Expelled Paternity Test

Duh, the Answer is "K" - GOD!

If lawsuits have already been filed, it's now up to a judge to decide. No amount of internet appeal is going to help these guys now. It would be perfect if a flaw could be found in the Harvard animation that had been copied into the DI version, especially if it were a flaw unique to the Harvard video. Man, what a dramatic example of common descent with plagarized errors that would be. Then everyone would become familiar with the argument.

The similarity is chiefly in respect to the composition as a whole, not the trivial details. It is obvious that the Expelled animation was influenced by the XVIVO composition. I can think of many other ways to set up the kinesin animation without slavishly imitating the XVIVO animation's composition. Our research group makes those kind of decisions all the time in creating animations.

Picasso: "Good artists copy. Great artists steal." To "steal" the Expelled animator would have to made an original composition to rival the XVIVIO animation. Clearly this was just a "copy."

Mark Mathis *could* have made a thoughtful discussion of ID (though I doubt it), instead he chose propaganda and demagoguery.

I ve gotten to know the producers quite well. As far as I can tell, they made sure to budget for lawsuits. Also, I know for a fact that they have one of the best intellectual property attorneys in the business. I expect that the producers made their video close enough to the Harvard video to get tongues awagging (Headline: Harvard University Seeks Injunction Against Ben Stein and EXPELLED you think that might generate interest in the movie?), but different enough so that they are unexposed.

— Dembski

It was a nice touch on the producer s part to use the same music as the XVIVO video. Presumably they got permission from the artist is that another possible oversight to explore? But then again, one of the producers was for years in the music business. So most likely they re covered here as well.

David Stanton: If lawsuits have already been filed, it's now up to a judge to decide. No amount of internet appeal is going to help these guys now. It would be perfect if a flaw could be found in the Harvard animation that had been copied into the DI version, especially if it were a flaw unique to the Harvard video. Man, what a dramatic example of common descent with plagarized errors that would be. Then everyone would become familiar with the argument.

OT: Expelled Exposed is back online.

Tim Tesar: OT: Expelled Exposed is back online.

David Stanton wrote: It would be perfect if a flaw could be found in the Harvard animation that had been copied into the DI version, especially if it were a flaw unique to the Harvard video.

Somewhat ironically, this is a situation where the 'Design Filter' which works so unreliably in rarefied design can be applied more successfully, noting of course that such an application really predates the 'design filter' as proposed by Dembski.

What is more ironic is how ID proponents seem to argue that it was regularity and chance, not design that 'explains' the similarities.

And surprise surprise, per Dembski's comment, the producers apparently used the same music, establishing that they were well aware of the XVIVO source. Somehow we should be thankful for Dembski's ability to assist his opponents in establishing their case :-)

Dembski is never right so that is a good sign that something is drastically wrong. I'm surprised he hasn't filed a report on XVIVO with Homeland Security yet. Or did he? LOL

Discovery is where the truth will out. The Expelleds will have to show each and every step in how they produced their animation. Godditit or "We found it" isn't going to work.

If they started with the XVIVO video and disguised it, they are going to be in trouble

Destroying paper and electronic documents is obstruction of justice. Lying under oath is perjury. Both are criminal offenses. The lawyers for XVIVO will try to get the foot soldiers and small fry to turn on the heads. They should take it the deal, Dembski, Miller, Ruloff, Mathis, et al.. aren't worth being a martyr for.

Looks like there is a jurisdictional issue as well. XVIVO is in Connecticut. The Declaratory Judgement brief should have been filed in the relevant federal court, not in Texas.

Never underestimate the ability of Dembski to "help" the cause of ID. Alas, if he had only testified at Dover ; )

These errors then served to trap plagiarists, for even though plagiarists could always claim they computed the logarithms correctly by mechanically following a certain algorithm, they could not reasonably claim to have committed the same errors. As Aristotle remarked in his Nichomachean Ethics (McKeon 1941, 1106), "It is possible to fail in many ways, ... while to succeed is possible only in one way.". Thus, when two manufacturers of logarithmic tables record identical logarithms that are both correct, both receive the benefit of the doubt that they have actually done the work of calculating the logarithms. But when both record the same errors, it is perfectly legitimate to conclude that whoever published second plagiarized.

Congratulations David. You successfully used CSI and the Explanatory Filter to reach a design inference. You made the point very well that it is mathematically inconceivable that random processes create complex specified information. You’re an IDist whether you realize it or not.

Congratulations David. You successfully used CSI and the Explanatory Filter to reach a design inference. You made the point very well that it is mathematically inconceivable that random processes create complex specified information. You’re an IDist whether you realize it or not.

— Davescot

Plagiarism and copyright infringement are different things. The plagiarism is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt by Bolinski using CSI and the Explantory Filter. He just didn’t realize he was using it.

— Davescot

PS: Plagiarism is defined as “the use of another’s information, language, or writing, when done without proper acknowledgment of the original source.” However, the critical element of it is the final part. The one thing that ties all plagiarism together is going beyond merely duplicating the work, but also not crediting the source and thus taking the material for yourself.

Source

Plagarism charges involve two similar objects (text, video, etc) and claim whether or not the similarity was intentional (designed) or accidental (not-designed). You can probably now see how the EF is relevant in such cases.

I suspect that this is not the tack to take in court! Premise can logically (it appears to me) only claim it was inspired by the actual biological items it depicts, to mention “it was inspired by the Harvard original” in court means (IANAL) they might as well give in on day one and pay the piper his fee. There is no way Premise can claim that. There’s a clear, unambiguous design inference that doesn’t require a rocket scientist to evaluate. Bolinski’s claim is bulletproof. The Explanatory Filter is designed to reject false positives and it works. The problem is that being inspired by a copyrighted work in the production of a new work is not the same as an actionable copyright infringement. Premise has nothing to worry about. It’s their business to know what’s a winnable copyright infringement claim and what isn’t.

PvM: And surprise surprise, per Dembski's comment, the producers apparently used the same music, establishing that they were well aware of the XVIVO source. Somehow we should be thankful for Dembski's ability to assist his opponents in establishing their case :-)

PvM: Whose side are they on I wonder?

With no more than a bachelor’s degree, Rennie expatiates on the nature of science and why ID doesn’t fit the bill.

Ever since Dembski sent out his Waterloo email, which caused him to be 'expelled' from Baylor, his track record of "foot in mouth disease" has been quite remarkable.

Could this entire own goal be a setup, could it all be a cunning plan by the wise folks at the Discovery Institute ?

Suppose the creationist folk happen to get a pliable judge who might use the words "Design Inference" at some point in his judgement. That might be the biggest triumph those people have got in a long time. The headlines would read like " Design Principles Used by Court - just like the other sciencey thingies". Losing a copyright case and ordered to pay costs would look pretty small by comparison.

Even if he loses badly, without his scientific breakthroughs being accepted by the legal system, all is not lost for the Isaac Newtons of today. Dr Dembski could claim that the judge found that both videos were products of separate intelligent designers; the second video did not evolve naturally from the first by random mutation and sexual selection.- so why cant it be true for red squirrels and grey squirrels?

PvM: From the logical underpinnings of intelligent design, by Dembski, I quote

These errors then served to trap plagiarists, for even though plagiarists could always claim they computed the logarithms correctly by mechanically following a certain algorithm, they could not reasonably claim to have committed the same errors. As Aristotle remarked in his Nichomachean Ethics (McKeon 1941, 1106), "It is possible to fail in many ways, ... while to succeed is possible only in one way.". Thus, when two manufacturers of logarithmic tables record identical logarithms that are both correct, both receive the benefit of the doubt that they have actually done the work of calculating the logarithms. But when both record the same errors, it is perfectly legitimate to conclude that whoever published second plagiarized.

CDV: Could this entire own goal be a setup, could it all be a cunning plan by the wise folks at the Discovery Institute ?

That's like kicking someones ass by repeatedly hitting them in the fist with your face.

WATERLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO leroy

bjm: It would appear Dembski is a little rattled. In another thread he arrogantly assumes that the editor of Scientific American is insufficiently qualified to pass judgment on ID;

With no more than a bachelor’s degree, Rennie expatiates on the nature of science and why ID doesn’t fit the bill.

Obviously a degree in Biology and a career in science writing is trumped by two PhD's (neither scientific) and a career in theology. Hmmm, educated and he still doesn't understand the concept of 'laughing stock' (Maybe his buddy, 'Daves Cot' could explain it to him)

But what else is there to do, impugn them with arguments? That would be ‘pathetic’

From the Premise Media v. XVIVO complaint, paragraph 54: "In addition, the fact that XVIVO makes available the Inner Life Video on its website with the 'lead in' that 'A full length version of "The Inner Life of a Cell" is now available for educational use' (emphasis added) creates an implied nonexclusive license for Premise Media to precisely do what XVIVO now complains Premise Media is doing, arguendo, i.e., make 'educational use' of that video, via a Documentary Film." Lowell

Fascinating, for profit use now becomes educational use.

Besides the vesicle transport and music, ERV is busy recording other cases of plagiarism in the animations, such as the actin network (from Inner Life) and the RNA transcription (from PBS). (The PBS animation was ultimately made by Drew Berry at the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute in Melbourne, Australia for the production company, according to John Wilkins.)

As a commenter there noted, when a plagiarist gets trippin', he's rippin' from many sources.

Concerning this recent finding, is there still a way to claim that a documentary film like Expelled, which is being released for profit, falls under the fair-use protection for "educational purposes", or is Premise Media just blowing (more) smoke?

Jackelope King: Concerning this recent finding, is there still a way to claim that a documentary film like Expelled, which is being released for profit, falls under the fair-use protection for "educational purposes", or is Premise Media just blowing (more) smoke?

PLAYJARIZM: U R DOING IT RONG!!11

But there's no way the Expelled *jazz hands* crew copied this. They must have created a completely original animation...
...which depicted exactly the same process...
...in exactly the same way...
...using exactly the same shapes...
...from exactly the same angle...
...simplified by leaving out exactly the same details...
...and making exactly the same mistakes.
But it's a different color, so it can't be the same animation (that the Dishonesty Institute was previously caught stealing)!!!111one!

...it was just lying around on their website so they took it

So the easy way out for Premise is not charge money to see the movie!

raven: It looks like Premise is admitting they used the XVIVO video to make theirs. A poster "lowell" on PZ's blog found this in the Declaration. Seems like they are saying they didn't use the XVIVO video but if they did, it was just lying around on their website so they took it. Bad sign when they can't keep their story straight.

From the Premise Media v. XVIVO complaint, paragraph 54: "In addition, the fact that XVIVO makes available the Inner Life Video on its website with the 'lead in' that 'A full length version of "The Inner Life of a Cell" is now available for educational use' (emphasis added) creates an implied nonexclusive license for Premise Media to precisely do what XVIVO now complains Premise Media is doing, arguendo, i.e., make 'educational use' of that video, via a Documentary Film." Lowell

Following the discovery of the kinesin in the late 1980s there were investigations into the locomotion method used for propulsion giving two models with one being an “inch worm” model and the other being the “hand over hand” model.

— Dembski

I ve gotten to know the producers quite well. As far as I can tell, they made sure to budget for lawsuits. Also, I know for a fact that they have one of the best intellectual property attorneys in the business. I expect that the producers made their video close enough to the Harvard video to get tongues awagging (Headline: Harvard University Seeks Injunction Against Ben Stein and EXPELLED you think that might generate interest in the movie?), but different enough so that they are unexposed.

— Dembski

phantomreader42 wrote: PLAYJARIZM: U R DOING IT RONG!!11 But there's no way the Expelled *jazz hands* crew copied this. They must have created a completely original animation... ...which depicted exactly the same process... ...in exactly the same way... ...using exactly the same shapes... ...from exactly the same angle... ...simplified by leaving out exactly the same details... ...and making exactly the same mistakes. But it's a different color, so it can't be the same animation (that the Dishonesty Institute was previously caught stealing)!!!111one!

bjm: It would appear Dembski is a little rattled. In another thread he arrogantly assumes that the editor of Scientific American is insufficiently qualified to pass judgment on ID;

With no more than a bachelor’s degree, Rennie expatiates on the nature of science and why ID doesn’t fit the bill.

Obviously a degree in Biology and a career in science writing is trumped by two PhD's (neither scientific) and a career in theology. Hmmm, educated and he still doesn't understand the concept of 'laughing stock' (Maybe his buddy, 'Daves Cot' could explain it to him)

PvM: Fascinating, for profit use now becomes educational use.

Dave's just jealous because he doesn't have a bachelor's degree.

J. Biggs:

phantomreader42 wrote: PLAYJARIZM: U R DOING IT RONG!!11 But there's no way the Expelled *jazz hands* crew copied this. They must have created a completely original animation... ...which depicted exactly the same process... ...in exactly the same way... ...using exactly the same shapes... ...from exactly the same angle... ...simplified by leaving out exactly the same details... ...and making exactly the same mistakes. But it's a different color, so it can't be the same animation (that the Dishonesty Institute was previously caught stealing)!!!111one!

Don't forget ...using the exact same music. After all the music was integral in demonstrating kinesin transport.

J. Biggs:

phantomreader42 wrote: PLAYJARIZM: U R DOING IT RONG!!11 But there's no way the Expelled *jazz hands* crew copied this. They must have created a completely original animation... ...which depicted exactly the same process... ...in exactly the same way... ...using exactly the same shapes... ...from exactly the same angle... ...simplified by leaving out exactly the same details... ...and making exactly the same mistakes. But it's a different color, so it can't be the same animation (that the Dishonesty Institute was previously caught stealing)!!!111one!

Don't forget ...using the exact same music. After all the music was integral in demonstrating kinesin transport.

phantomreader42:

PvM: Fascinating, for profit use now becomes educational use.

And how could they even claim "educational use" of the original video with a straight face if they actually DIDN'T use the original video? They made a cheap knockoff, and no permission was given to do that for ANY purpose. Oh, yeah, they're just lying again. Not that that's anything new. What was that about bearing false witness?

David Stanton: If lawsuits have already been filed, it's now up to a judge to decide. No amount of internet appeal is going to help these guys now. It would be perfect if a flaw could be found in the Harvard animation that had been copied into the DI version, especially if it were a flaw unique to the Harvard video. Man, what a dramatic example of common descent with plagarized errors that would be. Then everyone would become familiar with the argument.

MattusMaximus:

CDV: Could this entire own goal be a setup, could it all be a cunning plan by the wise folks at the Discovery Institute ?

Yeah, just like what happened to them at the Dover Trial was part of their "cunning plan"?

phantomreader42 wrote:

MattusMaximus:

CDV: Could this entire own goal be a setup, could it all be a cunning plan by the wise folks at the Discovery Institute ?

Yeah, just like what happened to them at the Dover Trial was part of their "cunning plan"?

Think they're pulling the old Xanatos Roulette? That kind of plot is hard to believe from genius supervillains. These IDiots can't even keep their stories straight, how could they pull something like that off?

Davescot said: There is no way Premise can claim that. There’s a clear, unambiguous design inference that doesn’t require a rocket scientist to evaluate. Bolinski’s claim is bulletproof. The Explanatory Filter is designed to reject false positives and it works.

Are those guys showing their work, or are they just throwing the words "explanatory filter" and "design inference" all over the place whenever they feel like it? Lol.

In the discovery phase of the lawsuit, the Expelled studio will be asked what documents they consulted to create their video, what were the scripts, and to show the footage that was created but not retained for the movie.

It is clear to us that the main "document" used was the XVIVO video, and that the only animation footage created was the XVIVO rip-off (nothing original created, then rejected). The design inference work strongly against the Flunked people.

386sx wrote: Davescot said: There is no way Premise can claim that. There’s a clear, unambiguous design inference that doesn’t require a rocket scientist to evaluate. Bolinski’s claim is bulletproof. The Explanatory Filter is designed to reject false positives and it works. Are those guys showing their work, or are they just throwing the words "explanatory filter" and "design inference" all over the place whenever they feel like it? Lol.

Just a point of note folks. If you're looking to link on a blog in order to get the NCSE Expelled Exposed website a higher Google ranking, you should heed this advice...

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3623336&postcount=10

Bottom Line:

Do not use "Expelled Exposed" as your anchor text! (The anchor text is the visible text in a link). We need to get it moved higher in the Google rankings for when people search for the the movie. That means searches that have "expelled" in them but not "exposed".

So, for example, like this: Expelled :)

Back to your regularly scheduled thread...

386sx said: Are those guys showing their work, or are they just throwing the words “explanatory filter” and “design inference” all over the place whenever they feel like it?

Me thinks two things:
First, somebody better take a screen shot of the IDots lair (Uncommon Descent) before they purge the record of admitted nefarious deeds.

Second, I think they may be trying to weave some sort of argument that by the detection of purposeful copying on their part, we admit the crux of their argument. Apparently, two different videos could not have become so similar by chance, an intelligent being must have done it. See? ID is true.

Jackasses

I think it is also telling that they have budgeted for lawsuits. Clearly, they were expecting to be sued by someone (whether that is XVIVO or the estate of John Lennon). Which kind of implies that they knew they were using copyrighted material without permission (and without acknowledgement).

Still, who needs to obey the law when Jesus is on your side?

Oh, wait, hang on. ID is supposed to be science, not religion, isn't it?

Nigel D: I think it is also telling that they have budgeted for lawsuits. Clearly, they were expecting to be sued by someone (whether that is XVIVO or the estate of John Lennon). Which kind of implies that they knew they were using copyrighted material without permission (and without acknowledgement). Still, who needs to obey the law when Jesus is on your side? Oh, wait, hang on. ID is supposed to be science, not religion, isn't it?

If we consider of online roulette like a game of possibility wherein the player can't influence the effect of the spin, establishing an on the net roulette method will probably be very difficult to establish. That doesn?t, nonetheless, mean there is none being had. Reviewing the betting odds for or against a specific outcome is often a great begin.