Dissent Out of Bounds on Uncommon Dissent (Oops, make that "Descent")

you're trying to diss UD but you couldn't even get their name right! what a doofus.

you're trying to diss UD but you couldn't even get their name right! what a doofus.

(Oops, make that "Descent")

They really are ban-happy over there at UD, aren't they? I was banned there myself over a year ago.

I was one of several people who dared to suggest that the Dawkin's quotes at http://tinyurl.com/ygbo9n were out of context and/or edited in such a way that they altered the point that Dawkins was trying to make. Like the others who commented on how out-of-context and edited those quotes were, I was not rude, I did not cuss or use any insults, or do anything else that any sane owner/operator of a blog would consider ban-worthy. I even made it clear as day that I was not accusing anyone (especially Dembski) of purposefully misquoting Dawkins, just that I thought that the quotes were not entirely accurate, and I explained why I thought as much as calmly as I could.

My post was deleted and I was banned without warning less than an hour after I posted my comment.

Yet, a few months later I believe it was, a post was made by Dembski that had a picture of Dawkins in it, and several of Dembski's ID buddies made fun of Dawkin's physical appearance. Those posters were not banned under the pretense that they were "not constructive members" and their posts were not deleted. How odd...

I think IDists have in fact, resurrected many of Freuds's theories all by themselves.

It has a reputation for banning unwanted commenters (read: "evolution defenders"), but generally on the grounds that they're obstreperous and disruptive.

Edited to add: A commenter pointed out that I called Dembski's blog "Uncommon Dissent", rather than "Uncommon Descent". I've corrected that error. Perhaps it accounts for the intolerance of dissent there.

Febble and I have corresponded about this affair, and we disagree. She suggests that what we're seeing is the formation of a niche species within ID creationism on UD, while I argue[...]

I don't really understand why this apparently competent lady spent so much time trying to make her point. Perhaps she thought she was talking to scientists? Or just to people willing to listen to scientific arguments? Or just to intelligent people, perhaps...

I refered (and linked) to a NYTimes article that quoted a Templeton Foundation official saying that grant requests were solicited from DI and the ID "scientists" but none ever were submitted. After being told that I didn't know what I was talking about, I offered to ask the Templeton Family (I taught Templeton's grandniece and nephew as the family lives nearby) That was the end of me posting on UD. However, I've found that is much more fun looking from the outside at all the silliness at that site. It's also very educational to see arguments disassembled on AtBC by people who REALLY know their stuff.

Well, considering the abysmal level of argumentation UD stoops down to most of the time, including Professors of Theology proudly claiming authorship of flatulence-ridden animations, I find "Uncommon Descent" rather nicely evocative too.

Febble made a good argument, but more prominently she managed to parse out a real model from the ID fuzz. By sticking to one of Dembski's definition and insist on testability - which Dembski has no intention to do. She even came up with a non-contradictory definition of 'specified complexity' (as the result of choice mechanisms), something Dembski never has managed.

I notice they have a tag team now, a Patrick mentioned he was a bouncer too. As if it wasn't enough with Sal as repellent. :-)

I got banned from UD as well; I only wish I handled the frustration that DaveScot puts out with half the coolness Febble did. Kudos to her.

As I see it, we're distilling the UD crowd. Every time DaveScot kicks someone who isn't unruly and is making good points, everyone reading who isn't completely brainwashed will have to actually look at the arguments that have to be defended by an prevaricators like DaveScot and his patron Dembski. Enough of that, and soon all that's left on UD is syncophants, like the crud at the bottom of a soup-pot that's been boiling all night.

The trouble is, new people come in and might be gulled by the ID's facile tautologies, so we have to keep boiling the soup. Oh well. Dealing with someone like DaveScot is a price we pay for free speech.

I got banned for my one post. It was was when Dembski was claiming that Jeff Shallit was dropped by the ACLU as a Kitzmiller witness because he was an embarrassment. I pointed out that the real reason why Shallit did not testify and was promptly banned. Multiple other people tried to do so and where also banned.

Creationist sites are far more likely to censor forum or blog comments than noncreationist sites. I guess they are afraid of the truth. As many have pointed out, this is from those whose rhetoric (but not actions) is to present "both" sides.

Does anyone have a URL to the comment where DaveScot threatened to hack the Panda's Thumb? Maybe it would be a good idea to call him "Dave '[insert quote here]' Scot" to remind make sure people don't forget his commitment to truth and the marketplace of ideas.

I too, as a UK resident, responded to the invitation concerning ID in the UK. I actually registered to do so.

My first post was added to the thread, my second post (sent 23:03 5 January, UK time, in response to comments made by Patrick) has not appeared. Here is the text of the unpublished post:

Patrick,

We were asked as UK residents to comment on the government response to ID being taught in schools. My caricature was a tad unkind (for the purposes of debate) but I don't think it was unrepresentative of the likely reception in an ordinary state school. ID may get a warmer reception in our Academies (sponsored schools) as some of these have been funded by people with strong religious convictions.

200 years ago many of the clergy were also naturalists - the study of nature was seen as demonstrating God's purpose and bounty. However the data and philosophical thought of the time ( e.g. Catastrophism vs Uniformitarianism) led to doubts about the literal accuracy of the Bible and the age of the Earth. This in turn has lead to a cultural recognition of the scientific world view, reinforced by social changes and the impact of two World Wars, and this is what ID is up against.

The bulk of the UK population is practically secular, despite the Queen being the head of the Established Church. ID must make its case based on science, there is little traction for a religious idea.

Saying that the Theory of Evolution cannot explain the appearance of design so Intelligent Design is the answer (even with the fragile concepts of IC and SC) is not enough to displace the evolutionary world view which has taken root in the UK over the last 150 years. You will have to prove who supplied the intelligence in ID, when it was done and how it was done.

I guess you could judge the comment to be mildly critical, but we were asked for our views...

Maybe my post went astray? Strangely enough I also posted a more critical comment on the Emerald Wasp thread (16:27 UK time, 5 January) and that has not appeared either.

Now I have to say that prior to this I was unimpressed by the general tone and content of Uncommon Descent, but I thought it worth the effort to try and contribute to the debates. For what it is worth I feel that I have proved to my own satisfaction that the site is nothing more than a cheerleaders club for ID, one that will not tolerate anything else but full on enthusiasm for team Dembski.

I wonder if I can de-register?

Well, to balance out the conversation a bit, as scientifically vacuous as ID may be I have challenged equally silly environmental notions on this site and seen my posts and the ensuing discussions removed. So, pick your metaphor, pots and kettles, glass houses, ivory towers...

I even feel the need to preface my comments with something such as "ID is nonsense" so that everyone can see I am in strong agreement with most things that are posted here so that my post can continue and has just has that greater chance of survivability. I do that because of past experience and it shouldn't be necessary. If I did not also feel the hand of censure at my back when I have an opinion to express that is in disagreement with the majority here I would feel comfortable just saying it and not pandering to the masses before I express my opinion.

DaveScot is pretty pathetic. But let me say that dissenting views aren't just grounds for banning. Most of the time dissenting views never see the light of day.

Yo, "Me," care to give us an example of the horrible hypocritical persecution you allege?

(Note: If you're actually Larry Fafarman, please remember that you posted here with impunity for months, if not years, and were, if I'm not mistaken, banned for insistently posting nonsense, as well as unwarranted insults, that had nothing to do with the topic of the threads in which you were posting.)

Sorry, I don't even know who Larry Farfarman is. This is just one of the sites I read, and mostly lurk and don't post comments - and to ingratiate myself with the masses again: I enjoy immensely.

The one time I did post a few comments (I think it was about some weird Dolphin article I didn't agree with) my posts and the discussion that followed got deleted so you may find it, or you may not. I ended up posting some kind of apology because dissent always seems to bring out the trolls that just have attack agendas. You may still find the post, I can't even say I recall the article in much detail, all I recall was that I was deleted.

All I am saying is the one previous thread I posted in here was deleted and I didn't do anything but (sarcastically) disagree with an article that was posted on the site. My point being that there is censorship here also.

In other words, "Me," you have no case, otherwise you'd be citing the specific subject and at least a range of possible post-dates -- As I would, and can, when I accuse UD of censoring me (last month, in a post regarding the fake-issue of Judge Jones' "plagiarising" the ACLU's PFOFs in his Dover ruling, I got banned for quoting Behe's admission, under oath, that ID had no peer-reviewed work to its name -- there's posts here on that subject where I boldly boast of my trials and tribulations).

I suspect that if you were "censored" for anything, it was for posting off-topic; that's happened to me more than once -- my offending posts were simply moved to AtBC or the Bathroom Wall, and we all had the option of continuing the arguments there.

PS: Your last post didn't have enough essense of Larryness to prove anything, therefore I take back, with apologies (for now at least), my allegation that you're Larry. My bad.

Thus in the fossil record we observe 999 out of 1000 species going extinct in an average of 10 million years ...

A couple points:

First, it's great to see RBH mention Freudian ego defenses as a motivator for IDist behavior. Personally, I favor adding a psychological approach to understanding this conflict, as opposed to seeing it simply as a clash of competing ideas, and I'm glad to see it at least mentioned here.

Second, what's the story on DaveScot? What's his background? He was a character here, once upon a time, and is such a dominant force at UD, but I don't know anything about the guy apart from his screen-name. I don't mean personal info, just a sense of who he is and where he's coming from intellectually.

"Me" may not be Larry, but I'm a wee bit surprised that a regular lurker of PT has never heard of him. I've also been put to the bathroom wall on occasion, but I'd hardly consider it to be the same treatment that people get on Dembski's blog.

I certainly have to say Febbie handled herself professionally. I am deeply amused at her getting banned for "not understanding something" by DaveScott. So apparently if you don't tow the line, you're banned.

This has made me wonder if there's ANYONE left at UD that can carry on an intelligent conversation. Yes, we joke about the bans we see, but there's likely quite a few that we do NOT. At that rate, as noted here, you're just going to end up with syncophants.

Which, in some ways, may explain things. Stay in the echo chamber long enough, and you'll start believing the echos.

Back in late July, there was a thread on a petition to save dolphins. The second comment is Wes explaining that he moved a bunch of metatalk to the Bathroom Wall. Look at the BW in the date range July 24-25, and see if your posts are there. My guess is that somebody else started spouting a bunch of "Darwinism is a cult and you can't prove Darwin existed" BS and anything not dealing directly with the topic got axed.

Enough of that, and soon all that's left on UD is syncophants, like the crud at the bottom of a soup-pot that's been boiling all night.

So they are essentially creating a memetic bottleneck.

What's the point in trying to intellectually engage with the clowns and DemskiBots at UD?

They have no original ideas, and none of them seem to have even a junior high school science student's grasp of what science really is.

I really have to say that after reading a fair amount of that UD entry with febble on it, it's pretty appalling that they tossed her off declaring that she had some long-winded anti-ID comments. It seems to me that she was curious and wanted some real answers that she simply wasn't getting. She responded in a detailed fashion that should promote constructive and educated discourse. Instead, she gets shut down by the Zhdanov to Dembski's Stalin. Protect the dear leader.

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=45a51c071c28e3c9;act=ST;f=14;t=1272;st=630

For the record, most people who have their comments moved to here are not banned. It's nice here at Pandas. :)

Give me a break.
You jokers here and at KCFS and related sites ROUTINIELY ban people after smearing them.

POT. KETTLE. BLACK

Peter,

First of all "Memetic Bottleneck" would be a GREAT band name.

I'd say that's a decent term, but I think of it as a case of where they're massively lowering the diversity of information on the site. Any information that challenges certain preconceptions (apparently, anything DaveScot says), is eliminated and/or the sources of said information banned. Therefore information and discussion are extremely bounded, and the same cycles, ideas, and discussions repeat themselves without change - I've read UD since seeing the Vise, and frankly, its all the same. Its a place to go to have your conceptions reinforced, by and large.

The sad thing is that UD essentially is the embodiment of what many members claim to decry - the power-oriented, survival-of-the-fittest world that many of them inaccurately think Darwinian thought causes. A few Big Powers control membership, eliminate dissent, and promote themselves.

This leads to what one would expect - a lack of diversity and overall intellectual health and stability. If it was a gene pool instead of a blog it'd be highly inbred and reasonably docile population controlled by a few insecure Alphas eliminating any kind of diversity.

(And yes, the metaphors are a bit obnoxious, I admit. But illustrative).

I got banned after I pointed out Marvin Minsky's book "The Society of Mind" which uses Dembski-like terminology before Dembski about "intelligent agents" but means by that "basically dumb computational circuits that work with other dumb agents to produce something smarter."

I did however once sneak in a link to the Danny Hillis chapter of "Out of Control."
http://www.kk.org/outofcontrol/ch15-d.html

It appears that the comment controversy is getting under DaveScot's skin. Check this post here. Dembski's rather amorphous comment policy is repeated, with some additional text from Dave.

The winning addition:

Uncommon Descent is not a soapbox for everyone with a chip on their shoulder against ID to repeat their trite, stale, and uninformed opinions. If you think that it should be a public dumping ground for anyone who has anything to say then go whine about it somewhere but whine about it somewhere else.

I would note with irony that UD is apparently the place for people who support ID to repeat their trite, stale, and uninformed opinions.

This brings up an irony of UD and the ID movement. Often I hear accusations thrown around about conspiracies to repress ID. However, I see very, very little commitment on the part of ID supporters to openc onversation and discussion. One may argue that Dembski wanting the blog to maintain a certain focus is appropriate (and to an extent, I feel it is understandable), but the creation of a prominent echo chamber seems to verge on hypocracy, considering.

I also feel, frankly, it weakens ID. After the Dover smackdown, it seems more and more apparent ID supporters are ready to engage in propaganda, PR, and smearing people - but not open and rational discussion. This just reinforces that image.

Hi, I'm Febble.

Thanks for all the comments. I'd just like to correct something that has appeared today on UD in response to this piece, and as, clearly, I no longer have right of reply at UD, you might have well have it right here, even though it has nothing to do with evolution (though a fair bit to do with decent data analysis).

DaveScot wrote: "...if you google her a bit you'll find she's a left-wing conspiracy theorist that thinks Bush stole the 2004 election by fraud. People like that are uneducable. Good riddance"

Actually I'm not and I don't. In fact I spent a good part of the last year two years arguing that it is extremely unlikely that Bush stole the 2004 election by electronic fraud. I got involved because I realised that the exit pollsters had used a confounded measure of the magnitude of the the discrepancy between the poll and the count at precinct level, and suggested they reanalyse their data. Warren Mitofsky hired me to do so, and my conclusion (presented at the 2006 AAPOR conference in Montreal) was that the data strongly suggested a biased poll, and contra-indicated widespread electronic fraud.

If you really want to see some quick banning, try making an intelligent comment at Democratic Underground. If it doesn't specifically refer to "Chimpy" and contain much hate language, you're gone.

DaveScot wrote: "...if you google her a bit you'll find she's a left-wing conspiracy theorist that thinks Bush stole the 2004 election by fraud. People like that are uneducable. Good riddance"

But ID is about SCIENCE, not politics or religion, which is why people who don't have the RIGHT religious or political opinions cannot be tolerated in an ID forum. _|:-O (Shocked Loser)

I got banned for calling Dembski's bluff when he claimed that Freeman Dyson agreed with him on zero-energy information. If you ever play poker with Dembski, remember to always fold, or you'll get kicked off the table.

Febble/Elizabeth,
Thank you for the education. It would seem that no amount of reason or evidence is good enough for the UD folks...only assertions that reinforce the egoes of their demagoguery.
Feel free to stay and post. We can always invite you to our own religious wars where dissent is rampant and welcome.

SDPaddlefish: actually I've been posting what I regard as intelligent comments at Democratic Underground for quite awhile now, and I've never used the word "Chimpy" - not even once. There are a lot of intelligent posters there, and some real work gets done, although sometimes it feels like having a conversation on a battlefield.

If you are interested, here's one of my posts on the exit polls:

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Febble/3

I maintain the (probably unfounded belief) that you can have a proper conversation with anyone, anywhere, if you just ignore the crap, and stick to the argument. Although I have to say that belief has taken some knocks, largely, ironically from the "conspiracy theorists" of the left, but now, it seems from the right, as well.

Not from the Infidels, though, I must say.

Yes [Korthof agrees with Dembski], if 'intelligent' means 'choosing between' ! (p144), because natural selection chooses between genetically different individuals by differential reproduction. So according to Dembski's definition natural selection is intelligent.

I am another UK contributor who has gone through various stages of censorship on UD. I agree it really isn't worth the effort of trying to post there - although I sometimes fall to temptation and sometimes the post gets through and sometimes it doesn't.

I think the way it works there now is each of the contributors decides who gets banned for their own posts. I find the result is not so much that they eliminate anti-ID arguments - Jack Krebs seems to have no problem - but it is completely unpredictable when your post will get through if at all - which makes it pretty much unusable.

Maybe the error is to treat it as a forum for discussion about UD. After all Dembski says "This blog is for me mainly to get out news items about the ID movement and my work in particular." It was never really intended as a two-way medium.

Elizabeth/Febbie,

Thanks for posting here. I hope you find the group here to be worth interacting with. I know I've learned a lot since I found this place.

I think actually conspiracy theorists are, in many cases, of a kind. Conspiracy theories are philosophical black holes that can suck anything into them. Example one is David Icke, a man capable of grafting ANYTHING to his convoluted theories.

The problem is that conspiracy theorists are very intolerant of dissenting worldviews. They often have various levels of personal/emotional investment in these theories. To challenge the theories is to challenge them.

It is my belief that the ID movement is partially a conspiracy theory movement - and rather openly in many cases. I feel that the recent losses in the American legal system are only reinforcing this feeling.

Well, it seems like UD is still a wanker site. Until Demski grows up and deals with his flaws, including his inability to fire DaveScot, nothing will ever change at UD. Not that I mind. With a group like that presenting themselves as one of the players in the ID movement the ID movement can only diminish in crediblity.

OTOH, nice to see things are running smoothly at PT once again. The server issues drove me nuts and I decided to take a break from "the tubes."

Interesting that Dembski puts the blame on Wordpress for deleting comments. My version of Wordpress doesn't do that.

I've tried posting on other pro-ID sites, and i'm wondering if Dembski gives out some kind of secret tutorial to ID bloggers that says "delete anyone who disagrees with you, especially if they're making a rational point." All the comments seem to be from one big happy family, with the occasional mention of the latest dissenter who was banned for being too stupid.

Febble is a self-identified (in that comment thread) Christian theist. She was calm and polite throughout. And what happened? Banned.

Does anyone know who DaveScot actually is and what he does for a living?

It speaks volumes that Feeble would be certainly welcomed, and probably engaged in great length, here on Pandas Thumb, in the very bosom of the enemy.

I'm sorry, whose "enemy" are we again?

The problem is that conspiracy theorists are very intolerant of dissenting worldviews. They often have various levels of personal/emotional investment in these theories. To challenge the theories is to challenge them.

...presenting themselves as one of the players in the ID movement the ID movement can only diminish in crediblity.

Not from the Infidels, though, I must say.

— Elizabeth Liddle

***First, it's great to see RBH mention Freudian ego defenses as a motivator for IDist behavior. Personally, I favor adding a psychological approach to understanding this conflict, as opposed to seeing it simply as a clash of competing ideas, and I'm glad to see it at least mentioned here.***

IF any contributors are of a psycholigical persuasion, Drew Westen's recent imaging study in J. Cog Neuro. (18:11 1947+) on political partisanship and motivated processing (or the more freudian psychological defense) would be a good angle.

It basically shows that when information challenges strong pre-existing biases, little cold rational reasoning occurs (DLPFC), it's an implicit emotional defense (amygdala, VMPFC, ACC etc).

Hello Raging Bee,

Sorry I don't know who Larry is. I read the articles when they interest me and click the links when I want more detailed information. The names of the authors and participants really don't interest me much so my apologies if I am not a careful enough reader.

Also, my apologies that I really don't recall much about the article I read. I did manage to locate it here (http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/07/act_now_to_help.html) I understand that a poster (W. Kevin) further down in this discussion also found this article and commented that I may have had comments removed to the bathroom wall (whatever that is). It may be my comments still exist somewhere on this site, but they are not under the article that they were originally posted. So, even if I was incorrect about whether they were deleted or not (I guess, I don't know anymore) I'd say that they were still censored. because they do not appear with the article where they originally appeared.

You'll either have to take my word that I stop by this site on a regular basis to see what is going on in the anti science word of ID or believe that I don't and I'm just here conspiring against you. It's not really important to me, as your opinion of strangers and dissent has more impact on how relate to people. It just seems like the height of paranoia to conclude that I am someone I am not and I'm here lying to (presumably) discredit this board.

I guess the #1 rule for new posters is "always agree with the majority until they know you better, or expect the poison penned replies".

At any rate, sorry to cause any cognitive dissonance - if it helps you feel better I shall recant everything and say that free speech reigns here and censorship has, and would never occur here, ever. I say it with all the sincerity it deserves.

Sorry for the interruption,

"Me"

I guess I'm missing something here, but all of this extravagant breast-beating seems misdirected. UD exists as a religious and ideological mouthpiece, for the purpose of preaching a focused orientation. As such, it attempts to simulate "discussion" because this simulation can be organized in such a way as to make it appear that members of the public agree with the ideology. This is in contrast with creationist sites that present non-interactive materials as the format for their own sermons.

And this is why dissent is disappeared, rather than permitting it to be drowned out. Religions are based on consensus; even irrational, erroneous, or illiterate dissent would be disappeared because what's persuasive to the target audience isn't better evidence, better logic, or better deportment. What matters is *unanimity* - "there is only one side here, the right side, which we present."

Perhaps if DaveScot were to change his name to Winston Smith, people on this forum would have a clearer idea of both what he does, and why he does it.

Does anyone have a URL to the comment where DaveScot threatened to hack the Panda's Thumb?

— comstock

"Me;" if your comment is off-topic, it may be moved to the Bathroom Wall, especially if a lot of people are responding to it. Links to AtBC and the Bathroom Wall are on one of the lists on the right-hand side of the Main page here. If you can find where your post was moved (the site manager doing the moving normally announces it in a post of his/her own), you can find it and continue the debate with anyone else who wants to follow you there. It's happened to my posts a few times. That may be a bit inconvenient, but "censorship" is clearly the wrong word to apply here -- not just too strong a word, but totally off the mark.

Elizabeth, you said:

Hi, I'm Febble.

Thanks for all the comments. I'd just like to correct something that has appeared today on UD in response to this piece, and as, clearly, I no longer have right of reply at UD, you might have well have it right here, even though it has nothing to do with evolution (though a fair bit to do with decent data analysis).

DaveScot wrote: "...if you google her a bit you'll find she's a left-wing conspiracy theorist that thinks Bush stole the 2004 election by fraud. People like that are uneducable. Good riddance"

Hi, I'm Robin and I'm a blogaholic too...

I saw "tribune7"'s original post on that issue earlier today and tried to post an answer - but while my login still works, it appears I'm still banned...

Having said that, I think we can expect a recantation by DaveScot shortly...

I'm sorry, whose "enemy" are we again?

I thought it was the People's Front of Judea?!

Salvador made a brief appearance with his normal derailing commentary, but Febble hauled the discussion back to the main point: Dembski's operational definition of intelligence and its congruity with natural selection.

I encourage your consideration of literature that is highly critical of of Darwinain evolution on simple theoretical and empirical grounds. I think John Sanford argues extremely well that Darwinism has been falsified theoretically. .. I think the literature out there both in peer-review and the popular press has made a devastating case against Darwinian evolution on theoretical and empirical grounds. Michael Denton's book probably stands out as the classic scientific case agains Darwinian evoltution.

I consider the mechanism by which variance in our genetic inheritance interacts with natural selective pressures is an intelligent system.

I guess the #1 rule for new posters is "always agree with the majority until they know you better, or expect the poison penned replies".

sounds more like "poisioning the well" to me, but evidently not to "me".

I thought it was the People's Front of Judea?

And regarding the definition of intelligence, it can be left as an undefined primitive.

No! If Darwinian Natural Selection is itself self-contradictory or poorly stated

Febble seemed unwilling to even look into important theoretical and empirical considerations that contradict the adequacy of Darwinian evolution.

I'm not aware than any PT contributor is banned from Uncommon Descent.

And regarding the definition of intelligence, it can be left as an undefined primitive.

Reflecting on this some more: And regarding the definition of intelligence, it can be left as an undefined primitive.

No! If Darwinian Natural Selection is itself self-contradictory or poorly stated (like the idea of "square circles"), then it is a moot point why any reconciliation should be attempted. There is no point in going further.

A good portion of Dembski's argument is that Darwinian evolution is stated in a self contradictory way, like, "E = not-E". Febble seemed unwilling to even look into important theoretical and empirical considerations that contradict the adequacy of Darwinian evolution.

For the record, I have no authority to ban anyone, and I had no part in her getting booted. I'm not aware than any PT contributor is banned from Uncommon Descent.

Anyway, thank you for letting me comment.

PS And regarding the definition of intelligence, it can be left as an undefined primitive.

The most fundamental parts of axiomatic systems and scientific theories usually are left as undefined primitives....

SDPaddlefish: actually I've been posting what I regard as intelligent comments at Democratic Underground for quite awhile now, and I've never used the word "Chimpy" - not even once. There are a lot of intelligent posters there, and some real work gets done, although sometimes it feels like having a conversation on a battlefield.

If you are interested, here's one of my posts on the exit polls:

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Febble...

I maintain the (probably unfounded belief) that you can have a proper conversation with anyone, anywhere, if you just ignore the crap, and stick to the argument. Although I have to say that belief has taken some knocks, largely, ironically from the "conspiracy theorists" of the left, but now, it seems from the right, as well.

Not from the Infidels, though, I must say.

If you haven't used the word "chimpy" and hate language, nobody at DU knew what you were talking about and I assume, with good reason, that you received no responses. And unfortunately, your assumption about conversations with anybody, anywhere is wrong. Just go to DU and post something to the effect that the Bush's are good people (and compared to Bill and Hillary they're saints) but they are misguided on their policies, and you will be gone so fast that your kids will submit your will to probate.

I get it! Salvador works for Viewsonic and gets a kickback for every flat screen that's wiped out by spewed coffee.

I must admit, after reading "undefined primitive" I got my screen, the plant and my sleeping cat! A new coffee spew record.

Oh, Sal, your entertainment value is First Class.

I'm thinking of using intelligence as an "undefined primitive" as a new pick-up line. What do you think?

"Hey, baby, I like a woman who shows a little undefined primitiveness."

Could just work...

And regarding the definition of intelligence, it can be left as an undefined primitive.

—

I read the exchange (I guess it was an exchange of sorts) between Febble and DaveScot and found, unsurprisingly, that I couldn't find how her banning made any sense. Having since read the stories of others who were banned from UD for, as far I can tell, raising interesting questions or quoting Dembski and Behe back at their supporters, I can only throw up my hands.

I'd say Flint's comment pretty much hits it on the head.

Welcome, Febble. I'm no longer a Christian, but as a storyteller I very much enjoyed "Perhaps".

May I remind folks (this means you, Norm!) that it's "Febble", not "Feeble". :)

RBH

Can no-one spell this poor womans name correctly?
Its not "feeble", or any other variation you bozos can come up with!

I guess it's Christmas again. Sal "Undefined Primitive" Cordova has once again demonstrated that the best way to deal with the ID movement is to let it's advocates talk.

No! If Darwinian Natural Selection is itself self-contradictory or poorly stated (like the idea of "square circles"), then it is a moot point why any reconciliation should be attempted. There is no point in going further.

— Salvador T. Cordova

A good portion of Dembski's argument is that Darwinian evolution is stated in a self contradictory way, like, "E = not-E". Febble seemed unwilling to even look into important theoretical and empirical considerations that contradict the adequacy of Darwinian evolution. There is in direct theoretical and empircal contradiction to her hypothesis:

I consider the mechanism by which variance in our genetic inheritance interacts with natural selective pressures is an intelligent system.

— Salvador

And regarding the definition of intelligence, it can be left as an undefined primitive. The most fundamental parts of axiomatic systems and scientific theories usually are left as undefined primitives....

— Salvador

Elizabeth:

The UDers are quoting your comment:

Regarding my "fraudster credentials": I am a fraudster. I believe your election was inexcusably riggable and may well have been rigged. It was also inexcusably unauditable. I am convinced that there was real and massive voter suppression in Ohio, and that it was probably deliberate. I think the recount in Ohio was a sham, and the subversion of the recount is in itself suggestive of coverup of fraud. I think Kenneth Blackwell should be jailed.

as evidence that you believe the election was stolen...

I maintain the (probably unfounded belief) that you can have a proper conversation with anyone, anywhere, if you just ignore the crap, and stick to the argument.

Elizabeth: The UDers are quoting your comment: Regarding my "fraudster credentials": I am a fraudster. I believe your election was inexcusably riggable and may well have been rigged. It was also inexcusably unauditable. I am convinced that there was real and massive voter suppression in Ohio, and that it was probably deliberate. I think the recount in Ohio was a sham, and the subversion of the recount is in itself suggestive of coverup of fraud. I think Kenneth Blackwell should be jailed. as evidence that you believe the election was stolen...

— Robin

Febble suggested: So the first thing on the agenda should be an adequate statement of Darwinian Natural Selection. I invite you to state where you felt mine was inadequate, and/or what you consider an adequate statement.

If you consider that there is a direct theoretical and empirical contradiction to this hypothesis, I would be delighted to hear it. Mine was concisely stated; I am sure the rebuttal can be stated with similar concision. I am certainly willing to look into any "important theoretical and empirical considerations that contradict the adequacy of Darwinian evolution", but I would like to know first why you find them convincing.

She suggests that what we're seeing is the formation of a niche species within ID creationism on UD

It seems your underlying premise is that Darwnian Natural Selection is the principle mechanism through which properties of biological reality have come to be. If this is your underlying assumption, and the assumption is false, further argumentation and attepmts at some sort of reconciliation is a moot point....

— Salvador

For starters, I will note, from first principles of population genetics alone, Motoo Kimura has demonstrated the impossiblity of that claim for the majority of molecular evolution.

To be fair, a few have proposed non-Darwinian but naturalistic solutions to the evolution of life. In that sense it is not either Darwin or Design. However, imho, I think Sanford, ReMine, Dembski, Sternberg and others have made a good case that for sure Darwinian evolution could not possibly be the principle mechanism involved in the formation of life.

I find the theoretical arguments convincing because they are logical and far more rigorously argued than what I see comming from the evolutionary community.

Febble wrote: No, it's not my assumption. It's a hypothesis.

At any rate, sorry to cause any cognitive dissonance - if it helps you feel better I shall recant everything and say that free speech reigns here and censorship has, and would never occur here, ever. I say it with all the sincerity it deserves.

I apologize if I have misinterpreted your remarks, but to set the record straight, do you accept that Darwinain evolution by means of Natural Selection as the principle mechanism for the formation of life?

phht. In other words, if you're convinced of the veracity of the ToE, he assumes that means you are incapable of listening to his arguments to begin with, and it would simply be a waste of his precious time to continue. It's like a xian, who really wants to dismiss your arguments, asking if you are an atheist.

it never ceases to amaze me how these folks take projection to be some sort of logical approach to debate.

Well, can you summarise his [Geneticist Kimura's] argument?

May I remind folks (this means you, Norm!) that it's "Febble", not "Feeble". :)

Febble asked: No, I meant, what is the content (not the quality) of the argument that convinces you? Cheers

But evolutionary theory accepts random drift as a major factor. And you're not telling us anything we don't know: Natural selection selects organisms, not molecules. None of this contradicts evolution theory.

It's true that dwindling populations are in trouble in an evolutionary sense. These are called "sink" populations.

You fail to make a relevant point, at any rate.

do you accept that Darwinain evolution by means of Natural Selection as the principle mechanism for the formation of life?

Febble asked: the defining feature of an intelligent agent is "the power and capacity to choose [aka select] between options" (Dembski's words) why is Natural Selection not a candidate for that intelligence?

You fail to make a relevant point, at any rate.

Salvador asks "do you accept that Darwinain evolution by means of Natural Selection as the principle mechanism for the formation of life?" Yet again this is evidence that he is wilfully misconstruing what Darwinian evolution by NS is.

Once again for Salvador. Abiogenesis refers to the formation of life (from non life). Evolution (by NS and other mechanisms) is responsible for the DIVERSITY of life.

But then we expect nothing but cognitive dissonance and dissembling from our good friend Sal.

Selection in the ID sense pertains to an intelligence have at least some purposeful reason for making a choice. Selection the modern Darwinian sense has nothing to do with planning or purpose. If one takes a population genetics book and tries to define "selection" from first principles, it will look nothing like the concept of selection that a conscious intelligent being does when that being selects. The question you pose is therefore fundamentally illogical.

For Bog's sake, Sal, you can't even correctly "summarize" Dembski's claims, much less correctly charactarize Kimura or the ToE.

Do you ever read what you right before you spin it off into the electronic void?

And, one might fairly ask, do I ever read what I "right" before I punch "Post."

Sigh.

Must be pizza time again...

You're right Steviepinhead. Anyone who spells summarise with a z should be ashamed of hitting the post button.

Alternatively, it could be successfully argued, imho, that Natural Selection is an oxymoron and/or misnomer, therefore one could argue your question is like asking how a square circle can be round.

Please illustrate this argument.

hey Sal!

there's a very interesting thread on abiogenesis which I'm sure your participation would be welcome in.

You can find it here:

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=45a5a274542d83b1;act=ST;f=14;t=3902

rather pointless to bring it up here, though.

That debate between Febbie and DaveScot was by far the best exchange I've seen on UD. I have mixed it up over there enough to come close to being banned, but nowhere near as masterfully as Febbie did it. She was so superbly lucid and persistent that DaveScot simply gave up in exasperation, unable to dismiss her arguments. So he dismissed her in the only way he could.

Still there are several folks over there who have been speaking out and defending the value of having evolutionists make their case on UD. But there is no way they will ever admit to having been bested, just as there is no one over here who would do so.

That suggests to me an open debate between the advocates, on a neutral site, with impartial judging by a lay group, such as the press. This may be the only way to get beyond dismissive rebuttals and name calling.

That suggests to me an open debate between the advocates, on a neutral site, with impartial judging by a lay group...

Selection in the ID sense pertains to an intelligence have at least some purposeful reason for making a choice. Selection the modern Darwinian sense has nothing to do with planning or purpose.

Elizabeth:

Thanks for the clarification - and, BTW, we don't use electronic machines in Beckenham...

Sal:

Are you really trying to claim that Kimura's work doesn't count as evolutionary theory as the evolutionary biologists would define it simply because you insist on calling evolutionary biology "Darwinism"?

Can you produce a quote of Kimura claiming that:

In short: there are simply too many molecules for Natural Selection to effectively police and influence. For Natural Selection to police that many molecules, an appropriate number of organisms must be present. For Natural Selection to be effective, in general, there must be sufficient numbers of offspring that don't see their lineage perpetuated. The number of offspring needed for Natural Selecition to work is dictated by the number of traits one wishes to preserve or evolve in the population. When the number of traits is prohibitively large, Natural Selection cannot possibly have the population resources it needs to evolve or even maintain properties of a population....

or even something equivalent to it? It sounds an ack-basswards way at best of putting neutral theory, which I understood (albeit I'm not a biologist) was directed at the fact that most mutations are neutral with respect to the organism's environment - it's to do with the effect of the mutations, not the number of molecules. That last phrasing is odd, of course; since the mutation happens to DNA, which is "a" molecule, and most mutations happen to regions of the DNA molecule that are not expressed - hence their neutrality.

Derailment or not, I would be very interested in how Sal thinks the "purposeful reason" used by the intelligent designer can be scientifically discerned. Another time and place, perhaps.

In short: there are simply too many molecules for Natural Selection to effectively police and influence. For Natural Selection to police that many molecules, an appropriate number of organisms must be present. For Natural Selection to be effective, in general, there must be sufficient numbers of offspring that don't see their lineage perpetuated. The number of offspring needed for Natural Selecition to work is dictated by the number of traits one wishes to preserve or evolve in the population. When the number of traits is prohibitively large, Natural Selection cannot possibly have the population resources it needs to evolve or even maintain properties of a population....

This thread is about Febble's attempt to explore the consequences of adopting Dembski's definition, not yours.

Hi Everyone.

My name is Zachriel, and I've been banned three times.
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2006/06/uncommon-dissent.html

To emphasize the founder principle but deny the importance of random genetic drift due to finite population number is, in my opinion, rather similar to assuming a great flood to explain the formation of deep valleys but rejecting a gradual but long lasting process of erosion by water as insufficient to produce such a result.

And regarding the definition of intelligence, it can be left as an undefined primitive.

Robin asked: Are you really trying to claim that Kimura's work doesn't count as evolutionary theory

I said: Selection in the ID sense pertains to an intelligence have at least some purposeful reason for making a choice. Selection the modern Darwinian sense has nothing to do with planning or purpose.

RBH objected: The intentions of the designing agent are explicitly ruled to be not part of the ID "research program".

drerio wrote: In other words, the genetic drift he proposes is precisely a slow gradual process that can change species. I can't find anything in his writings to support Sal's interpretation that Kimura thought evolution couldn't happen or that mutation were not capable of creating diversity. Most of what I can find, rather, suggests that he thought the mutation rates must be much higher than expected, just mostly neutral.

No. But the topic was natural seleciton, and furthermore, Kimura's appeal to pure diffusion fails as an explanation as well. The selectonist camp is quite happy to point out fatal flaws in Kimura's theories. Thus we have the delightful situation that the Neutralists (Kimura and friends) and the Selectionists have found fatal flaws in each other's theories. Both are fundamentally wrong somewhere, although the edge definitely goes to Kimura regarding who is closer to the truth and the appropriate scientific methodologies to arrive at it.....

What the heck does it mean to say that natural selection has to "police" molecules?

Henry

When Wesley was one of the earlier ones to point out how Dembski's own definitions could not eliminate natural selection as a designer, Dembski was forced to accept the existence of apparent versus actual specified complexity, where the former was without purpose and design (merely the result of an algorithm) while the latter one was caused by a 'real designer' with purpose and foresight in mind.
However, Dembski has yet to show how to distinguish between purposeful design and functional design.

What the heck does it mean to say that natural selection has to "police" molecules?

IS INTELLIGENT DESIGN A FORM OF NATURAL THEOLOGY?

In particular, evolution attributes intelligence, the power of choice, to a fundamentally irrational process, namely, natural selection. But nature has no power to choose. Real choices involve deliberation, that is, some consideration of future possibilities and consequences.

By intelligence, here, I mean something quite definite, namely, the causal factors that change one probability distribution into another and thus, in the present discussion, transform a blind search into an assisted search. A logically equivalent, information-theoretic reformulation of this definition takes intelligence as those causal factors that induce a net increase in information as measured by the information measure I. Note that by a stochastic mechanism, here, I mean any causal process governed exclusively by the interplay between chance and necessity and characterized by unbroken deterministic and nondeterministic laws. Intelligence acts by changing probabilities. Equivalently, intelligence acts by generating information. For instance, a slab of marble temporarily has a high probability of remaining unchanged. Then, without warning, Michelangelo decides to sculpt David, and the probability of that marble slab taking on a new form (i.e., receiving new information) now changes dramatically.

Why then did Kimura find its place in evolution textbooks, unlike other anti-Darwinists ? * The Neutral Theory had testable consequences such as "changes in DNA that are less likely to be subject to natural selection occur more rapidly". * The growing evidence supporting the Neutral Theory * The Neutral Theory made a lasting contribution to population genetics theory * The Neutral Theory is more like a theory in physics or chemistry (predictions, laws) * Kimura built his theory on accepted knowledge in genetics and population genetics and at the same time criticised it and extended it * Kimura still allowed for negative selection to eliminate most new mutations * Kimura did not deny the existence of natural selection on morphological levels

However (and I'll come clean now in case you want to read no further) I don't believe the exit polls in themselves are evidence for fraud. I don't think they are inconsistent with fraud, but I don't think they support it either. Read on for my reasoning.

DaveScot has forgotten his own exhortation, perhaps.

Febble asked:

the defining feature of an intelligent agent is "the power and capacity to choose [aka select] between options" (Dembski's words) why is Natural Selection not a candidate for that intelligence?

— Salvador

Because the concept of selection in Natural Selection is being equivocated with the conception of Selection in the ID sense. This equivocation is a serious logical error. Selection in the ID sense pertains to an intelligence have at least some purposeful reason for making a choice. Selection the modern Darwinian sense has nothing to do with planning or purpose. If one takes a population genetics book and tries to define "selection" from first principles, it will look nothing like the concept of selection that a conscious intelligent being does when that being selects. The question you pose is therefore fundamentally illogical.

Alternatively, it could be successfully argued, imho, that Natural Selection is an oxymoron and/or misnomer, therefore one could argue your question is like asking how a square circle can be round.

— Salvador

Furthermore, the issue still remains whether Natural Selection is the principle mechanism behind many of the features of life. One can begin with the question of the Origin of Life and the role of Natural Selection in the Origin of Life.

— Salvador

Sal said:

"By the way, have you watched, Unlocking the Mystery of Life (the video which caused the uproar in the UK)? That is a good introduction...."

This the one in those ID packs that were sent to UK schools? And were shown to ministers to see if they agreed if it was a suitable educational resource? And was instantly thrown out as rubbish? Yeah, ID is doing great over here!

Thanks, but you can keep your crap were it belongs - flushed down the toilet.

I apologize if I have misinterpreted your remarks, but to set the record straight, do you accept that Darwinain evolution by means of Natural Selection as the principle mechanism for the formation of life? Would that be fair of me to suggest that is your position, or at least the working hypothesis for the sake of discussion?

— Salvador

But the hypothesis is of a mechanism that satisfies the conditions (sorting mechanism) necessary to generate CSI. Therefore, IMO, the detection of CSI does not falsify the hypothesis.

Sal,

I want to express my regrets about the behavior of UD mods.

First, Febble's original question about detecting intentionality from "design" was never answered nor treated with dignity. DaveScot retreated to rhetorics about the origin of life instead. (I'm glad that you are finally trying to respond Febble's question though.) In general, both mods who replied clearly stepped on a sidetrack.

Second, no sensible reason has been given for silencing Febble. Only two illogical reasons were given.

Initially, DaveScot declared that Febble failed to make note of the fact that newly fixed alleles are destroyed by random mutations before subsequent mutations have time to accumulate in the same trait. According to DaveScot's words, this demonstrates that Febble misunderstands the basics of ToE. In reality, DaveScot's claim is alien both for evolutionary biology and for common sense. I asked DaveScot to provide evidence for his assertion, but my post was merely removed.

Later, in a new thread, DaveScot declared that Febble misunderstands the basics of ToE by claiming that "natural selection" can remember mistakes and good tricks. In reality, however, Febble said that "natural selection+replication with modification", i.e. the adaptation process as a whole, has a memory. Which is quite sensible. Both DaveScot and Patrick kept asking: "how can natural selection remember not to repeat the same mutation again". In reality, however, the "repeating" in Febble's argument probably concerned reproduction, not mutation. A mistake is not repeated, but instead gets forgotten, when a harmful allele fails to increase its frequency, thus facing a genocide. A good trick is remembered by the adaptation process, more specifically by the gene pool of the population, when the frequency or a beneficial allele increases its frequency -- and, indeed, becomes fixed in the population. Elizabeth will probably correct me if my interpretation of her writing is incorrect and if she indeed did mean that her "repeating" concerned subsequent mutations of identical type. She was never given an opportunity to clarify before banning.

It is ironic that, in this later thread, Patrick and DaveScot also asked rhetorical questions about how diseases persist in the human population (why not some wild population?). So, not only did DaveScot earlier fail to demonstrate that selection pressures change so quickly that they render newly acquired beneficial alleles useless or harmful (his original claim and reason for banning Febble), here he also contradicted the other part of his initial claim. I mean, do random mutations quickly destroy neutral/harmful sequences or do they not? Needless to say, there is little mystery about all this for evolutionary biology. First, harmful mutations don't fare quite as well in the wild as they do among humans and their domesticated animals. Second, the average mutation rate of mammals is high enough to warrant that most of us carry a few novel harmful alleles (novel at least in the sense that they were not inherited) -- natural selection can't help this, but it certainly is capable of ensuring that these alleles do not become fixed in the wild. While sufficiently high mutation rates may keep up a marginal frequency for a harmful allele, purely due to subsequent mutations, each copy of this allele faces a quick genocide in the population.

Could you see to it that instead of continuing to silence their critics, the UD mods finally recognize that they mistreated Febble by both banning her and by avoiding her quite legitimate question, using rhetorics and "gymnastics". Currently they are in a mental mode where they have to fabricate the "aftermath" by removing critical posts and self-declaring some sort of sorry victory.

Salvador, surely you must see the difficulty in complaining that some people have committed the "serious logical error" of "equivocation" with respect to the definition of intelligence, and complaining that other people are disregarding Dembski's explanation of why it is unreasonable for critics to insist upon a definition.

But perhaps that objection is too abstract or vague, so let me offer this one. I would be willing to stipulate, for purposes of discussion, that "intelligence" entails having "a goal or purpose in mind." I would be willing to stipulate, for purposes of discussion, a stipulation that it refers to "the causal factors that change one probability distribution into another," or that lead to a "net increase in information." However, I can't think of any reason to stipulate that all these formulations actually mean the same thing.

So I must ask: has Febble committed the serious logical error of equivocation? or has Dembski? What is the point of an "undefined primitive" that nonetheless seems to take on different meanings in different places?

I hadn't really registered the existence of Uncommon Descent until yesterday. Honestly, I don't understand why Dembski allows his name to appear on it. He might as well rename it Stumbling Block.

Later, in a new thread, DaveScot declared that Febble misunderstands the basics of ToE by claiming that "natural selection" can remember mistakes and good tricks. In reality, however, Febble said that "natural selection+replication with modification", i.e. the adaptation process as a whole, has a memory. Which is quite sensible. Both DaveScot and Patrick kept asking: "how can natural selection remember not to repeat the same mutation again". In reality, however, the "repeating" in Febble's argument probably concerned reproduction, not mutation. A mistake is not repeated, but instead gets forgotten, when a harmful allele fails to increase its frequency, thus facing a genocide. A good trick is remembered by the adaptation process, more specifically by the gene pool of the population, when the frequency or a beneficial allele increases its frequency --- and, indeed, becomes fixed in the population. Elizabeth will probably correct me if my interpretation of her writing is incorrect and if she indeed did mean that her "repeating" concerned subsequent mutations of identical type. She was never given an opportunity to clarify before banning.

— caligula

Quoting WD: The later Wittgenstein certainly thought the call for definition was overrated. Indeed, the finiteness of language itself implies that the call for definition must at some point either end or issue in circularity. Within intelligent design, intelligence is a primitive notion much as force or energy are primitive notions within physics. We can say intelligible things about these notions and show how they can be usefully employed in certain contexts. But in defining them, we gain no substantive insight.

— Salvador Cordova

I'm not aware than any PT contributor is banned from Uncommon Descent.

If Sal said that, then he has thereby flushed wnat little credibility he had down the toilet. This statement can only have come from a shameless liar who knowingly blinds himself to any fact, however obvious, that he finds inconvenient; and there really is no point in arguing with such a person. Whoever said this might just as well have said "I'm not aware of any proof that the Earth is round."

(I guess we should be grateful that he's actually trying to sound sciency, instead of vaguely pretending that a minority who reject evolution "says something significant.")

PS to Sal: the word "coming" has one "M," not two. Your misspelling of thst word can only be the result of reading too much bad Internet porn when you should have been studying either biology or morality.

and so does Haldane's dilemma.

"Biological function and the genetic code are interdependent" by Voie

the "intelligence" manifest in the structure of life forms

rather than modelling his hypothesis, he attempts to model his "error" terms,

For those of you crying that Panda's Thumb censors too, here is a major difference:

All comments at Uncommon Descent start out censored until they eventually get the all clear from the mods, either by being hand-vetted or by having one's name placed on a sycophant list.

At Panda's Thumb, all comments start out as automatically appearing and one needs to work hard to earn a ban.

That's a major difference.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1945

Evidently dissent would not be allowed on Dr. Dembski's biology department either, if he were president...

Hi Everyone. My name is Zachriel, and I've been banned three times.

much as force or energy are primitive notions within physics

much as force or energy are primitive notions within physics

Axiomatic defined in particular physical theories, yes.

Has Allen MacNeill finally given up commenting at UD?
I can't imagine they would dare to ban him.

For those of you crying that Panda's Thumb censors too, here is a major difference: All comments at Uncommon Descent start out censored until they eventually get the all clear from the mods, either by being hand-vetted or by having one's name placed on a sycophant list. At Panda's Thumb, all comments start out as automatically appearing and one needs to work hard to earn a ban. That's a major difference.

Has Allen MacNeill finally given up commenting at UD?
I can't imagine they would dare to ban him.

and so does Haldane's dilemma.

— TL

Since you mentioned it. ;-) It is true that ReMine's latest answer to Talk Origin's points has the most recent date. (Which I have notified T.O. about.) But he doesn't really answer the old rebuttals, but instead continues to dodge the effects of just genetic drift and fixation among other things. Since it doesn't make a positive argument for creationism (nor a negative for evolution since it is faulty) you should not use it here.

I have a question about the use of the word "intelligence". A lot of this thread was over my head, but a theme I kept picking up on seemed to be the idea of "consciousness" or "self-awareness". In other words, if there is purpose, would that imply intelligence? I the intelligence used by Dembski's argument self-aware? Perhaps I am just getting hung up on terminology...

and OT but this is the first time I've seen this:

SCIENCE NOW KNOWS THAT MANY OF THE PILLARS OF DARWINIAN THEORY ARE EITHER FALSE OR MISLEADING. YET BIOLOGY TEXTS CONTINUE TO PRESENT THEM AS FACTUAL EVIDENCE OF EVOLUTION. WHAT DOES THIS IMPLY ABOUT THEIR SCIENTIFIC STANDARDS?
-- JONATHAN WELLS

from a wierd creationist site:

http://evolution-facts.org/New-material/survivalOfTheFakest.pdf

Article originally appeared in The American Spectator - December 2000 / January 2001

and at this point who really cares what Dumbski thinks?

.

Well I've caught up with this conversation today. Quite interesting still.

One thing in reading Sal's posts caught my eye this morning. Namely, that in reading them I had to take time to parse through them, but frankly, I find very little actual content. I find some external references, questionably quoted, some verbal acrobatics, and talks of "subtleties" and of course various big words.

One of the trends I've noticed in ID discussions is a great deal of "contentless" discussions. There are references to a few other works by select individuals. I find various dodges ("if this is true" with no or little evidence said statement IS true), and attempts to find what is "logical" without looking at what has been found so far by science (the tornado-in-a-junkyard argument is logical, but its a terrible metaphor for the complex findings and studies of evolutionary biology).

A major aspect of science is the ability to effectively communicate information. It's why records are kept, why math is used, why experiments are explained in painful detail (I still recall my days of people asking me what breed of hamster I used in my neural work*).

What I am finding in Sal's case, and in much of ID's case, is discussions that obscure the situation. I don't care if Natural Selection "sounds unlikely," or "if X is true" when there's no evidence for X, or verbal acrobatics about undefined primitives. I want some numbers, data, research, hypotheses, tested theories, and documentation.

*It was disturbingly relevant when it came to trying to breed them. The two different gene pools had vastly different behaviors and maternal instincts.

Perhaps I am just getting hung up on terminology...

(I still recall my days of people asking me what breed of hamster I used in my neural work*)

You may have given Sal his next talking-point: "Evolution is suspect because all of the experimenters used the wrong breed of hamster." Then he'll say DragonScholar just now accidentally blew the lid off the nefarious Darwinist conspiracy. Then Larry Fafarman will make a huge, convoluted and irrelevant legalistic argument out of it on his own blog...

One thing in reading Sal's posts caught my eye this morning. Namely, that in reading them I had to take time to parse through them, but frankly, I find very little actual content. I find some external references, questionably quoted, some verbal acrobatics, and talks of "subtleties" and of course various big words.

On UcD Davescot has a posting titled "Barbara Forrest: Will The Real Coward Please Stand Up"

Ironically, it was Davescot's cowardly behavior which led him to ban Febble. As to Barbara Forrest debating Dembski. Dembski had his opportunity in court to apply his vise theory, sadly he decided to stand by at the sidelines.

Talk.Origins page about Haldane's dilemma and ReMine does have some errors, check this post on T.O newsgroup:

http://tinyurl.com/yf6scm

This is par for the course at UD. Whenever DaveScott cannot rebut somebody's argument (which is pretty frequently), he bans them. He set up an entire topic based upon a comment I made, allowed me to make only one reply, then banned me. Once again, it was an entirely civil discussion. DaveScott simply didn't like the points being made. You can see it here:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1627

In another highlight of this same thread, he banned Alan Fox for alerting the author of a paper to DaveScott's mischaracterization of the author's work.

The IDC's hermeneutic, ontological and pseudoscientific discourses, most notably Dembski's and here Sal Cordova's, shrouds its beinghood in the postmodern-dillemma-ridden communiques bound within discursive dialectical spaces wherein the heuristics fail to explicate their own obfuscatory methodological frameworks of parametric inflection.

Selection in the ID sense pertains to an intelligence have at least some purposeful reason for making a choice.

— Salvador

Selection the modern Darwinian sense has nothing to do with planning or purpose. If one takes a population genetics book and tries to define "selection" from first principles, it will look nothing like the concept of selection that a conscious intelligent being does when that being selects. The question you pose is therefore fundamentally illogical.

— Salvador

And Febble is arguing from Dembski's definition, which does not include reference to a "conscious intelligent being".

— RBH

Selection in the ID sense pertains to an intelligence have at least some purposeful reason for making a choice. Selection the modern Darwinian sense has nothing to do with planning or purpose.

— Sal

That debate between Febbie and DaveScot was by far the best exchange I've seen on UD. I have mixed it up over there enough to come close to being banned, but nowhere near as masterfully as Febbie did it. She was so superbly lucid and persistent that DaveScot simply gave up in exasperation, unable to dismiss her arguments. So he dismissed her in the only way he could. Still there are several folks over there who have been speaking out and defending the value of having evolutionists make their case on UD. But there is no way they will ever admit to having been bested, just as there is no one over here who would do so. That suggests to me an open debate between the advocates, on a neutral site, with impartial judging by a lay group, such as the press. This may be the only way to get beyond dismissive rebuttals and name calling.

— Tom Moore

There is a difference between saying "we don't investigate what the plan or the identity of the Designer is" versus "the Designer has no identity nor plan or power of choice". One can assert that an intelligent agency in general the power of choice or plan without actually investigating the details of the choice or the plan.

Talk.Origins page about Haldane's dilemma and ReMine does have some errors, check this post on T.O newsgroup:

The IDC's hermeneutic, ontological and pseudoscientific discourses, most notably Dembski's and here Sal Cordova's, shrouds its beinghood in the postmodern-dillemma-ridden communiques bound within discursive dialectical spaces wherein the heuristics fail to explicate their own obfuscatory methodological frameworks of parametric inflection.

In those very words?

If I found a "Plan for Building a Propulsion System for Bacteria from Scratch" I'd be thinking it would support Sal's notion of intelligent agencies as well as support the falsification of those Darwinists' claims the bacteria flagella came about through random chance purposeless processes.

A summary about "Haldane's dilemma".

Haldane's model

In Haldane's model, adaptations proceed through sudden changes in the environment, utilizing random variation that is present in all populations due to mutations, even if with tiny allele frequencies. Thus, quick adaptation, or high substitution rate, means more changes in the environment, i.e. more hostile environment or more intense selection. Haldane assumed that constant intense selection is likely to drive populations into extinction. Hence, he suggested that the average intensity of selection has a total selection coefficient of 0.1. Haldane handled simultaneous substitutions at multiple loci using so called multiplicative fitness interaction, which approximates additive fitness when individual coefficients are small. In practice, this means that 10 multiple beneficial alleles with coefficient 0.01 behave about the same way as a single allele with coefficient 0.1; they take ten times as long to fix.

Using the limit of 0.1 for selection coefficient, Haldane found that it will take about 300 generations per substitution. Walter ReMine's "magic number" 1667 comes from 10,000,000 / 20 / 300, where 10 million (years) is the maximum time in years since humans and chimps diverged, 20 (years/generation) is the average generation time and 300 (generations) is the substitution time.

Soft selection

The idea behind soft selection is as follows. Darwin calculated that elephants, which are among the slowest breeders in the world, can produce a population of almost 19 million in mere 750 years, starting with a single mating couple. Obviously, exponential changes are so dramatic that unless populations spend most of their time at reproduction rate 1.0, they either go extinct or fill up the known space surprisingly quickly. Which is good to remember when considering the human condition. :) Now, what keeps the reproduction rate of wild populations at 1.0 most of the time? At least three options.

1) Predation. This is unlikely. Surely, the population size of prey does dramatically affect the population size of predators, but it is unlikely that the opposite is true, at least to the same extent.

2) Family planning. This sounds absurd to a layman, but I am not sure whether it can be (fully) dismissed without further investigation.

3) Ecological necessity. This is without doubt at least a major contributor to keeping population sizes stable. Each ecological niche has a limited carrying capacity. There is only so much food, shelter, territory, etc. available. If a population is overcrowded, excess mortality will follow. Well, most wild populations are likely overcrowded: each mating couple tries to maximize the replication of their genes by reproducing more than other couples. It is this mortality caused by excess reproduction being countered by excess mortality, called "background mortality", that soft selection addresses.

Let us go back to Haldane's model, but this time include "background mortality". Assume a population has filled its ecological niche, and is reproducing at rate 2.0, i.e. an average of four offspring per parent. Since the environment can't support any larger population, logically 50% of the population dies in any case, due to sheer lack of resources, no matter how well they are able to e.g. cheat predators. Now, assume a new predator arrives, imposing a new selective pressure with selection coefficient 0.1 on the population. Also, assume that a tiny subpopulation happens to possess an allele which helps them overcome this new challenge. What happens? In terms of total mortality or effective reproduction rate, not much. If we were to loyally follow Haldane's model, we would increase the total mortality of the population beyond 50%, to account for the new selection pressure -- and consequently, we should assume that the reproduction rate of the population needs to increase beyond 2.0, in order to keep the population size constant. But note that the original 50% mortality was largely due to overcrowding. Now, obviously the mortality remains constant in the new situation, and instead only the reasons behind juvenile deaths become more varied. The same amount of individuals would have died anyway, regardless of the appearance of the new selective pressure. It is said that "background mortality" serves as a "buffer" for natural selection. The population "pays" the "cost of selection", but by doing so, it to the same extent is relieved from paying the cost due to overcrowding. So, in this case, the population could likely tolerate a selection much more intense than 0.1.

Intraspecific competition

Normally, evolutionary scenarios are concerned with the interaction between a population and its surrounding environment. But as there is a competition between individuals within a species for survival in a limited ecological niche, there is no reason to expect that beneficial alleles only concern overcoming challenges imposed by the environment. Many alleles may simply help their possessors to hog limited resources more efficiently than others in the population, and thus effectively surviving better than they do. Such alleles become fixed in the population just as any other beneficial allele -- although their benefits are lost during the process, because the trick is no longer useful when everyone can do it. I have simulated this scenario a lot, and in fact posted my source code to ARN and urged Walter ReMine to study both the code and the results. (Alas, the response has been endless rhetorics and avoidance.) This "intraspecific competition" produces extremely impressive results, as there is no upper limit to the intensity of selection when simultaneous substitutions are studied at many, many loci -- their total coefficient can go above 1.0 without problems. This is because the presence of beneficial alleles no longer requires any kind of excess mortality. To see why this is so, remember that in this scenario, survival is measured by possession of vital resources. The amount of resources remains the same -- some individuals just get more of them than others -- and so does the population size. To the extent the "have-not's" die more often due to lack of vital resources, to the same extent the "have's" die less often due to abundance of vital resources. The average fitness of the population remains constant even if individual fitness varies. And in practice, beneficial alleles spread in the population in such a smooth and even fashion that there are no extreme fitness differences.

Caligula asked: Could you see to it that instead of continuing to silence their critics, the UD mods finally recognize that they mistreated Febble by both banning her and by avoiding her quite legitimate question, using rhetorics and "gymnastics". Currently they are in a mental mode where they have to fabricate the "aftermath" by removing critical posts and self-declaring some sort of sorry victory.

It wouldn't falsify the Darwinian claim. It would simply be proof that a design could be arrived at both artificially and naturally. Think of the effort to create artificial spider silk, or adhesives based on gecko-feet. If these projects prove successful, it will not affect the hypothesis that spider silk and geckos arose via natural means.

In fact, finding such plans for propulsion systems, gecko's feet and spider silk wouldn't support Sal's notion of intelligent agency either, if we know nothing about the designer (which is consistent with Sal's position). We'd need to assume that the designer operated in ways similar to humans in order to conclude anything about the origin of the Propulsion system (reads English, understands drawings, sees in the visible spectrum, etc.).

Selection in the ID sense pertains to an intelligence have at least some purposeful reason for making a choice. Selection the modern Darwinian sense has nothing to do with planning or purpose. If one takes a population genetics book and tries to define "selection" from first principles, it will look nothing like the concept of selection that a conscious intelligent being does when that being selects.

Furthermore, such explicit plans already exist in the genotypes of certain bacteria, spiders, and geckos.

an average of four offspring per parent

— caligula

As another Brit I can also think of at least one good example of "Intelligent Design".

It is true that if we can find a apparently 'designed' object that cannot possibly have arisen through the process of biological evolution, and which displays all the required characteristics of 'specified complexity' or whatever - then we should probably start looking around for a 'designer'.

I was thinking that the Christian God fits the bill - he can't possibly have arisen by biological evolution - there's doesn't appear to be any mechanism for DNA to code for 'omnipresence', 'omnipotence' or or any of the other supernatural powers. As we are 'made in his image' then he's at least as complex as any human being. According to the Bible this is especially true of his emotional condition, where he displays all the usual human neuroses and more besides.

Therefore I claim the Christian God as the first proven example of 'Intelligent Design' - and I'll go one further - I'll identify not only the designers - but also their methods, motivations and actions in their production of their design. Crikey! I can even document the production of the 'beta version' that was worked on for a few thousand years before "God 2.0" was released.

Like all designs - the designers made a few flaws - but no matter - these are being 'tweaked' by a new generation of designers who are taking another link at earlier blueprints and are making new models fit for the 21st century.

I'm sure Mr Dembski will welcome my support for his insightful idea, and will welcome my support from across the pond - so I'm off to post this on 'Uncommon Descent' - where I'm sure I'll get a warm and respectful welcome.....

I didn't think I needed to say 4 billion year old plan and put the word support in uppercase bold and flashing.

Selection in the ID sense pertains to an intelligence have at least some purposeful reason for making a choice.

— Sal

We'd need to assume that the designer operated in ways similar to humans...

— I

I guess I also needed to say "very first" bacteria flagellum

Do you really think that if we found that 4 billion year old plan for the very first bacteria flagellum the only thing Sal would say is "We don't investigate plans --- and that plan can't be more than 6,000 years old anyway."?

That is exactly what I've always said!

Comment #154683 Posted by Raging Bee on January 11, 2007 3:23 PM (e) In those very words?

Febble asked: must Specified Complexity arise from such an "purposeful" intelligence or could it arise from mere "intelligence" as operationally defined by Dembski?

The principal advantage of characterizing design as a complement of regularity and chance is that it avoids committing itself to a doctrine of intelligent agency. Defining design as the negation of regularity and chance avoids prejudicing the causal stories we associate with the design inference. William Dembskim Design Inference

I pointed out the fact Kimura has shown the majority of molecular evolution cannot possibly be under the influence of selection. He had hoped that a reconciliation with Darwinian theory would be possible if adaptation (and thus functional evolution) were compartmentalized away from molecular evolution. One can see this is a brittle "truce" at best, especially if more and more functionality is discovered in regions of molecules which Kimura's equations indicate must not be subject to selection. What if these regions are found functional then? The answer is we can infer these functional systems (dare we say designs) are not the product of Natural Selection. Tada!

Adding to this, Allen Orr astutely observed in his criticism of Dennett's book, Darwin's Dangerous Idea, that Natural selection does not correlate with designs in biology, Orr said, "selection does not trade in the currency of design". I think Orr was sympathetic to the "Spandrels" explanation, which is really not much of an explanation at all....

So do we have evidence there is functionality in these regions presumed impossible to have function? See: DNA researcher, Andras Pellionisz gives favorable review to a shredding of Dawkins and TalkOrigins.

I think Dembski's math had refuted anything by Dawkins and friends

I pointed out the fact Kimura has shown the majority of molecular evolution cannot possibly be under the influence of selection.

Well I've caught up with this conversation today. Quite interesting still. One thing in reading Sal's posts caught my eye this morning. Namely, that in reading them I had to take time to parse through them, but frankly, I find very little actual content. I find some external references, questionably quoted, some verbal acrobatics, and talks of "subtleties" and of course various big words. One of the trends I've noticed in ID discussions is a great deal of "contentless" discussions. There are references to a few other works by select individuals. I find various dodges ("if this is true" with no or little evidence said statement IS true), and attempts to find what is "logical" without looking at what has been found so far by science (the tornado-in-a-junkyard argument is logical, but its a terrible metaphor for the complex findings and studies of evolutionary biology). A major aspect of science is the ability to effectively communicate information. It's why records are kept, why math is used, why experiments are explained in painful detail (I still recall my days of people asking me what breed of hamster I used in my neural work*). What I am finding in Sal's case, and in much of ID's case, is discussions that obscure the situation. I don't care if Natural Selection "sounds unlikely," or "if X is true" when there's no evidence for X, or verbal acrobatics about undefined primitives. I want some numbers, data, research, hypotheses, tested theories, and documentation. *It was disturbingly relevant when it came to trying to breed them. The two different gene pools had vastly different behaviors and maternal instincts.

— DragonScholar

Yes, such is the typical response by ID activists when confronted with tough questions, especially questions which they feel have relevance and cannot be answered without putting as risk ID. Remember that Sal would 'take a grenade for Dembski'... In other words, Sal suggested that he would protect Dembski at all cost. As such, the attention has to be distracted from Dembski's flaws and towards issues or irrelevance such as neutral mutations, Haldane or some poorly written ID paper (Voie).

— PVM

Well, since "four billion" in terms of your speculation is kind of an arbitrary number, it would've helped. There's nothing in your post that would indicate that you were talking about something old.

What I was trying to say is that we'd need to know something about the designer in order to infer its purpose. This violates an ID taboo, but I guess it does vary day to day.

No, that would be extremely dogmatic of me, and I have no idea why you think I would think that. BTW, a four billion year old blueprint for bacterial flagella is an order of magnitude worse for the ToE than the proverbial misplaced rabbit.

There is a difference between saying "we don't investigate what the plan or the identity of the Designer is" versus "the Designer has no identity nor plan or power of choice". One can assert that an intelligent agency in general the power of choice or plan without actually investigating the details of the choice or the plan.

Therefore I claim the Christian God as the first proven example of 'Intelligent Design' - and I'll go one further - I'll identify not only the designers - but also their methods, motivations and actions in their production of their design. Crikey! I can even document the production of the 'beta version' that was worked on for a few thousand years before "God 2.0" was released.

Specified complexity can be an empircally measurable property given the approriate information. Even biologists colloquially say "such and such has a design." That is consistent with the definition of Deisgn within ID theory.

Whether such designs can arise without the aid of intelligent agency somewhere in the pipeline is the question. ID theorists hypothesize that it can't be done. The Darwinists argue Natural Selction can do this, and I respond, they have not proven their case and that it can be logically demonstrated that their theory is self-contradictory and therefore ID theory is at least better by default.

Re "unless populations sizes remain constant most of the time, populations either go extinct or fill up the known space surprisingly quickly"

Or fluctuate within a constant range.

Henry

What I was trying to say is that we'd need to know something about the designer in order to infer its purpose. This violates an ID taboo, but I guess it does vary day to day.

Dean Morrison: I can even document the production of the 'beta version' that was worked on for a few thousand years before "God 2.0" was released.

... - so I'm off to post this on 'Uncommon Descent' - where I'm sure I'll get a warm and respectful welcome...

Yes, but what purpose? I mean, you are correct that IDers are indeed ardent that the designer acted with a purpose, but they can never tell us what that purpose was. The Designer supposedly arranged the parts of the flagella purposefully to give that bacteria an outbound motor, but why? What was the motive in installing an outbound motor in a bacteria? Is installing outbound motors into objects an end in itself, and if so, why limit said outbound-motor-installing activities to the bacteria, rather than installing them in other places, such as viruses or rocks?

Rationalizing after the fact that X occurred with the purpose of allowing X to occur conveys to us no information. One might as well witness someone drowning in a lake, and conclude that the lake was formed expressly for that man to drown in.

I pointed out the fact Kimura has shown the majority of molecular evolution cannot possibly be under the influence of selection. He had hoped that a reconciliation with Darwinian theory would be possible if adaptation (and thus functional evolution) were compartmentalized away from molecular evolution.

I'm afraid I'm not entirely happy what you bring to our discussion, so you're out of here.

— William Dembski

Sal said:

"The Darwinists argue Natural Selction can do this, and I respond, they have not proven their case and that it can be logically demonstrated that their theory is self-contradictory and therefore ID theory is at least better by default."

Well RBH got there first, but better by "default"? That's just incredible.

"I think Dembski's math had refuted anything by Dawkins and friends. I read the supposed refutations by Dembski's critics, and I find them to be impressively written strawman takedowns and disingenuous distortions of what Dembski actually wrote. You'll hear appeals by PT regulars to Shallit, Elsberry, Perakh, Avida, etc. They are mostly strawman misrepresentations. They do not qualify as theoretically sound rebuttals...."

Okay, I believe you. Right after you show us EXACTLY WHY they do not qualify as theoretically sound rebuttals, other than just your say so. Hmm. That's a lot of people you mentioned there - Dembski vs Shallit, Elsberry, Perakh, Avida, Dawkins (and friends). Please tell us where all these (qualified) people don't um... qualify.

Whether such designs can arise without the aid of intelligent agency somewhere in the pipeline is the question. ID theorists hypothesize that it can't be done. The Darwinists argue Natural Selction can do this, and I respond, they have not proven their case

— SC

a conversation about the UD comment policy and Dembski's slippery use of term definitions has now given way entirely to Cordova pushing creationist reinterpretations/quotemines of long-dead evolutionary biologists.

a conversation about the UD comment policy and Dembski's slippery use of term definitions has now given way entirely to Cordova pushing creationist reinterpretations/quotemines of long-dead evolutionary biologists.

Haldane assumed that constant intense selection is likely to drive populations into extinction. Hence, he suggested that the average intensity of selection has a total selection coefficient of 0.1.

Haldane handled simultaneous substitutions at multiple loci using so called multiplicative fitness interaction,

"background mortality" serves as a "buffer" for natural selection.

Many alleles may simply help their possessors to hog limited resources more efficiently than others in the population, and thus effectively surviving better than they do.

The Darwinists argue Natural Selction can do this, and I respond, they have not proven their case and that it can be logically demonstrated that their theory is self-contradictory and therefore ID theory is at least better by default

A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from and/or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations that is predictive, logical and testable.

The falsifiably hypothesis is that specified complexity must ultimately regress to an intelligent agency.

Specified complexity can be an empircally measurable property given the approriate information.

I pointed out the fact Kimura has shown the majority of molecular evolution cannot possibly be under the influence of selection.

See: DNA researcher, Andras Pellionisz gives favorable review to a shredding of Dawkins and TalkOrigins.

"Something that possesses "specified complexity" is therefore something which is simultaneously compressible and non-compressible."

That is a quote from Mark characterizing Dembski's description of (yet another) possible definition, not Demsbki's own description.

Oh, I also forgot to mention that Pellionisz refers to evolution (and ID) as ideology. Ie he has revealed himself to have a less than proper grasp of science in lieu of all his earlier papers.

The IDists are pretty consistent with their claims that intelligent designers make stuff with a purpose --- like that motor and whip with a purpose to move bacteria around.

My theory : You don't have a scientific theory of ID. Prediction: Requests for you to provide one will be met with some combination of silence, obfuscation, prevarication, or statement of something which does not constitute a scientific theory. Falsifiablity: You state a scientific theory of ID that meets the above standards, someday, ever, eventually.

...he happens to use Kolmogorov-Chaitin complexity

But this makes it easy to overlook the role that Sal plays in a lot of these discussions, which is basically as a portable smokescreen. Sal drops into a conversation, and suddenly he's claimed the center of attention; the original discussion topic is long-forgotten, and instead we have a discussion of Salvador T. Cordova. We see a great example of that here in this thread, where a conversation about the UD comment policy and Dembski's slippery use of term definitions has now given way entirely to Cordova pushing creationist reinterpretations/quotemines of long-dead evolutionary biologists.

Nit-pick:
IDists only talk about the purpose of the things made by the designer. They kind of forbid talking about why the designer designs things, though.

That's not a nit-pick, that's a fundamental flaw of creationist pseudoscience. When has any branch of any natural science ever explicitly ruled any avenue of inquiry "closed" or "out of bounds?" There have of course been many cases of "We don't have the resources to go there yet;" and "Another branch is better equipped to go there;" but that's very different from "We must all agree that it is forbidden to go there, don't even ask about it."

Thank you for very illustrative, lucid and thorough explanation on Haldane's dilemma!

— TL

Explaining one of Wilson's objections (Blazer's link) on Isaak's claim in CB121.

— TL

Nit-pick: IDists only talk about the purpose of the things made by the designer. They kind of forbid talking about why the designer designs things, though.

We may indeed one day be able to answer questions such as: - what mechanism did the designer use to design? - why did the designer design? - how did the designer assemble the object? - when was it designed? (this question may be informed through sciences which study chronology, such as the geological sciences, or through other biological dating methods. But intelligent design theory does not answer this question.) But intelligent design theory will always be limited to what we can infer from the data. Currently these questions which lies outside the scope of intelligent design theory, but that fact does not discredit the claims that intelligent design theory actually does make.

dodgingcars writes: > > From admitting that science had to be redefined to include ID, > > Not quite. He's actually saying that science was a broader term in > the past and has been redefined to exclude ID now. That is not at all what he claimed in his testimony. Behe recognizes that ID is not a scientific theory and sought to change the definition rather than address the aspects of ID that make it not qualify as science. He then admitted under cross-examination that his definition allows astrology to be called science as well. > > The evidence about the peer review of his book (which I have > > ordered, it isnt in my local shop) was pretty bad > > How was it bad? If you read the testimony, you'll see that he first claimed that his book had been subject to the same level of peer review as are articles in journals such as Nature and Science. In fact, one of the people listed as a reviewer never even read the book, nor did he provide any feedback. The feedback provided by other reviewers was without exception unsupportive of ID, yet Behe changed nothing and published the book anyway. TheSun is absolutely correct, Behe got hammered.

The falsifiably hypothesis is that specified complexity must ultimately regress to an intelligent agency.

— Salvador

Specified complexity can be an empircally measurable property given the approriate information.

— Salvador

... it can be logically demonstrated that their theory is self-contradictory ...

— Salavador

I think Dembski's math had refuted anything by Dawkins and friends.

— Salvador

I read the supposed refutations by Dembski's critics, and I find them to be impressively written strawman takedowns and disingenuous distortions of what Dembski actually wrote. You'll hear appeals by PT regulars to Shallit, Elsberry, Perakh, Avida, etc. They are mostly strawman misrepresentations. They do not qualify as theoretically sound rebuttals....

— Salvador

...therefore ID theory is at least better by default.

— Sal

Why, what, how, and when might be required questions to answer in a grade school science fair project, but they are only currently beyond the scope of ID, not forbidden.

Q. Can you explain why would the intelligent designer design one irreducibly complex system and then another one to combat it or fight it? A. The question of the intentions of the designer is a question that is separate from and beyond the question of whether there is design. We can know something that is designed without knowing what the designer intended for it. If I might just give an example from our everyday world, we can look at something like a gun or some such thing, realize immediately that it was designed, and not know what the purpose of it is for. Q. But we do know a lot about the intentions, desires, motives, needs of the intelligent actors who designed those guns, correct? A. I'm going to say I don't think so. Certainly we know that if a gun were made by a human being and we know, we have other information from other sources about that, so from that other information we can certainly deduce, make good arguments about what those might be, but the case remains that that is separate information, separate from the structure of the gun, and we decide that the gun is designed by looking at the structure of it, or get away from guns, just any mechanical complex object.

Is there any scientific intelligent design research program going on to determine when the designer acted or she acted or they acted; how he, she, or they acted; why he, she, or they acted; or who he, she, or they are? A. No. No.

Specified complexity can be an empircally measurable property given the approriate information.

— Salvador Cordova

caligula said: None of this applies to Walter ReMine's quote mining project, of course. He just won't listen. I hope Salvador does, at least. :)

Sal: You haven't answered any of our questions, so why should any of us answer yours?

What was the motive in installing an outbound motor in a bacteria?...

I initiated an irrelevant (a negative argument against evolution doesn't help Sal showing ID is useful) side discussion because I wasn't aware that talk.origins group was discussing the quality of T.O. CC list.

Febble asked:

must Specified Complexity arise from such an "purposeful" intelligence or could it arise from mere "intelligence" as operationally defined by Dembski?

— Salvador T. Cordova

The falsifiably hypothesis is that specified complexity must ultimately regress to an intelligent agency. The intelligence can act through a surrogate (like a machine or factory), but it's ultimate cause is intelligence. At least that is the hypothesis.

Formally speaking specified complexity is a property which is not derived from the presumption of intelligence. Consder what Dembski wrote:

The principal advantage of characterizing design as a complement of regularity and chance is that it avoids committing itself to a doctrine of intelligent agency. Defining design as the negation of regularity and chance avoids prejudicing the causal stories we associate with the design inference. William Dembskim Design Inference

— Salvador

Specified complexity can be an empircally measurable property given the approriate information.

Even biologists colloquially say "such and such has a design." That is consistent with the definition of Deisgn within ID theory.

Whether such designs can arise without the aid of intelligent agency somewhere in the pipeline is the question.

ID theorists hypothesize that it can't be done.

The Darwinists argue Natural Selction can do this, and I respond, they have not proven their case and that it can be logically demonstrated that their theory is self-contradictory and therefore ID theory is at least better by default.

Yes, but why is the intelligent designer interested in whether bacteria are able to move toward food?

— Coin

Febble asked:

must Specified Complexity arise from such an "purposeful" intelligence or could it arise from mere "intelligence" as operationally defined by Dembski?

— Salvador T. Cordova

The falsifiably hypothesis is that specified complexity must ultimately regress to an intelligent agency. The intelligence can act through a surrogate (like a machine or factory), but it's ultimate cause is intelligence. At least that is the hypothesis.

Formally speaking specified complexity is a property which is not derived from the presumption of intelligence. Consder what Dembski wrote:

The principal advantage of characterizing design as a complement of regularity and chance is that it avoids committing itself to a doctrine of intelligent agency. Defining design as the negation of regularity and chance avoids prejudicing the causal stories we associate with the design inference. William Dembskim Design Inference

— Salvador

Specified complexity can be an empircally measurable property given the approriate information.

Even biologists colloquially say "such and such has a design." That is consistent with the definition of Deisgn within ID theory.

Whether such designs can arise without the aid of intelligent agency somewhere in the pipeline is the question.

ID theorists hypothesize that it can't be done.

The Darwinists argue Natural Selction can do this, and I respond, they have not proven their case and that it can be logically demonstrated that their theory is self-contradictory and therefore ID theory is at least better by default.

caligula wrote None of this applies to Walter ReMine's quote mining project, of course. He just won't listen. I hope Salvador does, at least. :)

Can you tell me the average nucleotide fixation rate per generation under optimal conditions?

Explaining one of Wilson's objections (Blazer's link) on Isaak's claim in CB121.

You must mean this one: "He also assumed that two mutations would take twice as long to reach fixation as one, but because of sexual recombination, the two can be selected simultaneously and both reach fixation sooner."

my text book (Ridley 2nd ed) merrily devotes a whole chapter for this topic

Kimura's original argument has been weakened accordingly, as it largely depends on low rate of substitution for adaptations; neutral evolution trivially explains changes at non-coding DNA and fixation of silent mutations, but it is very likely not needed in explaining any morphologically meaningful evolution --- there are enough adaptations to do the job.

Can you tell me the average nucleotide fixation rate per generation under optimal conditions?

"An undergraduate text would probably be just about right. :-)"

Btw, besides reading a textbook, are there web resources available in population modeling?

From time to time I discuss the theory of evolution with my cat who has a short attention span. However, even after my best explanation my cat takes me back to square one with the question, "Meow?"

Sal, who is not nearly as endearing as my cat, uses the same mode in his "arguments." Sal typifies how creationists address the theory of evolution at any level: unsupported assertions followed by diversion and topic-changing followed by semantic analysis of the word "is" followed by the vanishing act. Sal simple makes up stuff as he goes along which is why he gets trapped time and time again. Sal would not have survived as a mouse.

Sal is not a spokesman for the ID movement, nor does he represent the DI, nor is he considered a leading ID astrologer (like Dembski or Behe). Like me, Sal is a scientific gadfly but unlike me Sal isn't interested in learning anything. Creationists, Sal included, are really bugged by the notion that the theory of evolution doesn't require a designer, that we humans are not the end product and special, and that there is no plan or purpose to life other than complex chemical process that leads to survival.

For Sal that view makes his life meaningless.

For me that view gives me purpose. I am at the tip of a branch of organisms that can be traced back, unbroken, nearly 4 billion years. I am grateful and reverent to all my ancestors who survived calamity after calamity to enable me to exist today. I celebrate life and my place in the world and for the life of me I can't understand Sal at all. What a poor, frightened creature he must be.

The principal advantage of characterizing design as a complement of regularity and chance is that it avoids committing itself to a doctrine of intelligent agency.

— Dembski (as quoted by Salvador)

Sal's pathetic, infinitesimal, nitpicky criticisms of evolution are analagous to a librarian trying to tell us the Golden Gate Bridge is structurally unsound and near collapse by showing us a blurry close-up photo of a single rusty rivet. Except when pressed, he can't or won't tell you where the rivet supposedly is, he can't offer any real evidence that that rivet is about to fail--hell, he can't even demostrate that the rivet is part of the GGB to begin with. Plus you find virtually every piece of evidence he offers is easily googleable as having been quote-mined from engineering studies which unambiguously conclude that the bridge is sound.

Then once you really study the picture, you realize it's just a really really low-quality jpg of that virgin mary grilled cheese sandwich on ebay. Meanwhile Sal has fled the discussion and is posting on all the librarian blogs how he blew all the bad guys out of the water with his rusty rivet argument, the blog czars helpfully delete all comments that point to the original discussion where his assertions were shredded by working structural engineers, and he gleefully declares victory while all the know-nothing sycophants (most of whom passionately believe it was impossible for the bridge to have ever been built to begin with) cheer his genius.

Sal, what's your theory of ID? Put up or shut up.

In particular, does evolutionary theory predict that the Kolmogorov complexity of a genome tends to increase over time?

Can you tell me the average nucleotide fixation rate per generation under optimal conditions?

"These systems are situated in between simplicity and complexity"

Here I mean between regularity and non-regularity, since the measures used for complexity differs from KC. (They maximize between regularity and non-regularity instead.)

But this information doesn't need to increase, since evolution works both ways. In Liddle's analogy, evolution learns and forgets.

I'm sure Mr Dembski will welcome my support for his insightful idea, and will welcome my support from across the pond - so I'm off to post this on 'Uncommon Descent' - where I'm sure I'll get a warm and respectful welcome.....

"Turning to the genome, information in the genome doesn't tell us how it is used, which is more like a complex language. "

Btw, not all of this information, either basic KC complexity or the complex real use of the genome, is contained in the genome. In reproduction cellular machinery (and maternal hormones in embryos) always encloses the genome, and contains further contingent information.

What about Schneider's GAs? I thought he proved that the Shannon information content of the genome should increase with selection.

I was just wondering if something similar could be showed for Kolmogorov complexity as well.

As they say, the genome is mostly a repository of survival methods used by the organism's ancestors. I just wonder how cumulative the "history" is.

"KC complexity is not a computable function." - Apparently, KC complexity is not a computable function. (If I had realized earlier, I wouldn't have suggested it.)

"the genome as theory" - the population as theory.

"KC complexity is not a computable function." - Apparently, KC complexity is not a computable function. (If I had remember, I wouldn't suggested it earlier.)

"the genome as theory" - the population as theory.

Torbjörn Larsson,
Re "In SETI it is indeed complexity and information in signals that is used; small bandwidth (low Shannon information rate in the channel) and simplicity (low K-C complexity information content) is considered to characterize intelligent communication."

Huh. IOW they look for simplicity where it isn't normally expected. After all, intelligent designers that we know of tend to avoid complexity where they can do so - things are simpler that way. (So to speak.)

-------------

Coin,
Re "Yes, but why is the intelligent designer interested in whether bacteria are able to move toward food?"

And, what about the cases in which the "food" is us, our food plants and animals, and our pets? One could conclude that the "designer" (of bacterial flagella) is no friend of humanity...

Henry

Can you tell me the average nucleotide fixation rate per generation under optimal conditions? Fixation defined as 100% uniformity of nucleotide at a loci position.

— SC

I love this quotation from the IDists:
We may indeed one day be able to answer questions such as:
- what mechanism did the designer use to design?
- why did the designer design?
- how did the designer assemble the object?
- when was it designed? (this question may be informed through sciences which study chronology, such as the geological sciences, or through other biological dating methods. But intelligent design theory does not answer this question.)
Why? Why do I love it? Because it subjects the "unnamed designer" (Just cut the sham would you and say it in front of everyone?!?! "G-O-D." It's embarassing to watch!) to methodological naturalism...well...assuming they ever formulate any jeopardizable hypotheses.
In other words:

The resultant paradox contained within the definitional matrices of both "What is intelligence?" and "What is purpose?" lead, ultimately, to the unbound bind of the Deux ex natura of their Deus ex machina that diminishes the patina of the former's resplendance by transmogrifying the amorphous into that which is hypothesized and therefore forced prostrate beneath the lens of methodological naturalism, a space wherein all is treated to the sharp blade of Occam's Razor.
It represents a sub-order of homo sapiens' - between the YEC/OEC/IDC v. Evolutionary Scientists - eternal conflict's attenuation through meta-processed non-discrursive function along an illusive hegemonistic timescale not unlike Heidegger's inquisition of the definitional parameters of "is" and thusly "not is." The questions, then, are not, "What are our origins?" or "What are our ends?" but IS "How do we understand non-linear post facto extinction in time schemes disembodied from their semiotic foci?"

Got that Sal? I thought so.
To be perfectly blunt. That opacity is the essence of your argument. It might be grammatically/syntactically correct but it is, in essence, totally devoid of content.
Vapid.
Dodges.
Nonsense.
Dressed-up vacuity.
There are at least five solid questions waiting to be answered in this thread, not the least of which is from FEBBLE.
If one of William Dembski's definitions of intelligence is the one that Febble keeps asking about, then why can't natural selection be intelligent when it is clearly an "appropriate" (to use one of your words) candidate as an intelligent agency?
Now, it something to do with purpose, then please address what that purpose is and provide us with the data that support this alleged purpose?

Intelligence are detected in forensics and SETI by having a model for intelligent behavior. (Refuting alienward's naive assumption that it isn't needed.) In SETI it is indeed complexity and information in signals that is used; small bandwidth (low Shannon information rate in the channel) and simplicity (low K-C complexity information content) is considered to characterize intelligent communication.

Peter loves the quote... We may indeed one day be able to answer questions such as: - what mechanism did the designer use to design? - why did the designer design? - how did the designer assemble the object? - when was it designed? (.... But intelligent design theory does not answer this question.)

These systems are situated in between simplicity and complexity with order on all scales, just as glasses are situated in between crystals and amorphous materials.

Hey, I might be an alien but I don't remember anything saying anything about SETI.

I was referring to your comment that "Why, what, how, and when might be required questions to answer in a grade school science fair project, but they are only currently beyond the scope of ID, not forbidden." We can't identify intelligence or its design without having a model of how the intelligence works. As Liddle pointed out, evolution provides us with such a model. And it predicts phylogenetic trees, which is what we observe.

(1) High information content machine-like irreducibly complex structures will be found. (2) Forms will be found in the fossil record that appear suddenly and without any precursors. (3) Genes and functional parts will be re-used in different unrelated organisms. (4) The genetic code will NOT contain much discarded genetic baggage code or functionless "junk DNA".

And I'm sorry, but I can't figure out what the remaining part of your comment is claiming and asking. The second sentence contradicts the first, assuming "this" points to it. That leaves me stumped.

Here's some predictions of design from Sal's club:

So, what I 'd like to know from IDists is what are some of the features of living things that are best explained by causes other than intelligent design, what are those causes, and how do IDists determine what isn't intelligently designed?

The Theory of Evolution predicts everything that ID predicts because Replication with Modification plus Natural Selection is a very intelligent system. Slow, but brilliant. There is no disambiguating test because the predictions of both are identical.

I've argued for years that if one put God through Dembski's Explanatory Filter, it'd conclude "Designed!"

— RBH

And so S. Cordova demonstrates he knows as much about logic as he does about science; i.e. almost nil. An undefined primitive is contextual, first of all - nothing is absolutely an undefined primitive. So failing to mention the system in question makes his statement syntactic nonsense. Moreover, the idea that the ID guys have an axiomatic theory of anything ... well, I won't hold my breath.

Finally, to the extent that their nonsense is in hypothetico-deductive form, I suppose Elizabeth's / Febble's conclusion is the correct one - she found a consequence of their implicit definition. This is the danger of implicit (or axiomatic) definitions, after all: they may fail to capture some of the pretheoretical scope of the original idea.

IDists claim "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." This implies that some features of living things aren't best explained by an intelligent cause. Has anyone seen a list of some of the life features that aren't best explained by an intelligent cause and the explanation of how IDists determined they weren't intelligently designed?

Re "(2) Forms will be found in the fossil record that appear suddenly and without any precursors."

Seems to me that the earliest known fossils will always satisfy that "prediction", regardless of I.D. or ToE.

Henry

Caligula wrote: What I can say is that the main limiting factor in intraspecific competition is the mutation rate for beneficial alleles. If one such mutation originated every generation, after an initial delay, we would get one fixation per generation as well.

Sal,

Can you tell me what reason do we have to believe that most DNA differences between human and chimp are functionally significant? Surely you are aware of the discovery that only about 1% of the human/chimp DNA codes for genes. Although (a) a much larger part of DNA has been observed to regulate the coding part of the genome and (b) even the length of our junk DNA may in some places serve some function, no serious biologist claims that all or even most DNA sequences make a functional difference. It remains a fact that most DNA is junk, at least sequence-wise, to the best of our knowledge. In fact, it is known that even coding genes tolerate a lot of molecular change without any change in function; there is redundance in the genetic code which allows for silent mutations. (No, the news that some silent mutatations may not be entirely silent does not do away with the general conclusion. Just as the news that some non-coding DNA serves a selectable function does not do away with the conclusion that most of it does not, for mammals.)

The morphologic differences between humans and modern apes are not huge. Which is why ID advocates like ReMine have to resort to "Oh, come on!" and "You just don't turn an ape into an opera admirer" type of emotional and intuitive arguments. In reality, evolutionary developmental biology ("evo-devo") is increasingly demonstrating that animals share a more or less common genetic toolkit and different species are merely regulating this toolkit in a different way. For example, fairly recently, a mouse embryo grew bat's fingers in the lab when the expression region of a single pre-existing mouse gene was manually expanded. As it happens, the corresponding gene naturally expresses itself in the limb buds of a bat embryo, accelerating finger growth. How many adaptations would you account for such a dramatic morphologic change, basing your estimate on mere intuition?

So, I am arguing that there is no molecular nor morphological argument which suggests that there must have occurred millions of functionally significant point mutations during the evolution of hominids, as opposed to what you are claiming. There is no evidence whatsoever that you can not turn an ape into an "opera admirer" with a couple of thousand adaptations. When argumentation is limited to little more than intuition and guessing, I'm sure many would join me in saying that a couple of thousand adaptations sound like a lot of morphologic evolution. And, as I've tried to explain, modern population genetics does not see any reason to accept Haldane/Kimura at face value any more. They have identified relevant factors that neither Haldane nor Kimura thought of, even if the contribution of these factors in historic evolution is not accurately known. So, instead of any number cut in stone, we are allowed to assume many thousand adaptations. An amount which happens to account for functionally significant molecular differences between human and chimp (or between human and the last common ancestor for human and chimp).

As for what can account for functionally insignificant molecular differences. Even though Kimura's arguments have lost a lot of their initial punch -- the part which downplays the role of adaptations -- neutral change is of course still used to explain most of molecular evolution. After all, molecular clocks rely on the assumption that molecular change proceeds largely independently of morphologic change. Whether neutral evolution of hominids during the past few million years has involved mostly point mutations or chromosomal mutations, I do not know. However, the molecular change involved can be explained in principle by known mechanisms.

In summary. In my opinion, this topic follows the typical pattern of ID/evo debates. ID advocates declare that they have an observation for which there can't be any Darwinian explanation, not even in principle. As it turns out, there can, even if it currently both lacks sufficient detail and is in practice extermely hard to test.

Salvador,

Initially, I decided not to get sidetracked by making any note of the number (180 million SNPs) you threw in. But admittedly it did make me wonder: what on earth is going on this time. As you seem to concentrate on molecular differences, I decided to find out more. I then found your post at UD (Dec. 2006) which explains the fuzz.

I can but wonder how anyone can so utterly misinterpret a SciAm article repeating the term gene duplication like a dozen times. And it specifically says:

"The group estimated that humans have acquired 689 new gene duplicates and lost 86 since diverging from our common ancestor with chimps six million years ago. Similarly, they reckoned that chimps have lost 729 gene copies that humans still have."

Now, you do know what a gene duplication (and, less significantly, gene deletion) is? It is something entirely different from a series of e.g. 1000 point mutations. It is a chromosomal mutation which duplicates a large sequence of DNA, including a whole coding gene, which is then subject to subsequent change independently of the original copy. As you should know, such mutations play a key role in explaining the evolution of genetic variety and, indeed, in explaining increases in genetic information. ToE postulates family trees not only for individuals and species, but also for genes and gene families.

Let me see if I follow your point, Caligula (I'm not a biologist):

The 180,000,000 base pair difference over 5m years between chimps and humans is not caused by 720 point mutations per generation but by gene duplication? What does gene duplication deletion look like in terms of base-pair difference? And actually, now that I think about it, what does "180,000,000 base pair difference" even mean?

Re "we need to have on average fixations of 720 nucleotides per generation."

Isn't that fairly close to the sum of the average total mutation rate for the two species? And the total rate is what would be needed when comparing to the total amount of differences.

Caligula wrote: Can you tell me what reason do we have to believe that most DNA differences between human and chimp are functionally significant? Surely you are aware of the discovery that only about 1% of the human/chimp DNA codes for genes.

Sal quoted someone thusly:

...the ID/ET theory correctly predicted some yet to be decoded function of junkDNA...The scientific challenge is already at its next stage, having stepped over the "existence question" and proceeded with the decoding junkDNA in order to understand its function.

If we still don't understand the function of junk DNA, and still have yet to decode it, then how can anyone have "correctly predicted some yet to be decoded function of junkDNA?"

If you want to be taken seriously as an honest participant in this debate, then please explain this apparent contradiction.

Re "Most Darwinists erroneously predicted that 98.7% of the DNA was devoid of function ("junk")"

I thought that was a conclusion (inference from the data) rather than a prediction.

Henry

If we still don't understand the function of junk DNA, and still have yet to decode it, then how can anyone have "correctly predicted some yet to be decoded function of junkDNA?" If you want to be taken seriously as an honest participant in this debate, then please explain this apparent contradiction.

Sal,

I don't understand your logic about gene duplications at all. Gene duplication is a single mutation, not a series of point mutations.

Another thing. From the "180 million" articale, I was led to your "U-Paradox" article. I'd really like to discuss this one through, and I hope that PT contributors make note of this article of yours:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1911

It demonstrates what I find to be a hilarious misunderstanding.

First, let me assure you that natural selection has no problem at all to "purify" a gene pool from harmful mutations. Granted, new ones appear every generation, and not all harmful mutations disapperar during the very next generation due to selection (selection is a statistical force, after all). But selection and segregation certainly keep all naturally occurring rates of harmful mutations at bay. I have simulated this scenario as per request by one Life Engineer at ARN. In the simulated case, my harmful mutations were not exclusively deletrious, but that should only help their fixation. I generated harmful mutations at a rate which made an average individual possess, as it happens, 3 harmful mutations. None, and I repeat, none of the harmful alleles came anywhere near to fixation. As should be obvious and trivial to anyone who understands the basics of selection and Mendelian segregation.

Second, what was Nachman calling a "paradox" then? Well, he said it loud and clear, although you misinterpreted it somehow. Nachman estimates that U deletrious mutations reduce the fitness of an individual by 1 - e^-U. Following Haldane/Kimura models, this results in an unbearably low average fitness with even fairly small values of U and, consequently, an unbearably high mortality. Now, let us grant you all your wishes, Salvador. Let us call U=100 "optimistic", even though you gave no reason for this at all, and although it contradicts the results of both Nachman et al. and Eyre-Walker et al. Also, let us assume that NS is, indeed, fully incompetent in "purifying" the gene pool of these extremely harmful alleles (which is utterly ridiculous).

With U=100, we get an average fitness of 7.3 * 10^-44. This means that each individuaal of the population survives the juvenile phase with probability, roughly, one in a billion billion billion billion billion. Given that even the current human population is only measured in billions, we would be so unbelievable lucky to have a single surviving couple (male+female) after the first generation that it is not worth mentioning. Also, let us assume that NS is on a holiday and these deletions start to accumulate. I hope I don't have to mention the power of cumulative processes. Hope you are starting to see what the paradox really is. But you said you want more. Should U be 200? Or perhaps 1000? You do the math.

What you do not understand is that Nachman's result does not address "macroevolution" at all. It addresses microevolution. The timescale we are observing is quite fast, too. With U=3, we would likely have a genocide in less than 15 generations, starting with a population of billions. How do you fit in 300 generations (from today back to 4000 BC), and how do you start with a population of 2? With the values of U=100 and the like, we would have some sort of weird Last Thursdayism. No generation at all would nearly survive so we would have to be the first generation with false memories.

Besides, I would think again before suggesting, with a straight face, that we all are likely missing a hundred genes or more.

Nachman's results are not a problem for "evolution". Natural selection continues to function just as it did before, and it indeed is capable of "purifying" (i.e. prevending the fixation of) harmful alleles. However, Nachman's results are a problem for common sense. Clearly, the human population is much more than a dozen generations old, as opposed to the naive prediction of Nachman's model. Hence, there must indeed be some factors which relax the effects of selection. Ironically, they seem to be pretty much the same factors that have been suggested for Haldane's "dilemma"! No surprise, because "Nachman's paradox" is produced by the same assumptions as "Haldane's dilemma". If anything, Nachman's paradox demonstrates that Haldane/Kimura indeed must be wrong, and that the results of their overly simplistic model is against common sense.

Caligula inquired: I don't understand your logic about gene duplications at all. Gene duplication is a single mutation, not a series of point mutations.

A linguistic structure suggest function even if the structure is not fully understood...

So now you're back to "inferring" and "suggesting" something you can't actually PROVE. The existence of a structure suggests that something COULD have a particular function, but whether it's actually used is another matter.

...(like seeing an undecoded communication, the communication has function, but it is not understood).

It LOOKS like something that has function: a sequence of nucleic acids. Like the unencoded text to which you compare it, however, its actual function depends on whether it is read and used, not merely on its structure. A message that no one reads is "junk," not because it has no structure, but because it is not used.

(I also see you're back to the standard IDist trick of saying "It reminds me of something that's designed, therefore it's designed." Subjective comparisons don't prove anything.)

Furthermore, Fracis Collins called it hubris to say any part of the genome is junk.

An opinion, albeit a valid one, but not, in itself, proof of anything. (Note: Collins is not an IDist.)

Your line of argumentation reminds me of the days when Darwinists were part of creating a policy of removing of various organs out of little children since these organs were deemed junk.

So...first you mention unspecified "days" when unspecified "Darwinists" were "part of creating" an unspecified policy of mutilating unspecified children in "various" unspecified ways. Then you equate my mere arguments to this alleged, unspecified, atrocity. Your facade of civility is thin indeed, if the name-calling, hatemongering, lying bigot pops out from under it so quickly.

Remember the Commandment: "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor."

This means that each individuaal of the population survives the juvenile phase with probability, roughly, one in a billion billion billion billion billion. Given that even the current human population is only measured in billions, we would be so unbelievable lucky to have a single surviving couple (male+female) after the first generation that it is not worth mentioning.

Ignoring my response to your logical fallacies and ad-hominem attacks, Sal? that's typical of your cowardice. Man up already, willya? You're starting to embarrass us.

That disregard for "junkDNA" is impeding the progress of medical science.

— Sal

Pellionisz FractoGene has demonstrated at least one layer of linguistic architecture for the junk DNA. A linguistic structure suggest function even if the structure is not fully understood (like seeing an undecoded communication, the communication has function, but it is not understood). Furthermore, Fracis Collins called it hubris to say any part of the genome is junk.

— Sal

Abstract It is shown that the distribution of word frequencies for randomly generated texts is very similar to Zipf's law observed in natural languages such as English. The facts that the frequency of occurrence of a word is almost an inverse power law function of its rank and the exponent of this inverse power law is very close to 1 are largely due to the transformation from the word's length to its rank, which stretches an exponential function to a power law function

That may be true that it is a single mutation, but what is the likelihood of fixation of a duplicated gene made of multiple-nucleotides? One must factor the probabilities of selection based on: 1. probability of activation 2. probability of positive selection after activation

— SC

The interpreation you omit is the possiblity that everyone (or nearly everyone) receives a set of slightly deleterious mutation that does not result in death or non-reproduction. Thus the genomes continue to accumulate bad mutations which don't get purified. The paradox deals how many population resources would be needed to clean out ALL bad mutations. The theoretical prediction then is that the genomes have been getting progressively worse since humans came into existence.

— SC

Let me see if I follow your point, Caligula (I'm not a biologist): The 180,000,000 base pair difference over 5m years between chimps and humans is not caused by 720 point mutations per generation but by gene duplication? What does gene duplication deletion look like in terms of base-pair difference? And actually, now that I think about it, what does "180,000,000 base pair difference" even mean?

— GuyeFaux

I think the sequences of two species are re-aligned whenever there clearly is something extra (such as an extra gene) in the sequence of one species that the other one is missing, so as to allow the comparison to continue in a sensible fashion. I think this "extra" is then counted among the differences.

I'm no biologist, but I think it's the # of base pairs of base pairs in all of the genes that are different between humans and chimps. For comparison, human males and females have around 55 million base pairs different between them. There's almost as much differences between Sal and a male monkey than between Sal and his sister...

C'mon, guys, Sal's having a hard enough time staying above water on Mark Chu-Carroll's math blog.

Give him a little bit of a break here. It's tough being out of your deptth. Being out of your depth in two different puddles at the same time can get truly frothy!

Re "and then assume we have 720 generations to fix 720 nucleotides, this is far more optimistic than the probability we could find on average 720 nucleotides in a gene duplication that would satisfy the above conditions in 720 trials by any reasonable stretch of the imagination."

Huh? Unless I'm missing something, a duplicate (or deletion) event would be one mutation, therefore one trial, just as a base pair substitution is one trial.

Henry

Sal,

You are doubtless as annoyed by the length of this comment page upon each refresh as I am. I suggest we continue this discussion elsewhere if you have the time. Either in another thread at PT or at UD. But in the latter case I would have to request a DMZ from the local mods! It is impossible to discuss if posts are being censored without good reason -- seemingly on a random basis.

Here is a short summary of our discussion so far (from my POV of course!). Feel free to speak up if you find my summary unfair at some point.

The common denominator for the subtopics we have covered is your original claim to Febble that cumulative rounds of RM+NS do not produce CSI. You said (#154439) that "it has not been proven" and that instead it has been shown that ToE involves internal contradictions: "Haldane's dilemma" and "Nachman's paradox".

1. Concerning your claim about lack of proof, I reminded you of GAs such as the one written by Dave Thomas. In the past, you have agreed that they do produce CSI but also claimed that this CSI is "smuggled in". I asked you (#154742) to rigorously demonstrate for us how does CSI get smuggled in by humans. I believe that, so far, you have not replied anything to this important "challenge".

2. Concerning "Haldane's dilemma", I have discussed (#154439 and #154785) the simplicity of Haldane's model and the modern additions to this model (mainly "soft selection" and "intraspecific competition" which are sort of joined under the term "density-dependent selection"). I also suggest (#155676) that there is no known reason to assume that mere hundreds or thousands of adaptations could not account for the morphologic differences between humans and modern apes. And according to modern population genetics, several thousand adaptations may have occurred during the hominid evolution, as opposed to e.g. Walter ReMine's "magic number".

3. You suggested (#155631) that, on the other hand, there are just too many molecular differences to be accounted for by any theory, be it neutralist, selectionist or whatever. You threw in the number 180,000,000 SNPs, which you seem to have derived from this article:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=9D0DAC2B-E7F2-99DF-3AA795436FEF8039

I pointed out that gene duplications are single events, and do not consist of a series of point mutations. You replied that in that case we have to study how likely it is that a gene duplication, which is supposedly a neutral mutation, becomes fixed in the population. I will have to study this issue somewhat before I can respond.

It was also asked how the number 180 million can be deduced from the SciAm article above. Indeed, the article speaks of a 6% difference in terms of number of genes, as opposed to in terms of SNPs (single nucleotide polymorhphisms). As coding genes form only about 1% of our DNA, it is impossible for 6% differences in coding genes to result in 180 million SNPs.

4. Concerning "Nachman's paradox", I am strongly claiming (#155724 and #155759) that you have grossly misinterpreted Nachman's paper:

http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/156/1/297

Nachman is in fact saying that if both his measurements and Haldane's model were correct, then tehcnically we should be an extinct species. As we clearly are not, Nachman suggests that Haldane's model requires revision. His suggestions are along the lines of "soft selection" and epistatic fitness interaction (what about intraspecific competition?), i.e. very similar suggestions that modern population genetics has provided earlier. So, instead of being evidence for a contradiction within modern ToE, Nachman merely gives further reason to doubt Haldane's simplified model presented in "The cost of natural selection"(Haldane 1957).

As for the proposed inability of NS to prevent harmful mutations from fixing. While I am ready to demonstrate this further, I suggest you carefully study some basics of population genetics. It just isn't the case. If you have some spare time, I can send you a population genetics simulation, source code and all, and demonstrate the invalidity of your assertion thoroughly to you. Also please note that this has nothing to do with Nahcman. Nachman did not claim that harmful mutations accumulate into our gene pool -- they don't -- Nachman claimed that they don't even need to, because we should go extinct due to the very background mutation rate!

Caligula wrote: http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1911 It demonstrates what I find to be a hilarious misunderstanding. First, let me assure you that natural selection has no problem at all to "purify" a gene pool from harmful mutations.

Caligula said: Sal, You are doubtless as annoyed by the length of this comment page upon each refresh as I am. I suggest we continue this discussion elsewhere if you have the time. Either in another thread at PT or at UD. But in the latter case I would have to request a DMZ from the local mods! It is impossible to discuss if posts are being censored without good reason --- seemingly on a random basis.

my enemies

— Sal

I think Dembski's math had refuted anything by Dawkins and friends.

I read the supposed refutations by Dembski's critics, and I find them to be impressively written strawman takedowns and disingenuous distortions of what Dembski actually wrote.

You'll hear appeals by PT regulars to Shallit, Elsberry, Perakh, Avida, etc. They are mostly strawman misrepresentations.

They do not qualify as theoretically sound rebuttals....

The Theory of Evolution predicts everything that ID predicts because Replication with Modification plus Natural Selection is a very intelligent system. Slow, but brilliant. There is no disambiguating test because the predictions of both are identical.

Yes, and we have sickle cell anemia, tay-sachs disease, diabetes, an increasingly large database of Single-Nucleotide Polymorphisms that are tied to inherited diseases, large numbers of diseases that have been persistent and not purified out of the population. You were saying about natural selection's ability to have absolutely no problem purifying a gene pool from harmful mutations and hilarious misunderstandings? :-)

— SC

Sal,

I can log in at UD so I suppose I am not banned. I have no objection to continuing the discussion at UD per se. In fact, seeing that you have endured a lot of rhetorics on this page, I find it only fair that we continue in an environment where such extra burden is on my shoulders for a change. However, my past experience at UD suggests that censorship would prevent me from responding.

You know my writing style by now. I very much want to discuss technical issues, and I also want to get somewhere when doing so. (That's why I wrote a summary about our past discussion, so as not to forget how the details are related to each other!) But I do not spend a lot of energy in excessive friendliness -- I would find it somewhat pretentious of even sleazy. I speak up without much ceremony when I disagree, and if I find an argument ridiculous I say it loud and clear. I am also quite persistent -- I don't forget, and I don't allow for distractions or retreats until provided with at least a sensible (if not a completely satisfactory) response. In turn, I don't retreat with a smoke-screen myself. For example, your question about how gene duplications become fixed is quite valid and relevant, and it requires to be addressed. I have thought about it myself in the past. My current feeling is that the response does involve drift, but I will have to consult some professional papers before it is meaningful for me to respond; it is not my "hunch" you're interested in, after all.

I do not know what offends UD mods -- probably my direct way of presenting criticism and my persistence. But I have what I think is a legitimate fear that they will make my ability to discuss at UD unreasonably hard or even impossible. I would like you to do whatever you can to let me speak my mind, and to avoid getting sidetracked by the mods. (Sometimes they "let people understand" that the discussion is only allowed to proceed in some direction that is chosen exclusively by the mods, and is not necessarily a constructive direction if we truly want to get somewhere.) Upon entering, I have no intention to insult anyone, and currently I can't even see any reason to criticize Dembski's views. Dembski currently isn't in the scope of our discussion. He might enter the picture, of course, in case he is involved in your hopefully forthcoming detailed explanation on how CSI is "smuggled in".

Oh, about myself. My real name is Esko Heimonen, and I use it in Finnish evo/crea debates openly. Although I use various callsigns at international servers, I have at least succeeded in creating the same nick at PT and UD, so that e.g. the mods of UD can associate my comments at PT to the person at UD. At ARN, I have written some stuff using the callsign Emuu.

My professional background is modest concerning these topics: IT. As it happens, there are precious few professional scientists in evo/crea web debates! So "research" does not apply to e.g. my population genetics simulations. I have been in modest email exchange with e.g. Dr. Warren Ewens, and I intend to also contact Leonard Nunney concerning his simulation. But I certainly am not planning to publish anything, not even on a self-administered web site.

I have followed the evo/crea debate for over a decade, so I know the various arguments quite well, and I have read quite a bit concerning the topic. But I'm perfectly aware that I'm no authority nor qualified to present strong arguments about scientific data. I do dare to present arguments concerning math, however. (GAs, neural networks, mathematical population genetics, "explanatory filter", etc.) And finally, I have not read Dembski's book X. Which is one of the recurrent questions at UD. I believe I have read Dembski's core arguments, and frankly I don't find them sophisticated enough to require one to read (and, in Finland, buy) all of Demsbki's books in order to fully understand them. (Glad I said that here!)

Caligula,

I'm going to try putting up a thread there. If you're consistently unable to get your messages through, post something here and we can try looking for another weblog.

I am considered like a guest columnist at UD. I'm not an administrator. If you're comments get trapped in the spam buffer, I may not be able to get them out. Even my comments get trapped occasionally.

One thing that will improve the probability of getting your comments through is that they be short. If you have a long thread of thought, you may want to post it through multiple comments and watch each piece come up.

Links to various websites can get trapped in the spam buffer. Please save your work. If we can't get it posted at UD, we can go somewhere else, but let's give it a try.

I'll try to get something up today. I'm usually out of town on the weekends, so I advise when I'm not at UD to wait till I return. I'll try to post when I'm in or out. I think your criticisms of my ideas should get a fair hearing. If I feel you are being treated with an undue amount of harshness there, we can look for another place to continue the discussion. All the authors of PandasThumb are welcome to join the discussion with the exception of PvM who has been banned from UD.

Sal whined:

...and PT is fine unless of course the thread is hijacked by my enemies...

Excuse me, boy, but it seems you made at least one of us into enemies by trying to associate his argument (one you couldn't refute, BTW) with an alleged surgical mutilation of children by "Darwinists." (Can't you at least specify what country that mutilation allegedly took place in? How about a continent?) If the thread got "hijacked" as a result, you have only yourself, not your "enemies," to blame.

I find it telling that Sal offers to continue a debate on the one forum where he can count on his "enemies" being silenced. Sal is clearly nothing but a transparently dishonest kiss-up-kick-down courtier.

RagingBee demanded: Excuse me, boy, but it seems you made at least one of us into enemies by trying to associate his argument (one you couldn't refute, BTW) with an alleged surgical mutilation of children by "Darwinists." (Can't you at least specify what country that mutilation allegedly took place in? How about a continent?) If the thread got "hijacked" as a result, you have only yourself, not your "enemies," to blame.

That's right, WARDSfull of kids having their organs removed because of Darwinist "medicine".

That's not "Darwinist medicine," because neither Darwin himself nor the theory of evolution ever explicitly endorsed anything like the policy you describe. Blaming "Darwinists" for this is typical of creationist demagoguery. Remember that Commandment about "false witness?"

Speaking of unnecessary surgery, are "Darwinists" to blame for circumcision, castration, foot-binding, etc. as well? Unnecessary mutilation kinda predates Darwin by, like, a few millenia. Oh, and don't forget torture by Christian Inquisitors and Witch-Finders.

And you still haven't made any attempt to justify linking my arguments to such mutilation. Other than your inability to refute them any other way, of course...

A tonsillectomy is performed to treat recurrent infections, especially if it is associated with a "Strep Throat," which keeps coming back several times a year after antibiotic treatment. If medicine cannot treat or prevent the infections and the infections come back often, a tonsillectomy may be indicated. Several studies have shown that a tonsillectomy is an effective treatment for children with frequently recurring tonsillitis (chronic tonsillitis). View Abstract. Click on colored text for word definitions !! The most common reason for tonsillectomy and adenoidectomy is is to remove enlarged tonsils and adenoids which block a child's breathing passages. The nose may be so blocked by the adenoid (which is located behind the nose and above the back of the throat--see the below pictures) that a child can't smell, has a congested nose, and talks like he has a cold all the time. If the tonsils are to large, a child may not eat well, taking only small, soft foods. The child may also have some choking and mouth breathing. Often, a child snores very loudly, may not breathe well while asleep, and may actually stop breathing for several seconds. If severe and not treated, this can put strain on the heart and lungs. It has been shown that removal of the tonsils and adenoids is effective in treating obstructive sleep apnea in children

What function do they serve? Aren't they important? The tonsils and the adenoids are mostly composed of lymphoid tissue, which is found thoughout the gastointestinal tract and on the base of the tongue. Lymphoid tissue is composed of lymphocytes...which are mostly involved in antibody production. Since we generally consider antibody production to be a good thing, many studies have been performed to try to clarify the importance of the tonsils. To date, there seems to be no adverse effect on the immune status or health of patients who have had them removed. Any noticable effect has generally been positive. It appears that the tonsils and adenoids were not "designed" to effectively handle the multitude of viral infections that occur in children in an urban population. Rather, the immune system, including the tonsils and adenoids, developed during a era where the child was rarely exposed to a large number of other people and the germs they carried. It may also be that these organs are relatively more important in dealing with certain types of infections, such as worms or other parasites, that are relatively uncommon in today's society. It is clear that in many cases, the tonsils and/or the adenoids become "dysfunctional" and are more of a liability than an asset.

North America (including Canada), and one of the little children once upon a time long ago was a young child named Denyse O'Leary...

This is telling: O'Leary is now a contributor to UD (which Sal does not mention). What's happening here is obvious: "modern medicine" did something bad to O'Leary, and now she's trying to destroy "modern medicine" and punish it for all of her current suffering, by trying to replace science with hackery and pseudoscience. I strongly suspect that this sort of scapegoating is one of creationism's major driving forces.

Oh well, I guess that's better than blaming the Jooos. Or not. Maybe.

Oh, Sal? While you are trying to avoid the issue, I note that Mark Chu-Carroll is still kicking your butt from here to the next world on this thread: http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2007/01/stupidity_from_our_old_friend.php#c319444"

I encourage everyone to read it; it provides a classic example of an ID believer's complete and total inability to actually provide any sort of substance behind his hand-waving. In summary:

Sal: "various meaningless bafflegab"

Everyone else: "Sal, you must show the math. If you wish to use Shannon, you must do the math."

Sal: "meaningless bafflegab"

Everyone else: "Sal, you must show the math...."

Repeat ad nauseum.

As I said, it is an excellent example of why there is no theory of ID: because there is no actual mathematics, science, or logic behind the fundamental concept.

Though, as usual, we must be clear to distinguish the movement and the concept.

The concept, that certain objects in the biological and non-biological realms are the product of conscious design, is undeniable: humans breed animals; termites build mounds; crows use tools to catch whatever the heck crows catch.

But no one, and I repeat no one has demonstrated that the biological objects can be identified (unless RBH has finished his work on the MDT).

Indeed, the interesting point here is that in the cases we know about - humans and their stock-keeping; termites and their aphids, etc. - the manufacturing mechanism is entirely indistinguishable from normal evolutionary mechanisms.

And given that Dembski relies on CSI to show design, and that design is the product of wholly natural manufacture, I'm willing to bet that a Russian Wolfhound would NOT show CSI, despite the fact that we know it's designed.

I must think about that.

Anyway, go over to Good Math/Bad Math and watch Sal be eviscerated. It's quite amusing, and very instructive.

Caligula,

Here is the thread. I had to tie it in somewhat to the readers there, but feel free to use my post as a lead in to anything you feel important to discussing. Let me know if you have problems.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1974

Sal

Sal: When you say you "had to tie it in somewhat to the readers there," what, exactly, do you mean? And why the vague fuzzwords? It kinda sounds like you had to make some sort of unspecified compromise in order to get your post up -- which would be rather odd, given that you're a regular contributor at UD.

Sal,

So far I have had rather thin results. I posted my first response to you a couple of hours ago and it was not published. Granted, it contains some links. And now that I look at it, it is rather long (although I only address a couple of details and postpone many other major subtopics). Here are the contents:

---

Sal,

First, thank you for your invitation to continue the discussion, which started at PT, here at UD.

The above article of yours is not exactly compatible with the discussion that inspired it at PT:

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/01/dissent_out_of.html

which I tried to summarize in (#155924). Some of the 4 subtopics that I identify in the summary have been omitted by you here, some new ones have been added. Most importantly, you are here repeating claims that I believe were given in-depth responses, which you clearly did not even attempt to refute. I hope you will try to refute them here.

For starters, some comments about your article.

1. As you said yourself, a geographically complex population of 6,5 billion is not relevant when considering the evolution of Homo sapiens. Population sizes of the order 10,000 to 1,000,000 seem more realistic. Also, according to fossil evidence, it seems that this population has been geographically rather limited and well connected. In general, I suggest we acknowledge from the get-go that the current human civilization is not a typical wild population. I have pointed this out several times during our past exchanges.

2. I assume the figure 180,000,000 SNPs is solely based on this SciAm article that you have quoted in an earlier writing:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=9D0DAC2B-E7F2-99DF-3AA795436FEF8039

Alas, you have misinterpreted the article. It does not refer to differences between human and chimp in terms of nucleotide differences over the entire genome. Note this key sentence:

"In humans and chimps, which have about 22,000 genes each, the group
found 1,418 duplicates that one or the other does not possess." (1418 / 22000 = 6%, roughly.)

Differences between human and chimp can be and have been calculated using many different criteria. Differences calculated with two entirely different criteria can't be compared, of course. Talking in terms of SNPs, especially over the entire genome, is plain and simply nonsensical here. Using the typical 1000-sites-per-gene estimate, the above article would mean that humans and chimps differ by about 1,5 million sites (as opposed to your erroneous 180 million!). Now, does this really mean that we differ from chimps by only 0,05 %? Of course not. The number of coding genes that we do not share with each other tells us neither how many SNP differences there are over the entire genome nor even how many SNP differences there are over the coding genes that we do share with each other.

You asked for a better figure? Alas, I'm not qualified to give any accurate figure. But I believe that typical figures would be 30-60 million SNPs (1-2% difference). Of these differences, the vast majority are considered morphologically insignificant.

3. Haldane's dilemma:

I have said quite a bit about this to you at PT already, but I will repeat my thoughts here. I will do it in a separate post, in order to prevent individual posts from becoming unwieldy, as you have adviced me.

4. Neuralists vs. selectionists:

See 3. I will pay special attention to this sentence of yours: "How do we account for designs that cannot possibly be the result of natural selection?" Indeed, you will have to show us what such design might be.

5. Nachman's paradox: See 3.

6. Teleomorphic Recursivity:

This one I have to read more about. Do you have a link to the full text?

Sal, now it was published. I regret for the length of my writings, but I just have a lot to say. I'm always surprised to see the length after posting -- but at least I can't find much rhetorics there. I want to be thorough, but I should work at being more brief nevertheless.

I am also quite persistent --- I don't forget, and I don't allow for distractions or retreats until provided with at least a sensible (if not a completely satisfactory) response.

So how long is it going to take you to grasp that Sal does not act in good faith?

— Popper's ghost

So how long is it going to take you to grasp that Sal does not act in good faith?

The reason part of the discussion moved here was that PandasThumb is incredibly slow in displaying long discussions (as you saw yourself).

A random mutation shows up with a given probability per organism, so the same fraction of the population will bear the mutation regardless of how large the population is.

That's so hopelessy wrong I hardly know where to begin. I think you need to find a different blog.

LudwigK: A random mutation shows up with a given probability per organism, so the same fraction of the population will bear the mutation regardless of how large the population is. DaveScot: That's so hopelessy wrong I hardly know where to begin. I think you need to find a different blog.

— Zachriel

As for "good faith", in this sense I suppose I am naive. I do believe that a lot of the activity by ID advocates is sincere in the sense that they can't necessarily spot a lot of their intellectual dishonesty themselves.

That's certainly true of the rank-and-file followers, whose strong, and probably sincere and well-meaning, religious beliefs have been twisted by charlatans and bigots till they're often not even loosely based on the words of Jesus. It is most certainly NOT true of the movement's leaders, or of wannabee leaders like Sal: either they know full well what they're doing, or they're too ignorant and deluded to be qualified to lead anyone anywhere.

For example, Sal's recent post at UD pretty much seems to pretend, as far as his arguments go, that the discussion here at PT never took place.

That's how the creationists have worked since the nineteenth century: state an "objection" or "question" to the ToE, ignore the answers, and repeat the same objections or questions as if the subject had never before been brought up anywhere; then, when their honesty is questioned, say something like "What's so dishonest about asking questions?" Fundamentalists, especially recent converts, do the same thing, especially when they pretend they're the first people ever to have read the Bible.

...While LudwigK has already been threatened with the ban.

'Nuff said. Forget the blithering about an "impossibly slow weblog" -- this is Sal's real reason for rebooting the debate at UD.

this is Sal's real reason for rebooting the debate at UD

— RagingBee

Yes, I found this bit quite, well, hilarious. LudwigK's argument as a whole is incorrect, because he claims that "population size doesn't matter". Of course it matters, because in a small population, theoretic allele frequencies produced by the mutation rate will not manifest themselves as actual living genotypes on a regular basis. But instead of pointing this out, DaveScot quotes a perfectly correct sentence and threatens with a ban. A mod should be more careful with quotes when using such patronizing tone of voice.

caligula: I have reread some of the above posts, and it seems you are right, and I was mistaken about who first proposed moving the debate to UD. My statements were mainly based on Sal's comment #155967 above, in which, in accepting your offer, he chooses UD as his preference, for the clearly-stated reason that a debate on UD won't be "hijacked" by his "enemies." Furthermore, IIRC, he stated this preference and reason after you had mentioned the possibility of a debate being rigged by the selective banning that is well-known to take place there. He knew censorship was a problem at UD, he knew you were aware of it, and he chose UD anyway.

On top of all that, he never even came close to promising that no such censorship would take place; all he could promise was some vague talk about getting permission and "tying" a post to the audience, whatever the heck that means.

You wrote:

(Indeed, the most hilarious act of stupidity lately belongs to me by a wide margin: how on earth could I think that UD would speed up discussion compared to this thread!)

You had a very good reason for thinking that: the censors would have prevented Sal from having to answer for any of the ignorant, obfuscatory, or dishonest statements for which he is well-known; thus speeding up the discussion to the inevitable point of "No one who questions the Party Line is allowed here. End of argument!" Debates go much quicker when they're not sidetracked by facts or logic.

I was clearly mistaken in some particulars, but Sal is still a coward.

Here I must defend Sal. It was I who suggested the relocation ...

PS: I just had a quick look at the UD thread so far. I'm not in a position to follow this highly technical debate, but I can say for certain that Sal's unctuous evasions cause me to doubt him as a source.

I notice he spends more time saying he welcomes an open dialogue than he does responding to your points.

I also notice he doesn't take a firm stand against the banning of differing views: instead of saying "Please don't ban comments," or "If I want a commenter banned, I'll ask you to do it," he merely pretends to try to reason with DaveScot, then qualified even that request by allowing the banning of "spamming." Sal is a named regular contributor to UD, with his own bio, f'chrissakes -- is he really so low on their food chain that he can't even control a debate on his own post? Does DaveScot respect him that little?

I guess that's the price of being a suck-up, innit?

Caligula,

Have most of your comments gotten through. I'm trying to get the dialogue to flow over there so that the mods will not step in. The discussion may roll off the front page but it will continue.

Regarding your points at PT, I simply have not gotten around to discussing all of them. You claim the 180,000,000 figure was shot down, but I pointed out earlier chimps have 180,000,000 more nucleotides than humans, we must then account for the "fixation" of deletions. You might argue they are morphologically insignicant, but in response I point out it still leads to the enigma of sequence conservation.

So, I do appreciate your willingness to dialogue and your willingness to give me the benefit of the doubt as to whether I really am ignoring your objections. The previous paragraph points to substantial issues in favor of my position and the 180,000,000 figure, and I could also claim you are ignoring substative counter-objections on my part. I do not believe it is willful on your part as you do strike me as sincere and fair-minded. What I see is that you may believe the counter-objection is irrelevant since those regions have no apparent morpholoigcal significance (which is debatable, recall the whole JunkDNA controversy). Your position is a serious dismissal of a relevant issue as conserved sequences with no apparent immediate function are an evolutionary enigma that controvert both the selectionist and neutralist positions. And if those supposed insignicant positions prove to be signifcant, your thesis will be empirically refuted.

I think things could flow better here at PT if you will post administrative issues (like how long your comment was trapped in spam) and whether you want the discussion elsewhere. It would serve your interest well to discredit my arguments where I have home-field advantage at UD. It does not serve my interest to have any suggestions that the mods unfairly tipped the debate in my favor at UD, therefore I will continue to lobby you get a fair shot at my arguments.

We may slip off the front page at UD, but the arguments will remain as a historical record for all to see. Any one with technical background is welcome to try to post. I will continue to ask the mods for leniency if I think the comments are substantive.

Salvador

Salvador T. "Wormtongue" Cordova wrote:

Regarding your points at PT, I simply have not gotten around to discussing all of them.

That's probably because you spent too much time equating my arguments about "junk DNA" with the surgical mutilation of children. Time-management tends to be a problem for people who aren't willing to deal honestly with the real world.

It does not serve my interest to have any suggestions that the mods unfairly tipped the debate in my favor at UD, therefore I will continue to lobby you get a fair shot at my arguments.

"Lobby?" Is that all you can do? You're a regular UD contributor, with your own bio, and you still need permission to have an open adult debate on your own post? Why can't you just tell DaveScot "This is my post, don't interfere unless I ask you to?" Not enough balls to stand up to DaveScot? Or not enough balls to step outside your dissent-free comfort-zone?

Oh, another thing, Sal:

I will continue to ask the mods for leniency if I think the comments are substantive.

So you have to decide a comment is acceptable to you BEFORE you "ask for leniency" (i.e., beg DaveScot not to erase it)? And you'll do this on a comment-by-comment basis, without "asking" for freedom of speech in general?

Does caligula get the same privilege?

Debate is obsolete on "existence" of theories, once there is at least one with refutable precitions(s).

Fracis Collins called it hubris to say any part of the genome is junk.

then it's incumbent upon them to demonstrate it to be so

Thank you. Many of my critics have claimed I run fom the issues. This open dialogue will give me a chance to defend myself and have my day in court. I look forward to the opportunity.

— Sal (at Uncommon Descent)

Sal, sorry about the late response. Time differences (I live at GMT+2!) will cause some unavoidable delays in responses because we are sometimes offline when the other one is "active".

I'm glad to confirm that all of my posts have made it through at UD. Especially my "judgement" about Walter ReMine is such direct criticism that I wager it normally wouldn't have made it through -- you must have some influence at UD, after all. It is about bedtime for me, but tomorrow morning I will start responding to you at UD. I will also check what other reasons you find for "180 million" besides the SciAm article.

Caligula and Salvador: If UD doesn't work out, be aware that we have a moderated Formal Debates & Discussions forum on Infidels that's available for your use. The moderation consists in ensuring that the debaters adhere to their own previously agreed terms and conditions for the debate.

RBH

Caligula and Salvador: If UD doesn't work out, be aware that we have a moderated Formal Debates & Discussions forum on Infidels that's available for your use. The moderation consists in ensuring that the debaters adhere to their own previously agreed terms and conditions for the debate. RBH

Having now read the UD thread, I will add that the Infidels FD&D forum is immune to kibitzers in-thread. Only the participants in the debate/discussion can post in the debate thread. There may be a peanut gallery thread elsewhere (in this case it would be in E/C), but just the posts of the debaters appear in the debate thread. It makes for much more comprehensible exchanges, since the kibitzer noise is eliminated.

RBH

I have earlier said that Nachman(2000) seems to provide further strong evidence that Haldane/Kimura's models are outdated. But there is one thing about Nachman(2000) that puzzles me.

According to Nachman(2000), the multiplicative fitness of an individual possessing U deletrious mutations is reduced to e^-U. This formula comes from Kimura and Moruyama(1966), which in turn relies heavily on Haldane(1937) and Kimura(1961). Before diving into the world of ancient scrolls, I'd like to ask if someone who is already familiar with these sources can shed some light on what puzzles me.

Haldane(1957) calculates the multiplicative fitness of an individual exposed to U new selection pressures with coefficients d_i with the formula MUL(1 - d_i), i=1..U. (For individuals with a beneficial allele to counter any of the selection pressures, that particular coefficient is not applied, of course.) Haldane approximates this multiplicative formula with e^-SUM(d_i). Let us assume that all d_i are equal in magnitude, as the selection coefficients from deletrious mutations clearly are in Nachman(2000), to get e^-SUM(d_i) = e^-U*d_i.

Note that if U=U*d_i, the formulas from Haldane(1957) and Nachman(2000) become equivalent. This would obviously mean that d_i = 1.0.A selection pressure with coefficient (-)1.0 is lethal of course.

Now, assuming that the formula from Nachman(2000) indeed leads back to the classic multiplicative fitness formula, like I have done in the simple calculations above, it seems that Nachman considers all deletrious mutations lethal. What is the point of calculating the "fitness" of an individual with U lethal mutations? Granted, Haldane's approximative formula returns a fitness slightly above zero for even lethal alleles, but the real formula it approximates does not. Exactly what does deletrious mean? If it is merely a synonym for harmful, why is the selection coefficient automatically -1.0? Do not harmful mutations have a wide scale of coefficients, just as beneficial ones?

It seems the more a "scientific" ID person hones their "theory" to align with empirical data, the closer and closer it is going to resemble what we generally know as evolutionary biology, just with different nomenclature, ie. asymptotically.

I mean that in the sense that one could summarize the story of life as "overwhelming complexity arising from irreducible simplicity."

The "irreducible complexity" phrase, to me is a restatement of Zeno's Paradox and Lewis Carroll's parable of Achilles being unable to outrun the tortoise, in other words, it is a very old and well-established "trick" of employing the rules of logic to seemingly negate those same rules.

As an endnote, I welcome Salvador's participation here and wish that others would exercise the option of either addressing his specific points or declining to do so. Ad hominem comments are distracting and serve no useful purpose.

The story of life as explained by evolutionary biological theory is vastly incomplete. Infinite surprises will always be just around the corner. For all we know, evolutionary biology may soon face its own plate tectonics moment, as geology faced during the 1960s, or as physics faced with the quanta.

In sensu strictu, it is always healthy to have folks playing Devil's Advocate.

As for "good faith", in this sense I suppose I am naive. I do believe that a lot of the activity by ID advocates is sincere in the sense that they can't necessarily spot a lot of their intellectual dishonesty themselves.

That's so hopelessy wrong I hardly know where to begin. I think you need to find a different blog.

I found a commenter named Caligula who gave very substantive criticisms to my ideas in a precise and technical manner, and which I found worthy of giving a fair and civil hearing here at UD.

— scordova at UD

The moment ID was born, ie. when Creationists were forced for tactical reasons to externally sever any invocation of a Biblical Christian God, ID became an exercise in circular logic and self-refutation for the following reasons:

a) Any invocation of a "conscious" designer brings you right back to invocation of a God, leaving out the serious problem of how one can define "conscious" within this framework.

b) Invocation of a "non-conscious" designer brings you right back to the evolutionary theory of life; indeed, the two are different only in nomenclature.

That's so hopelessy wrong I hardly know where to begin. I think you need to find a different blog

— DaveScot

I don't necessarily want to scare away participants, but I don't want this good discussion spammed either. One way to more objectively guage the worthiness of a comment is whether it addresses the fundamental issue of evolutionary speedlimits. [...] If LudwigK can offer an estimate of the number of nucleotides per generation being fixed, then I would welcome his response. He can post it briefly. Is the answer 1, 2, 3... or .01, .001, .0001?

— scordova

And of course Sal does not apply the same "objective gauge" to the OT drivel that other UDites insert into his thread, such as "I applaud you Sal, I just went over there and saw the merciless (and logically weak) attacks they made on you. Keep it up."

If UD doesn't work out, be aware that we have a moderated Formal Debates & Discussions forum on Infidels that's available for your use."

The "irreducible complexity" phrase, to me is a restatement of Zeno's Paradox and Lewis Carroll's parable of Achilles being unable to outrun the tortoise, in other words, it is a very old and well-established "trick" of employing the rules of logic to seemingly negate those same rules.

(and logically weak) attacks

Ad hominem comments are distracting and serve no useful purpose.

Pointing out evidence of one debater's dishonesty and bad faith serves a very useful purpose -- to people who care about honesty, logical integrity and facts, that is.

The story of life as explained by evolutionary biological theory is vastly incomplete.

It's a lot more complete than "Poof, Goddidit, further questions about mechanisms and motives are not allowed, and we don't need to do any actual science to prove our assertions."

PS: if what you say is true, then why are so many creationists grudgingly accepting evolution, even as they pretend not to?

PPS to Sal: You still haven't told us whether caligula has the same right as you do to have "spam" posts deleted on the UD thread. Whassamater, boy? Can't think of a "Darwinist" atrocity to compare to my posts?

My impression, perhaps mistaken, from your earlier exposition is that Haldane wants to study lethal mutations, or a set of deleterious ones adding up to lethality.

— TL

In that case, but as you seem to show only in this case when they add up close to 1, it works to replace multiplicative effects with additive.

— TL

I think I now better understand Nachman's (Kimura's) reasoning, although I haven't had time to read e.g. Kimura(1966), Kimura(1961) and Haldane(1937). I'm an ass. An average number of deletrious (lethal) mutations obviousbly doesn't apply to all individuals. A small fraction can still be born without any. In this context, it makes sense to study how large the average number is, because it inversely affects the fraction of the population not bearing deletrious mutations.

I have earlier said that Nachman(2000) seems to provide further strong evidence that Haldane/Kimura's models are outdated. But there is one thing about Nachman(2000) that puzzles me. According to Nachman(2000), the multiplicative fitness of an individual possessing U deletrious mutations is reduced to e^-U. ....

This formula comes from Kimura and Moruyama(1966), ...

RBH:
Thank you for your suggestion, but I think it is not a good idea to relocate once again. We would resemble a wandering circus. :)

David:
Now that shut my mouth! Thank you for a very thorough explanation and for a good demonstration on how equations should be presented in this medium. (I only now learned that KwickXML understands LaTeX, but I didn't get eqn to work.) I failed to follow the very last line of your post, but apparently you are using properties of e^x that I can't remember. I assume 1 - x approximates the infinite series representation of e^x and MUL(e^x_i) = e^SUM(x_i). I trust you in this.

My analysis of your post is that since d_i inversely affects the frequency of harmful alleles, it makes itself redundant for calculating the mean fitness. Nachman(Kimura) does not assume that always d_i=(-)1.0 was unfounded. Very well.

I now understand the difference between Haldane(1957) and Nachman(2000) or, rather, Kimura(1966). While Haldane's formula e^-SUM(d_i) can be used to approximate the mean fitness of the population at the beginning of his scenario, Haldane's formula can't be used for mean fitness in later generation -- it can only be used for calculating individual fitness.

I pointed out earlier chimps have 180,000,000 more nucleotides than humans ... I could also claim you are ignoring substative counter-objections on my part.

— SC

Sal,

Now a couple of my posts seem to have become stuck in the spam filter. Could you see if you can get them released, or at least some advice for me on why they became stuck? Unfortunately, I had ceased to keep copies of my posts "in good faith", because things have been decently smooth thus far.

The first one addresses DaveScot's claim about "soft selection" causing harmful mutations to fix. I ask DS to demonstrate this with a mathematical example.

The second one addresses DS's claim in #55 and #57. I fail to see how it relates to Nachman's paradox and how it fits the scope of the discussion in general. But as I don't want to leave the impression that (a) I ignored DS's claim by malice and that (b) I was unable to respond, I did eventually respond. It would be better to avoid getting sidetracked too much, though -- wouldn't it?

DaveScot claims that the "indisputable testimony of the fossil record" shows that:
(1) 99.9% of species have gone extinct
(2) without spawning new species

I think 99% is a more common estimate for (1), but let us accept DS's number here. Also, I'm not sure what (2) means, as even so-called "baraminology" deals with groups of species with common ancestry (even if it considers the groups themselves distinct). But I assume DS generally refers to gaps in the fossil record below the family level, which he apparently interprets as "indisputable" evidence of "uncommon descent".

My response to DS was something like this. Assume that the current, say, 10 million species represent only 0.1% of all species in the history of Earth; then there has lived as many as 10 billion species. Yet we only know the morphology of some hundred thousand extinct species by fossil evidence, so far. How does DaveScot know that none of the other 10 billion unknown species will fit the gaps in the fossil record, to "indisputably" demonstrate that they did not spawn new species?

PS. What would you respond to #58? It leaves me utterly speechless. Should domesticated animals both behave in a civil way and flourish when left to themselves, in order to demonstrate that sexuality does not prevent evolution?

As an endnote, I welcome Salvador's participation here and wish that others would exercise the option of either addressing his specific points or declining to do so. Ad hominem comments are distracting and serve no useful purpose.

— Watts

I failed to follow the very last line of your post, but apparently you are using properties of e^x that I can't remember. I assume 1 - x approximates the infinite series representation of e^x and MUL(e^x_i) = e^SUM(x_i). ...

I failed to follow the very last line of your post, but apparently you are using properties of e^x that I can't remember. I assume 1 - x approximates the infinite series representation of e^x and MUL(e^x_i) = e^SUM(x_i). ...

Yes, in the last line there is a hidden assumption that all the μ_is are "sufficiently small". From standard results on Taylor series we know that   1 - x  ≤  e^-x  ≤  1 - x + x²/2   for non-negative x. ...

David:

Yes, thank you. My problem was not the exact accuracy of approximations, it was rather that I initially didn't understand the background of Nachman's formula. Your clear presentation drove the point home. The effect on average fitness of any harmful mutation is more or less constant, because its eventual frequency at equilibrium (yes, Sal, it is equilibrium, not fixation) depends inversely on the coefficient. (BTW. Momentarily finding MUL(e^x_i) = e^SUM(x_i) as an "exotic" rule was quite embarrassing. I was simply asleep. Being a project manager isn't good for one's math!)

I have to say that your kind posts have returned me firmly to the ground (in case my feet ever rose above it). What am I doing there, at UD? Of course, I never asked to be brought under the spotlight as some sort of a "champion" of the "evolutionists". But I still feel ashamed that it is me who seems to be presented as the main opponent at the UD thread, instead of people who have sat through classes in evolutionary biology and now are, as I assume by the maturity of your mathematical treatments, teaching it. (Not that I didn't know the other side of the "fence" almost exclusively consists of laymen.) I don't care who "wins" the debate, I just want the avoidance at UD to stop and the endless exchange of shots to start finally getting somewhere. So Mr. Wilson, even at the risk of embarrassing a layman in public, if you have the time and if you follow the thread at UD, feel free to demolish any frogs that I spit out of my mouth. I do want to know.

Thank you for your suggestion, but I think it is not a good idea to relocate once again. We would resemble a wandering circus.

And this would be different from how creationists normally debate the issues...how?

Unfortunately, I had ceased to keep copies of my posts "in good faith", because things have been decently smooth thus far.

That's exactly what Sal, DaveScot, et al were counting on.

Unfortunately, I had ceased to keep copies of my posts "in good faith", because things have been decently smooth thus far. That's exactly what Sal, DaveScot, et al were counting on.

— Raging Bee

We could therefore define intelligence as the capacity for rational or purposive or deliberate or premeditated choice. - http://www.designinference.com/documents/2001.03.ID_as_nat_theol.htm

— Dembski

For me, the key defining feature of intelligence is the ability to output specified complexity. - William Dembski ( http://www.iscid.org/william-dembski-chat.php )

Maybe intelligence is the ability to take shortcuts that physical processes can't - i.e., use mental simulation to get results that bypass physical steps that would be needed for a purely physical process to do the same thing? (And of course the later would be likely to leave physical evidence of those steps.)

Henry

Maybe intelligence is the ability to take shortcuts that physical processes can't - i.e., use mental simulation to get results that bypass physical steps that would be needed for a purely physical process to do the same thing? (And of course the later would be likely to leave physical evidence of those steps.)

— Henry J

It was Nachman who, among other things, seems to study deletrious mutations.

In that case, but as you seem to show only in this case when they add up close to 1, it works to replace multiplicative effects with additive.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

e^-SUM(d_i) = e^-0.9 ~ 0.9

A small fraction can still be born without any.

To David Wilson:
What do you think of Nachman(2000) in general, by the way? I just noticed that, quite understandably in 2000, the number of our genes is estimated at 70,000 as opposed to 20,000-25,000. Also, when I look at the calculations, the process somewhat looks like estimates nested inside estimates. Not to such researcj wasn't useful and important, but do you consider these results reliable at all? I just pointed out at UD, for example, that if we are to argue based on Nachman's paper, then U=3 should be updated to U=1 because U depends directly on the number of genes. It makes a huge difference concerning Nachman's conclusions, of course, as the mean fitness increases from 0.05 to 0.37. Although, considering how much "sub-estimates" are involved in this, the resulting estimate might well increase again.

PS. You did your best here at PT, but I still wrote some really goofy comments about the timescale involved in Nachman's paradox. Sorry!

Caligula,

It seems UD did not work out for our discussion. One of the chief moderators there has appeared to have made an informal ruling.

On the other hand, I don't want your criticisms of my ideas suppressed, but rather put out in the open. It serves my side well to be congizant of challenges to their pro-ID position...

If you would like to take RBH up on his offer at infidels, I am amenable. To make things simple, I'll let you moderate the discussion where you are the inquisitor and I will respond to your questions. I that will make the negotiations for format a lot easier.

The only provision is if I think the discussion is leading nowhere, I'll call it quits, or we agree to disagree on a particular specific. Furthermore, I expect the discussion will take weeks as the subject matter is not easy and is deep.

I am interested in rigorous examination of the topics considered here. If people on your side wish to enter their discussion, you can field their objections, data points, or whatever through you with proper attribution. That way, you control what is in the discussion.

regards,
Salvador

Caligula wrote: What am I doing there, at UD? Of course, I never asked to be brought under the spotlight as some sort of a "champion" of the "evolutionists". But I still feel ashamed that it is me who seems to be presented as the main opponent at the UD thread, instead of people who have sat through classes in evolutionary biology and now are, as I assume by the maturity of your mathematical treatments, teaching it.

(Not that I didn't know the other side of the "fence" almost exclusively consists of laymen.)

Those who have the ability and are in non-religious universities are reluctant to stick their necks out. Trust me, I know several pro-ID molecular geneticists. I dare not have them come forward for blogsphere exchanges, lest their identities be compromised. Not to mention, they care little for these sort of exchanges....

— Salvador T. Cordova

I must point out (it's my civic duty!) that Sal continues to have his a$$ kicked from here to Kingdom Come over on Good Math/Bad Math by Mark Chu-Carroll.

Apparently, Sal is unable to mathematically define the supposed channel whose capacity to channel information from the environment to the genome is so crucial.

He shows up whenever someone remarks that he has abandoned the thread, pontificates some meaningless and completely non-mathematical dribble, and then flees again.

Sal, you were supposed to have studied math. What's the matter? Lack of use making you rusty?

It's not like Mark is asking for that difficult a task.

But boy is he making you look like an idiot.

Folks, check it out.

If you would like to take RBH up on his offer at infidels, I am amenable. To make things simple, I'll let you moderate the discussion where you are the inquisitor and I will respond to your questions. I that will make the negotiations for format a lot easier.

What am I doing there, at UD? Of course, I never asked to be brought under the spotlight as some sort of a "champion" of the "evolutionists". But I still feel ashamed that it is me who seems to be presented as the main opponent at the UD thread, instead of people who have sat through classes in evolutionary biology and now are, as I assume by the maturity of your mathematical treatments, teaching it.

— SC

I thought you were a bit abandoned by your comrades.

One of the chief moderators there has appeared to have made an informal ruling.

— SC

Salvador T. "Wormtongue" Cordova once again shows his hypocricy and cowardice:

I thought you were a bit abandoned by your comrades.

Sal, YOU were the one who wanted to move the debate onto a forum where caligula's "comrades" -- people who support evolution and disdain creationism -- are clearly unwelcome. caligula wasn't "abandoned," he was cut off, which we all know is what you and your fellow creationists intended from the start.

You were quite valiant...

As if standing up for evolution on UD is an act of extraordinary bravery. He was certainly braver than you are here, to be sure.

If you would like to take RBH up on his offer at infidels, I am amenable. To make things simple, I'll let you moderate the discussion where you are the inquisitor and I will respond to your questions. I that will make the negotiations for format a lot easier.

Why are you so hung up on prearranged and controlled debate formats? Don't you feel confident enough to stand up for your views in an open forum such as PT, where plenty of knowledgeable people can contribute their insight to a debate? You know you're perfectly free to come here anytime, post just about anything you want, and let it stand or fall on its own merits. That's how things work in the real world: once an idea is out, you don't get to choose who supports or debunks it. (Besides, you always end up coming here when things go wrong on UD anyway.)

The only provision is if I think the discussion is leading nowhere, I'll call it quits, or we agree to disagree on a particular specific.

You do that all the time anyway: whenever an argument of yours gets debunked, or your dishonesty is plainly exposed, you disappear, with or without some pathetic parting insult; and no one can force you to respond in any blog. Why must you insist on permission to do what you can't be stopped from doing?

caligula wrote:

Rather, I feel somewhat ashamed because I think there are more qualified people available, and because I doubt they would be as eager (as we are) in debating details that they are not formally qualified to debate.

(That's modesty, Sal; are you familiar with the concept?) That's an interesting point, Sal: why won't you debate someone more knowlegeable than caligula? Can't hold your own with the big guys?

Man up, Sal. Stop pretending you want a debate (maybe, if we promise to go easy on you and the Moon is in the right phase); and just start debating already. Put up or shut up.

Oh, one more thing, Sal. You alleged:

Those who have the ability and are in non-religious universities are reluctant to stick their necks out. Trust me, I know several pro-ID molecular geneticists. I dare not have them come forward for blogsphere exchanges, lest their identities be compromised. Not to mention, they care little for these sort of exchanges...

So now we're back to crying about "persecution" as an excuse for ID's total lack of substance. If any of these persecution stories were real, the victims -- and their friends, and the entire right-wing media and blogsphere -- would be shouting names, dates, places, and specific charges all over the world, as PROOF of persecution by the Evil Darwinist Establishment. That's how dissidents in China and the USSR responded to persecution -- and their LIVES were on the line, not just their jobs.

Your refusal to provide specific charges -- let alone proof -- indicates that you know it's all made up.

And demanding that we trust you, after all the laughably transparent dishonesty we've seen from you, is both insulting and funny.

RgD boasted: I must point out (it's my civic duty!) that Sal continues to have his a$$ kicked from here to Kingdom Come over on Good Math/Bad Math by Mark Chu-Carroll. Apparently, Sal is unable to mathematically define the supposed channel whose capacity to channel information from the environment to the genome is so crucial. He shows up whenever someone remarks that he has abandoned the thread, pontificates some meaningless and completely non-mathematical dribble, and then flees again. Sal, you were supposed to have studied math. What's the matter? Lack of use making you rusty? It's not like Mark is asking for that difficult a task. But boy is he making you look like an idiot. Folks, check it out.

Sal flailed thusly:

I don't intend to allow him to keep attributing statements to me which I never made or implied.

The way you linked "Darwinism" to the surgical mutilation of children? If you can't take it, don't dish it out.

Such a line of debate is disingenuous at best.

Which is why your word is worthless at best. Stop being a crybaby and start acting like a man.

Caligula: I may have been hasty concering your willingness to respond.

But yes, I find UD a tad too hostile environment for constructive discussion. I was made to understand that I'm on the verge of being banned because I'm an uncivil troublemaker, which I find an unfair assessment if you e.g. compare DaveScot's own comments to mine in the "speed of evo" thread. Also, quite a few of my posts spent like half a day in spam filter, to appear much later than posts by others that were submitted later. This made discussion inconvenient.

I valued your participation and your courage in visiting such a hostile an inconveniet place.

So now, after insisting on moving the debate to UD, you admit it's a "hostile an inconvenient place." That's the most honest thing I've ever known you to say! Of course, you haven't actually apologized for the hostility (which you implicitly condone by your continued presence as a contributor), nor did you take a meaningful stand against it; but hey, the journey of a thousand miles and all that...

I felt your criticisms were fair and substantive, so much so I hope that people on my side of the discussion will study what you have to say. Your courage will help enlighten the readers on important counter-arguments which I think they should seriously consider.

Wow -- you're not even accusing caligula of misrepresenting you, like you just accused Mark Chu-Carrol? caligula must have kicked your ass beyond any hope of obfuscation. Either that, or someone finally kick-started your sense of shame.

I will continue to look into the criticisms you raised. I think they are worth addressing, especially soft selection and Haldane's assumptions.

Yep, sounds like it's really over.

Indeed check it out. Chu-Carroll is pathologically incapable of accurately representing my ideas and claims. He is forced to resort to strawman arguments and disingenous reprsentations of what I actually said. I called the readers to google and find statements Chu-Carroll attributed to me. Any success? By all means check out the exchange: Chu-Carroll vs. Cordova I don't intend to allow him to keep attributing statements to me which I never made or implied. Such a line of debate is disingenuous at best.

— Sal

"The concept that "aspects of evolution are modellable as a channel for information" is not equivalent to saying "evolution as communication on a channel"."

— Sal

Oh well, at least he's getting your name right. Baby steps, baby steps...

Indeed check it out. Chu-Carroll is pathologically incapable of accurately representing my ideas and claims. He is forced to resort to strawman arguments and disingenous reprsentations of what I actually said. I called the readers to google and find statements Chu-Carroll attributed to me. Any success? By all means check out the exchange: Chu-Carroll vs. Cordova I don't intend to allow him to keep attributing statements to me which I never made or implied. Such a line of debate is disingenuous at best.

— Sal

Scarlet --- What does 'FOFOCD' stand for?

But it is not clear to me that Sal is 'lying'. To do that means to tell an untruth knowing that it is untrue. Perhaps you credit Sal with too much?

Scarlet --- What does 'FOFOCD' stand for?

— David Benson

But it is not clear to me that Sal is 'lying'. To do that means to tell an untruth knowing that it is untrue. Perhaps you credit Sal with too much?

Scarlet --- Thank you. Of your three alternatives, the second, if I have to choose...

But it is not clear to me that Sal is 'lying'. To do that means to tell an untruth knowing that it is untrue. Perhaps you credit Sal with too much?

At the very least, Sal is lying when he pretends to know or understand something that he clearly does not. He's been to school, he's met knowledgeable people, and he ought to know the limits of his knowledge.

Incorrect statements made under this pretense of authority are not just ignorant, they're part of his deliberate pretense. In Rumsfeldese (Rummese?), he's taking what he knows to be a known-unknown (which may be a known-known to an actual scientist) and pretending it's a known-known to him.

If I make a factual claim about the brain that turns out to be wrong, that's either ignorance or a mistake. If I claim professional knowledge or in-depth study about the brain which I know I don't really have, as in "trust me, I learned this in med school," that's lying.

Raging Bee --- To each their own amateur diagnosis. Personally, I question the "ought to know the limits" bit. So I'll stick with the loose screw hypothesis...

I admit, the 'loose-screw' concept is comforting - but it then raises the question of what constitutes sanity.

In a way, Sal and his even less salubrious (like that one?) cohorts are a manifestation of a very old war: one against reason itself. Science, considered as a discipline, is very young - less that five centuries separate us from fundamental irrationality. As long as the majority of the species finds reason and logic emotionally unsatisfying, a constant effort to throw the microscopes and compasses and computers back into the furnace will exist.

We live on borrowed time.

Scarlet --- I beg to differ. Mathematics and astronomy date back at least 5500 years in Southwest Asia with similar times in Ancient Egypt.

Granted, the enlightenment brought forth quite a flowering of science. But the origins of rational inquiry extend back into pre-history, IMO.

Scarlet --- I beg to differ. Mathematics and astronomy date back at least 5500 years in Southwest Asia with similar times in Ancient Egypt. Granted, the enlightenment brought forth quite a flowering of science. But the origins of rational inquiry extend back into pre-history, IMO.

— Dave

The ancient astronomers wanted correct solutions to predict winter solstace and eclipses. And don't knock the uses of mathematics in engineering. Both the Mesopotameans and the Egyptians were quite good at this.

Eventually, the classical Greeks developed especially plane geometry and also some number theory, all by 2300 years ago. Eudlid wrote it all down, organizing it quite beautifully in his "Elements".

And all of the above was, and still is, completely rational. Naature has a way of not forgiving irrational solutions to engineering problems. Consider, for example, the pyramid at Meidum...

Oops, I hit Post before Check Spelling!

"solstice"

"Nature"

Scarlet & David: Don't forget the advances made in math, medicine, and other sciences in the Islamic world prior to our Renaissance. (In fact, a good bit of our Renaissance was propelled by the translation of documents from Arabic to Latin starting in (IIRC) the tenth or eleventh centuries.)

And of course, the ancient Greeks gave us a lot in the way of rational inquiry, much of which was ignored or suppressed by both Christians and Muslims Hell-bent on ignoring St. Augustine's advice.