Origin of the Novel Species Noodleous doubleous: Evidence for Intelligent Design

Another sign of His Noodly Appendage at work.

Ramen.

The truly weirdness is that this reminded me of a recent article on nanotubes.

What a great piece of writing.

Truly, this will advance the cause of ID to the position it will need to bring about evilutions waterloo.

RAmen.

Eighteen minutes! That is sacrilege, not al dente.

I can find no report of whether a sprinkling of holy olive oil was part of the procedure. Is this due to sloppy experimental methods, or sloppy reporting? Or (gasp) could the experiment have been performed with no holy olive oil?

This result would seem to constitute supporting evidence for the current theories of eukaryote origins.

rAmen
rAmen

Comment #51918 Posted by Gary Hurd on October 11, 2005 01:35 PM (e) (s) ...this reminded me of a recent article on nanotubes.

Dr. Schneider's epochal breakthrough paper demonstrates more Science that I've ever seen in any "intelligent design" creationist publication.

I was able to repeat Dr. Schneider's work and concur with his results. Look for my article in an upcoming J. Phys. Cannelloni.

The calculations don't lie. This was a genuine miracle. A fully replicable miracle. What more could any IDist ask?

Given that the probabilistic argument is bogus, can anyone explain the mechanism? I'll assume this actually works, though I doubt I'll get a chance to try it. It doesn't surprise me that you get some double noodles, but the frequency is a lot higher than I would have thought. It's vaguely analogous to a chemical synthesis, but I still find it counterintuitive.

One thing that probably helps is that once a double noodle is formed, it is hard to pull apart spontaneously. I would speculate that once an inner noodle is slightly inserted, it has a higher probability of inserting further than pulling out. If that's true, then the rest makes sense, but I can't guess why that would be true. It'd be pretty cool to capture this on video (again assuming it works and I haven't just bought into a silly prank).

PaulC:

I suggest that the natural stickiness of wet pasta may have something to do with that.

Do you know how Italians would call pasta that has cooked for 18 minutes?

Colla da manifesti ("poster glue").

Oh, wait, I get it. A partially inserted noodle can be knocked in further by all kinds of random impacts, but it's relatively rare that such an impact would pull it out. So the transition from partially inserted to fully doubled is unsurprising.

Ya know, I suspected that genomes are more like recipes than they are like software - is this evidence for that?

Pasta la vista.
Henry

Considering the 18' cooking time and the execrable absence of salt in the water, the pennes were likely just hiding in shame.

As for the actual mechanisms, remember that "ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it's not ID's task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories". It ought to be enough that it just happens.

That's "pastatic" detail.

This should be submitted to the Annals of Improbable Research (assuming it still exists).

Then it'll be peer-reviewed evidence for ID.

The calculations don't lie. This was a genuine miracle. A fully replicable miracle. What more could any IDist ask?

Considering the 18' cooking time and the execrable absence of salt in the water...

Earth, that living, seething, often inhospitable and not altogether intelligently designed thing, has again shrugged, and tens of thousands of Pakistanis are dead. http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/will1.asp

There was an observation Tom made of bubbles that formed inside the pasta. Whis will create a change in local pressure which will draw (I think) the smaller tube into the larger.

Like I said earlier, the truly weirdness is that this is probably a really interesting result. (Or should that be an interesting real result)?

Yes, some would claim this is simply a Brownian ratchet mechanism, analogous to neo-Darwinian evolution, which clearly makes it nothing more than secular nonsense from those fundamentalist scientists -- sinful heresy against any pasta-based Intelligent Designers.

Behold the ultimate proof: who can see this NASA image and retain any doubt that His Noodly Appendage is still shaping the cosmos?

You miss the irony of it, the pasta was intelligently designed, by the guy who wrote that paper.

Hi'yall said "You miss the irony of it, the pasta was intelligently designed, by the guy who wrote that paper."

Wow..really..wow. This reminds me of one of those moments when President Bush gives a speech and says something inane like, "The moon is green and the sky is made of blue cheese, don't ya get it? heh heh," then stares at the audience with a half-cocked grin for a few seconds, as if waiting for the crowd to have it's epiphany once they've fully digested the utter brilliance of his words. When, in fact, the audience is grappling with how a brain capable of learning and using a complex language could have possibly allowed itself to say something so moronic. It is my sincere hope that comment was in jest, but if not, you have just had one of those moments.
If you were serious, I think the real irony is two-fold: 1) That everyone else who read that thought to themselves how absurd, yet accurate, the parody was, seeing as how the pasta was not intelligently designed, and 2) you apparently do not understand the definition of the words "intelligent," or "design."
All this time I thought ID was absurd because it required giving unfathomable supernatural abilities to an unknown source, and being satisfied with that as the end-all answer. But in fact, ID is absurd because the amount of intelligence and design needed to create Life, the Universe, and Everything is the equivalent of the back of a Mac&Cheese box.
Does that make a frozen dinner a good example of IC?

btw it's Hi y'all.

I only skimmed small sections of the paper, I thought it was arguging that Pasta is not intelligently designed, sorry.

Somewhere, Asimov is sitting down to a nice plate of spaghetti and smiling.

Oh, wait, I get it. A partially inserted noodle can be knocked in further by all kinds of random impacts, but it's relatively rare that such an impact would pull it out. So the transition from partially inserted to fully doubled is unsurprising.

Hmmm....wonder if this is similar to the mechanism responsible for allowing us to suck spaghetti?

P.S.: I'm deeply disturbed that two different brands were used in this experiment. We need to work with a single species before we can investigate the effects of hybridization!

Possible further experiments:

angle-cut penne vs. blunt end

different time frames

different ratio of diameters

The possibility of having NSF fund your lab lunches is very appealing.

Childish I know, but the url of the first reference made me smile.

Figure 5 shows exactly why I could never do biology. Far too squeamish.

-Schmitt.

Oh and Qetzal: Yes, the Annals of Improbable Research still exist! They just awarded this year's Ig Nobels :)

-Schmitt.

World's oldest noodles found in China 4,000-year-old pasta made from millet http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9671263/

So, how long before the fusilians start oppressing the linguinards for heresy?

Clearly, for the moment the millet-inarians can claim the upper hand.

More Noodly Evidence

Not only have they discovered noodles, but there's a flood reference....

Ramen

And check out the BBC's caption on their picture of the primordial pasta:
"Late Neolithic noodles: They may settle the origin debate" ...
(Is it even a debate any longer?)

That was great piece of writing. He indicates a quite interesting point on the issue.

Oh, wait, I get it. A partially inserted noodle can be knocked in further by all kinds of random impacts, but it's relatively rare that such an impact would pull it out. So the transition from partially inserted to fully doubled is unsurprising.

Oddly enough, the same dynamic is involved in sex.

It will require further evidence to discover whether it is also possible for male rigatoni to hybridize with female penne rigati! And what is one to make of the possibilities that spirelle present to the Intelligent Designer?

Three questions.

How did the noodles get into the pot?(If it was a human there is our designer)

Was the experiment controled? (If it was then we aren't talking deism, we are discussing an intrested designer)

Was the insertion of the one noodle into the larger one a chemical change? (If it wasn't then who the heck cares)

I think, in the mo0st serious way possible, that this experiment ruins evolution.

Now if this guy found that the noodles spontaneously combusted into those shapes then I would lay down my Bible and go on a killing spri, there is obviously nothing wrong with murder.

I always knew it! Many's the time I've needed to separate overexcited & overheated noodles with a bucket of cold water. They are worse than dogs.