. D. Jones, J. O. Farlow, J. A. Ruben, D. M. Henderson, and W. J. Hillenius, "Cursoriality in Bipedal Archosaurs," Nature 406, August 17, 2000).

"The presence of unambiguous feathers in an unambiguously nonavian theropod has the rhetorical impact of an atomic bomb, rendering any doubt about the theropod relationships of birds ludicrous." But Caudipteryx is anything but an unambiguous theropod and the theropod origin can only be sustained if one wishes away the differences in the homologies of the digits of the hand and totally ignores the fundamental differences in tooth replacement pattern and ankle structure, as Witmer does here.

"The case for secondary loss of flight rests upon a set of anatomical features that Caudipteryx shares with modern ground birds that evolved from flying ancestors--a common trend in several independent lineages, including ostriches, rheas, cassowaries, kiwis, moas, and others. By contrast, lineages of exclusively ground-dwelling forms, including all groups of dinosaurs suggested as potential ancestors of birds, evolved different shapes and proportions for the same features. In particular, as the accompanying illustration shows, ground-running and secondarily flightless birds--in comparison with small dinosaurs of fully terrestrial lineages--tend to have relatively shorter tails, relatively longer legs, and a center of gravity located in a more forward (headward) position. By all three criteria, the skeleton of Caudipteryx falls into the domain of flightless birds rather than the space of cursorial (running) dinosaurs. .......But if Caudipteryx is a secondarily flightless bird, the general hypothesis of dinosaurian ancestry suffers no blow, though Caudipteryx itself loses its potential role as an avian ancestor (while gaining an equally interesting status as the first known bird to renounce flight).

Proposing that feathers evolved for flight now appears to be like hypothesizing that fingers evolved to play the piano. Rather feathers were "exapted" for their aerodynamic function only after the evolution of substantial developmental and structural complexity. That is, they evolved for some other purpose and were then exploited for a different use.

— Augray

This would seem to contradict your claim of front-loading.

That you can spout such nonsense should exclude you from any conversation based on fact or reason.

— Gary Hurd

1) How can you tell that the Super Mice are not an example of frontloading?

— RDLF

A tree trunk has an inherent capacity for being carved into a canoe. Does that mean that it "knows" that a canoe is coming, that canoes are informationally front loaded into tree trunks? What's very suggestive here is that you don't know what words mean, and that you selectively misinterpret what people write while ignoring the stuff that directly contradicts your interpretation --- as you did with "read it".

— ts (not Tim)

So far it only seems to confuse you. Are you interested in hearing more about these findings? I agree they may appear to sound contradictory but that's the beauty of it... In fact, let me add another angle. Neutrality also increases robustness... Imagine this. Neutrality affects both robustness and the ability to evolve...

— PvM

You make my point. The "silica" is not intelligent of itself; but it can nevertheless be the carrier of "intelligence." If "silica" can carry "intelligence", then why can't "carbon" (of the same chemical family) not also be a carrier of "intelligence"?

— PvM

Is that your point? Then what relevance does this really have? QM has nothing to do with intelligence perse?...

Information/complexity is the negative log of the probability in Dembski's world. That's all.

— PvM

The smart layman would understand that when it looks to him like there's an obvious and lethal contradiction in a field of science, and the scientists say there isn't, it's probably his own misunderstanding.

— steve

A tree trunk has an inherent capacity for being carved into a canoe in the "mind" of the person who is going to carve it out.

And he knows it. "Front-loading" is, after all, about "intelligence", and therefore "mind." Do you see how easy it is to dismantle your thinking? Maybe it's because I'm on the right side of this question and your on the wrong side. Would you like to consider changing sides?

About Orr's article: I've read it. I've found a glaring error; and will be posting about it very soon. Stay tuned.

— Blast

A tree trunk has an inherent capacity for being carved into a canoe in the "mind" of the person who is going to carve it out.

— ts (not Tim)

It has the capacity, in reality. A twig, a pebble, or a feather, OTOH, has no such inherent capacity.

First, this is generally true of the 'hard' sciences. But it is not true in evolutionary biology.

Now, Wolpert is more a mathematician. He was not commenting so much on Dembski's use of NFL theoroms, but rather on the "fitness functions" that Dembski uses as a corollary to the NFL. That's not his field of expertise. "An obvious and lethal contradiction in a field of science"? Isn't that a little overstated?

Have you ever seen---outside of intelligent agency---a tree trunk become a canoe? Do you have any examples?

— blast

Let's be more precise: Dembski, using Shannon's definition of information, defines the "measure of information" as the negatie log of probability.

— blast

This seems to simply be a variation on a theme of Kimura's Neutral Theory. I am a little surprised that you can't immediately see that if you begin to invoke "neutrality", then this only makes the effectiveness of point mutations less and less.

— blast

There's a trade-off. Actually, it's worse than that because "neutrality" lessens the effectiveness of what point-mutations can do (Do I have to explain it: in other words, if amino acids themselves are neutral, then a point mutation (roughly one-third of an amino acid specification) is even MORE neutral---that is, ineffective.) at the same time as it undermines Darwinian theory as I've already mentioned; viz., that changes are taking place independent of NS. Now this might bolster the position of punk-eck, but it damages neo-Darwinism.

argue here that such neutral change --- and thus robustness --- can be a key to future evolutionary innovation, if one accepts that neutrality is not an essential feature of a mutation. That is, a once neutral mutation may cause phenotypic effects in a changed environment or genetic background.

— Fontana

a biological system is evolvable if its properties show heritable genetic variation, and if natural selection can thus change these properties. and a biological system is evolvable if it can acquire novel functions through genetic change, functions that help the organism survive and reproduce.

Abstract|Self-adaptation is used in all main paradigms of evolutionary computation to increase efficiency. We claim that the basis of self-adaptation is the use of neutrality. In the absence of external control neutrality allows a variation of the search distribution without the risk of fitness loss.

The ability of an evolutionary algorithm to adapt its search strategy during the optimization process is a key concept in evolutionary computation,

Evolvability is defined by Altenberg [13] as "the ability of random variations to sometimes produce improvement". This concept refers to the efficiency of evolutionary search; it is based upon the work by Altenberg [14]: "the ability of an operator/representation scheme to produce offspring that are fitter than their parents".

Abstract Evolutionary algorithms apply the process of variation, reproduction, and selection to look for an individual capable of solving the task at hand. In order to improve the evolvability of a population we propose to copy important characteristics of nature's search space. Desired characteristics for a genotype-phenotype mapping are described and several highly redundant genotype-phenotype mappings are analyzed in the context of a population-based search. We show that evolvability, defined as the ability of random variations to sometimes produce improvement, is influenced by the existence of neutral networks in genotype space. Redundant mappings allow the population to spread along the network of neutral mutations and the population is quickly able to recover after a change has occurred. The extent of the neutral networks affects the interconnectivity of the search space and thereby affects evolvability

Why don't you look up the words, "inherent" and "capacity"?

Have you ever seen---outside of intelligent agency---a tree trunk become a canoe? Do you have any examples?

And, why the ad hominems?

I've seen trees floating down a river. Suppose an animal is struggling in the water and it climbs onto a tree as it floats by. There's your canoe. It's not pretty but it gets the job done. You don't have to have the ideal solution if you can get by with what you've got.

The "Isaac Newton" of anything, he ain't.

...And some of the trees that have fallen alongside streams, lakes, rivers, or other shorelines will have been partially hollowed out by insect or animal activity or partially burned out by a lightning strike or wildfire--voila! a dugout waiting to be "exapted."

So far, no "intentional design" is involved in the process of tree > log > canoe at all.

Hey Blast, why isn't the Super Mouse an observed example of frontloading, and how can you tell?

What *is* an observed example of frontloading, and how can you tell?

You seem to be having some sort of difficulty answering those simple questions, Blast. Why is that?

Comment #45007 Posted by SEF on August 26, 2005 03:53 PM (e) (s) The "Isaac Newton" of anything, he ain't.

The only thing Dembski has going for him is, the refutation of his stuff is younger than Behe's stuff, and it has a mathematical veneer the naive find impressive.

But I disagree. I think Behe is the best they've got.

Blast writes:Admit it, the outrage of the scientific community at the publication of Meyer's article is simply because its publication undermines one of neo-Darwinism's arguments against ID: viz., "Well, what 'peer-reviewed' articles have they published?" "

THe only thing undermined was the peer-review process, when Sternberg published Meyer's article on his own authority; an authority he did not have.

Then again, its no surprise the IDiots resort to dishonesty.

ID has never been published in a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. The Meyer/Sternberg affair doesn't change that. The words "Intelligent Design" do not constitute a theory, and the peer review was hustled. The outrage is no different than the outrage in the physics community about the Schoen situation. It's just about lying and fraud.

You know, some people really are so clueless that, when they get hit in the head by an apple, they think they are doing just what Isaac Newton did.

Well Behe can be their Einstein or whatever then.

I followed the blast/rev dr. repartee for some time, and i'm surprised that no-one picked up on this gaffe:

<>

here's the source of blast's confusion: a misunderstanding of the nature of genetic variation and evolution:
he implies that mutations occur at the time the selective force is applied! i.e., that change in the environment causes mutations to occur.

NO EVOLUTIONIST worth his salt believes this (it's a long-refuted neo-Lamarckian idea). If you do, you have some catching up to do! Variants (alleles) of genes arise in the population by random errors (etc.) more or less constantly over time.

Changes in the environment merely change the relative 'fitness' of EXISTING alleles. Selection works on existing variability. "Supermice" arose because somewhere in the founding population, one or a few of the mice had alleles for (potential) large size. Your puzzlement over the apparent perfect timing of the mutation leading to this trait is without basis, as is this corollary:

<< Now, if there is some environmental feedback between genomic potential and environmental conditions (in other words, a "directed" mutation scenario), all of this makes much more sense.>>

Learn about evolution before you criticize it.

here's the source of blast's confusion: a misunderstanding of the nature of genetic variation and evolution: he implies that mutations occur at the time the selective force is applied! i.e., that change in the environment causes mutations to occur.

the likelihood of just the right mutation occurring in just the right location at just the right time is just simply hugely small.

— derek lactin

Before I respond, could you tell me where this is from so I can check it out for myself. Thanks.

BlastfromthePast wrote: Steviepinhead wrote: Blast gassed: When you have a form that has anatomical features that are very similar to modern birds, and that has very nearly modern feathers (my understanding---I could be wrong), then how does that provide a "missing link." I'm sure you might see it differently. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. It just doesn't, logically, to me, fill the bill.

And so at least until the initiating tidbit for this essay appeared in the August 17, 2000, issue of Nature, one running dinosaur with utterly unambiguous feathers on its tail and forearms seemed to stand forth as an ensign of Huxley's intellectual triumph and the branching of birds within the evolutionary tree of ground-dwelling dinosaurs. But the new article makes a strong, if unproven, case for an inverted evolutionary sequence, with Caudipteryx interpreted as a descendant of flying birds, secondarily readapted to a running lifestyle on terra firma, and not as a dinosaur in a lineage of exclusively ground-dwelling forms (T. D. Jones, J. O. Farlow, J. A. Ruben, D. M. Henderson, and W. J. Hillenius, "Cursoriality in Bipedal Archosaurs," Nature 406, August 17, 2000).

BlastfromthePast wrote: But there's also Olsen reviewing a book by Witner: Here's the link: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4067/is_200404/ai_n9400864 "The presence of unambiguous feathers in an unambiguously nonavian theropod has the rhetorical impact of an atomic bomb, rendering any doubt about the theropod relationships of birds ludicrous." But Caudipteryx is anything but an unambiguous theropod and the theropod origin can only be sustained if one wishes away the differences in the homologies of the digits of the hand and totally ignores the fundamental differences in tooth replacement pattern and ankle structure, as Witmer does here.

BlastfromthePast wrote: Augray wrote: Prum and Brush wrote: Proposing that feathers evolved for flight now appears to be like hypothesizing that fingers evolved to play the piano. Rather feathers were "exapted" for their aerodynamic function only after the evolution of substantial developmental and structural complexity. That is, they evolved for some other purpose and were then exploited for a different use.

...feathers were "exapted" for their aerodynamic function only after the evolution of substantial developmental and structural complexity. That is, they evolved for some other purpose and were then exploited for a different use.

And even if one accepts the Jones et al. paper at face value, that's just one feature. Did you have any others in mind?

— Augray

The question of whether birds originated from theropods is a separate issue from the identification of Caudipteryx. But on the former topic, his complaint about digit homologies is puzzling, considering that variation in digit homologies are known to occur within the Kiwi (Wagner, G. P., & J. A. Gauthier. 1999. 1,2,3 = 2,3,4: A solution to the problem of the homology of the digits in the avian hand. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 96:5111-5116).

— Augray

On what basis do you claim that all the information for the modern bird feather was "present at the beginning"? Prum and Brush state that:

Prum and Brush: feathers were "exapted" for their aerodynamic function only after the evolution of substantial developmental and structural complexity. That is, they evolved for some other purpose and were then exploited for a different use.

— Augray

Also, Prum and Brush do not state that Darwinian mechanisms caused them problems. Rather, they claim that neo-Darwinian approaches to the origin of feathers get in the way of determining their true origins.

— Augray

Assumptions about the path that evolution took to produce flight feathers get in the way of investigations to determine the route that was actually taken. This would be similar to your assumption of front-loading, since such a belief would bring research in this area to a halt.

— Augray

Hey Blast, why is the Super Mouse not an example of frontloading, and how can you tell?

What IS an example of frontloading, and how can you tell?

(sound of crickets chirping)

Yep, that's what I thought, Blast.

But if, instead, I believe that God in some way "infused" his intelligence into organic forms as they developed over time (a view that I, more or less, take), then I am still naturally curious as to what "mechanisms" He may have employed. And finding out the various "steps" that were taken, trying to sort out the interrelationship between these steps, is still of great interest. We might not, as humans, be able to "know" everything; but why not try and find out as much as we can? So, I don't see why ID brings things to a halt. Will there be places where "forms" are "irreducibly complex"? Yes, there will be? Will that prove that God exists? Well, so far it hasn't. So why will it in the future? After all, faith is a gift. If we don't want it, we can always throw it away ( to our sorrow).

I believe

it was "front-loading", and therefore the fully formed modern feather simply came about in stages---that is, it "unfurled"

Thanks, Blast, for making it so crushingly clear that IDers are just lying to us when they claim to be SCIENCE and NOT religious apologetics.

— RDLF

How can you tell?

— RDLF

Blast says he has a rational mind, and his response is "But this is eleven."

Lenny, what I wrote happens to be my personal belief.

On the basis of the Prum and Brush having to invent a word, "exapted." We don't even know what the word means. Obviously it is related to "adapted", but what does it really mean. The authors are forced to invent the word because ordinary Darwinian "assumptions" couldn't explain the "proto" feathers that they had to deal with.

— BlastfromthePast

Comment #45795 Posted by darwinfinch on August 30, 2005 06:35 PM (e) (s) Blast says he has a rational mind, and his response is "But this is eleven."

BlastfromthePast wrote: Augray wrote: And even if one accepts the Jones et al. paper at face value, that's just one feature. Did you have any others in mind?

When you have a form [Caudipteryx] that has anatomical features that are very similar to modern birds, and that has very nearly modern feathers (my understanding---I could be wrong), then how does that provide a "missing link."

BlastfromthePast wrote: Augray wrote: The question of whether birds originated from theropods is a separate issue from the identification of Caudipteryx. But on the former topic, his complaint about digit homologies is puzzling, considering that variation in digit homologies are known to occur within the Kiwi (Wagner, G. P., & J. A. Gauthier. 1999. 1,2,3 = 2,3,4: A solution to the problem of the homology of the digits in the avian hand. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 96:5111-5116).

BlastfromthePast wrote: But, again, the origin of the discussion about Caudipteryx had to do with it being a "missing link". So, presuming on your expertise, do you, or, do you not, think that Caudipteryx is a "missing link"? And, if so, between what and what.

BlastfromthePast wrote: Augray wrote: On what basis do you claim that all the information for the modern bird feather was "present at the beginning"? Prum and Brush state that: Prum and Brush: feathers were "exapted" for their aerodynamic function only after the evolution of substantial developmental and structural complexity. That is, they evolved for some other purpose and were then exploited for a different use.

BlastfromthePast wrote: The possibility of "front-loading" becomes evident when you consider that if the "proto" feather had not started out as a tubular structure, this would have precluded the emergence of the modern feather. The question then is: how did Nature know that the modern feather was coming?

BlastfromthePast wrote: You might try and side-step this vexing question by saying, as do the authors, that "...they evolved for some other purpose and were then exploited for a different use....", but, it seems to me, this is not a satisfactory answer. The answer evades the question as to "why" the 'tubular' structure arose in the first place. If the purpose was evident, we can be sure the authors would have told us about it. So their answer is basically, "We know the 'proto' feather didn't arise specifically for flight. It was simply later 'exapted'. Yet, we don't really know why 'proto' feathers arose." So, it is an argument from ignorance. Therefore, the authors simply "believe" that there indeed was a "selective" pressure present bringing about the "proto" feather, but they, nevetheless, don't KNOW why.

BlastfromthePast wrote: I believe it was "front-loading", and therefore the fully formed modern feather simply came about in stages---that is, it "unfurled", serving various purposes along the way. You choose to believe Darwin; I don't. But "front-loading" fits the facts---and, without the burden of trying to figure out what "evoked" the early stages of the feather. Only if you're wedded to materialism does the "front-loading" present problems. Thus, it's not about science; it's about philosophy. Aren't both Dembski and Meyers philosophers?

BlastfromthePast wrote: Augray wrote: Also, Prum and Brush do not state that Darwinian mechanisms caused them problems. Rather, they claim that neo-Darwinian approaches to the origin of feathers get in the way of determining their true origins.

BlastfromthePast wrote: Augray wrote: Assumptions about the path that evolution took to produce flight feathers get in the way of investigations to determine the route that was actually taken. This would be similar to your assumption of front-loading, since such a belief would bring research in this area to a halt.

BlastfromthePast wrote: Now, given that we, as humans, are curious animals, it is only natural for us to ask questions about how these changes came about. Now, if I really believed that God brought about every species directly---then there is nothing to investigate. But if, instead, I believe that God in some way "infused" his intelligence into organic forms as they developed over time (a view that I, more or less, take), then I am still naturally curious as to what "mechanisms" He may have employed. And finding out the various "steps" that were taken, trying to sort out the interrelationship between these steps, is still of great interest. We might not, as humans, be able to "know" everything; but why not try and find out as much as we can? So, I don't see why ID brings things to a halt. Will there be places where "forms" are "irreducibly complex"? Yes, there will be? Will that prove that God exists? Well, so far it hasn't.

BlastfromthePast wrote: So why will it in the future? After all, faith is a gift. If we don't want it, we can always throw it away ( to our sorrow).

But you seem to have no problem citing them. Could it be that you don't really understand the issues involved?

To give Blast a hint as to why "protofeathers" (that is, long, thin, tubular structures that cover the body) are selectable (note - this is just one possibility), he might want to look up the reason why polar bears are white (or occasionally green).

Yo, Blast, how does it help either your ID or your "front-loading" "theories" if Caudipteryx, as an assertedly ancient flightless bird, lies between dinosaur-birds and modern birds? (Instead of between on the feathered-dino side of the dino-bird transition?) It's still a "transitional" fossil that represents evolution in action either way, right?

In any event, the latest thinking seems to be coming back around towards a feathered-dino interpretation:
http://app.pan.pl/acta50/app50-101.pdf
Dyke, G.J. and Norell, M.A. 2005, Caudipteryx as a non-avialan theropod rather than a flightless bird, Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 50 (1): 101-115.

To return to the larger question again: how does a dispute between evolutionary biologists as to where exactly in the scheme of things Caudipteryx fits benefit someone who doesn't believe that evolution mechanisms, acting alone (i.e., without external assists from "design mechanisms"--like front-loading?), can generate significant change between species and lineages. I mean, either Caudipteryx is an example of how theropod dinosaurs evolved feathers and (some of them, eventually) flight or it's an example of how the quite-recently-evolved feathered and flying birds--wherever they came from--were then able to quite quickly re-evolve into flightless forms to opportunistically fill ground-living opportunities.

And, once you've chewed on that one awhile, why don't you get around to telling us how we would recognize "front-loading" anywhere you claim it occurs? SuperMice. Caudipteryx. I don't care, just anywhere you like...

But you seem to have no problem citing them. Could it be that you don't really understand the issues involved?

— Augray

On what basis do you claim that all the information for the modern bird feather was "present at the beginning"? Prum and Brush state that:

feathers were "exapted" for their aerodynamic function only after the evolution of substantial developmental and structural complexity. That is, they evolved for some other purpose and were then exploited for a different use.

On the basis of the Prum and Brush having to invent a word, "exapted." We don't even know what the word means. Obviously it is related to "adapted", but what does it really mean. The authors are forced to invent the word because ordinary Darwinian "assumptions" couldn't explain the "proto" feathers that they had to deal with."

When you state that "We don't even know what the word means" are you using the royal "we"? Because I'm familiar with the term, even if you're not. Take a look at this explanation. See also Kevin Vicklund's comment.

The possibility of "front-loading" becomes evident when you consider that if the "proto" feather had not started out as a tubular structure, this would have precluded the emergence of the modern feather. The question then is: how did Nature know that the modern feather was coming?

— Augray

Why on Earth do you assume that Nature knew that the modern feather was coming?

The answer evades the question as to "why" the 'tubular' structure arose in the first place. If the purpose was evident, we can be sure the authors would have told us about it. So their answer is basically, "We know the 'proto' feather didn't arise specifically for flight. It was simply later 'exapted'. Yet, we don't really know why 'proto' feathers arose." So, it is an argument from ignorance. Therefore, the authors simply "believe" that there indeed was a "selective" pressure present bringing about the "proto" feather, but they, nevetheless, don't KNOW why.

I would point out that you don't KNOW either. So far, all I've seen from you is the assertion that feathers were front-loaded. And now the obvious question is: why? At least Prum and Brush outline scenarios that can be tested, and in fact, have been tested. What tests do you propose to test your claim of front-loading?

— Augray, in response,

As a consequence of duplication and direction, the same mechanisms that produce the main vane of the feather result in the division of the posterior new barb locus into two laterally displaced new barb loci, the creation of a second rachis ridge (the hyporachis), and ultimately an entire second vane growing simultaneously from a single follicle.

— Prum and Brush

And speaking of arguments from ignorance, ID is entirely an argument from ignorance. IDists can't imagine how everyday natural forces could shape life, so there must have been a designer.

— Augray

How does materialism present problems for front-loading? After all, extraterrestrials might have front-loaded the feather. The problem with your front-loading claim is that it's unparsimonious. Why invoke an extra agent when none is needed?

— Augray

Also, Prum and Brush do not state that Darwinian mechanisms caused them problems. Rather, they claim that neo-Darwinian approaches to the origin of feathers get in the way of determining their true origins.

— Augray

This strikes me as a distinction without a difference. Remember, they had to invent a new word.

By emphasizing the reconstruction of a series of functionally and microevolutionarily plausible intermediate transitional states, neo-Darwinian approaches to the origin of feathers have failed to appropriately recognize the novel features of feather development and morphology, and have thus failed to adequately explain their origins. This failure reveals an inherent weakness of neo-Darwinian attempts to synthesize micro and macroevolution."

— Prum and Brush

Actually, most IDists seem to have a enormous problem with the idea that "organic forms have changed over time". Jonathan Wells does, and you seem too as well. You stated that "Caudipteryx causes more problems for evolutionary theory than if it weren't there" but I fail to see why it would cause any less of a problem for the idea that "organic forms have changed over time".

— Augray

So, what line of investigation would you recommend?

— Augray

And speaking of arguments from ignorance, ID is entirely an argument from ignorance. IDists can't imagine how everyday natural forces could shape life, so there must have been a designer. What a wonderful quote! Yes, you're right. Indeed, IDists CAN'T imagine how everyday natural forces can shape life; but Darwinists CAN. If you want to equate "imaginings" with "knowledge", then go right ahead. But such 'imaginings' don't impress me; they don't even make sense to me.

why don't you get around to telling us how we would recognize "front-loading" anywhere you claim it occurs? SuperMice. Caudipteryx. I don't care, just anywhere you like...

— Steviepinhead

Yo, Blast, how does it help either your ID or your "front-loading" "theories" if Caudipteryx, as an assertedly ancient flightless bird, lies between dinosaur-birds and modern birds? (Instead of between on the feathered-dino side of the dino-bird transition?) It's still a "transitional" fossil that represents evolution in action either way, right? In any event, the latest thinking seems to be coming back around towards a feathered-dino interpretation:

— Steviepinhead

The knowledge claim, explicitly, is "natural forces cannot have shaped the life we see". What you are stating here is that, not only are you too dense to understand how they can, but you are too dense to understand what an argument from ignorance is or why it's fallacious. Given that, it is guaranteed that no one's attempt to explain it to you will get through.

— ts (not Tim)

Blast, perhaps you should not focus too much on strawmen. Btw why is b more plausible than a? Where are the calculations?