It would help if he read the actual book...

The fact that Intelligent Design proponents have gone for over 2 decades without a half an iota of research suggests that the program is faring very badly.

Everything else, from slander, political redefinition of "science" and "education" to publishing obvious quotemines in crackpot journals no one outside of Podunk Science, New Jersey, is simply sauce and marinade.

Stanton said: The fact that Intelligent Design proponents have gone for over 2 decades without a half an iota of research suggests that the program is faring very badly. Everything else, from slander, political redefinition of "science" and "education" to publishing obvious quotemines in crackpot journals no one outside of Podunk Science, New Jersey, is simply sauce and marinade.

You get the very clear impression Menuge just flipped through the book, saw a key word and wrote down some ID boilerplate without actually going through the process of actually reading the book or thinking deeply about it (Flagella, okay write down Minnich’s stuff).

— Ian Musgrave

Ah, good old Angus. Made a fool of himself in Kansas during the Kangaroo Kourt.

Here's his website.

Says it all.

I looked at this guy's publication list and from the titles I would question that he is capable of doing any more than triggering off specific buzzwords and fetching the Same Old Tired Argument from the ID archive in response. People who are interested in technicalities don't write articles with titles like that.

Cheers -- MrG / http://www.vectorsite.net/gblog.html

Says it all.

— Doc Bill

Wow! Sorry about the off-topic post. I didn't know where else to post it.

I just heard about this cache of ice age fossils find on National Public Radio.

It’s an entire ecosystem found under a parking garage on Wilshire Blvd in LA.

Doc Bill:

That's not Menuge's website, but one that's critical of him and other anti-evolution activists. I thought it was odd that he would link to his embarrasing cross examination, but it was the title "Intellgent Design Apologist" that clinched it.

Mike Elzinga said: Wow! Sorry about the off-topic post. I didn't know where else to post it. I just heard about this cache of ice age fossils find on National Public Radio. It’s an entire ecosystem found under a parking garage on Wilshire Blvd in LA.

It’s an entire ecosystem found under a parking garage on Wilshire Blvd in LA.

Frank!

Ah, curse you Google!

They need a "This is what you're REALLY looking for" button.

The authors also confuse information that is new to an agent (epistemic) with information new to the world (ontological).

— Menuge in his review of Young and Edis

Mike Elzinga said: In the right crowd, it works every time.

mrg (iml8) said:

Mike Elzinga said: In the right crowd, it works every time.

He could not have reallyread the article because he had no idea of what the terms being used in it actually meant. Cheers -- MrG / httpe://www.vectorsite.net/gblog.html

Mike Elzinga said: Now it’s all on line and documented for everyone else to see; and these pretenders aren’t even embarrassed.

stevaroni said: For those who have never been, imagine a block-wide park, in the middle of a very built up - and expensive - neighborhood, and wherever you dig, you pull up giant blocks of Pleistocene bones glued together in a mass of solidified tar.

mrg (iml8) said: When the mindset is to collect an inventory of phrases and use them as an index to a cardfile of canned arguments, the issue of visualizing in one's head how the machinery works is not just irrelevant -- it doesn't even exist. There's no more cognizance there than there is in an ELIZA-type program.

Mike Elzinga said: Great description.

John Kwok said: A fair assessment Stanton, but you forget the childish - indeed, and virtually felonious - conduct...

Yet another case of IDers not understanding what they are criticizing. Dog bites man.

Dave Wisker said: Yet another case of IDers not understanding what they are criticizing. Dog bites man.

His review is pretty helpful if you need to know how your writing fits in with scholasticism. One wonders why he didn't choose a higher impact journal, e.g. Acta Proctologica Polonica.

Les Lane said: His review is pretty helpful if you need to know how your writing fits in with scholasticism. One wonders why he didn't choose a higher impact journal, e.g. Acta Proctologica Polonica.

Stanton said:

Dave Wisker said: Yet another case of IDers not understanding what they are criticizing. Dog bites man.

If they understood what they intended to criticize, they wouldn't have a legitimate reason to criticize in the first place. So sad, really.

Which makes me always suspicious that they understand much more than they let on. A better understanding would only help them misrepresent it better.

— Frank J

He is faking it; as are all those ID/Creationists who aspire to impress the rubes in their churches.

— Mike Elzinga

The evidence suggests that reading the book (would have) helped him very little. The review would have been most appropriate for a journal entitled Scholasticism and the Pseudosciences

Mike Elzinga said: "It could easily fill an entire wall."

Frank J said: - they know more than most critics think, ...

MIke,

I'm not sure what you mean by "that's no longer what I think," because the rest of your comment seems to agree with my suspicion that they are hiding some of their understanding.

I too thought years ago that it was honest, correctable misunderstandings, but now it seems that they are silently doing what Jonathan Wells was foolish enough to admit publicly, i.e. learning as much as they can about evolution so they can misrepresent it better. That would make their nonscientist followers think that they know it better than they do. But it would also makes critics say (if not necessarily think) that they misunderstand it more than they actually do, because all the critics have to go by are the deliberately confused statements that the activists publish, and not any other information that they are privately aware of, but would not dare speak or write down.

Frank J said: MIke, I'm not sure what you mean by "that's no longer what I think," because the rest of your comment seems to agree with my suspicion that they are hiding some of their understanding. I too thought years ago that it was honest, correctable misunderstandings, but now it seems that they are silently doing what Jonathan Wells was foolish enough to admit publicly, i.e. learning as much as they can about evolution so they can misrepresent it better. That would make their nonscientist followers think that they know it better than they do. But it would also makes critics say (if not necessarily think) that they misunderstand it more than they actually do, because all the critics have to go by are the deliberately confused statements that the activists publish, and not any other information that they are privately aware of, but would not dare speak or write down.

I might add to my above comment that one of the effects of the ID/Creationist propaganda of misrepresentations and misconceptions has been to reveal quite clearly how some of the leaders of sectarian groups operate when they dominate their congregations. They will play fancy word games with anything to impress, and pseudo-science talk just gives them more leverage.

However, considering the implications of knowingly leading millions of people over a cliff with misinformation, it is hard to imagine that the “fellows” at the “Discovery” Institute were consciously believing they were doing society a favor by exposing this.

"And that was back in 2004, since then evidence has steadily been accumulating of even more relatedness between the eubacterial flagellum and the TTSS. Nick Matzke and Mark Pallen published a pretty good paper in 2006 outlining the homologies found..."

"Relatedness" does not prove an evolutionary phylogeny

Related means "being connected either logically or causally or by shared characteristics."

An evolutionary phylogeny is much more. It is an ancestor-descendant relationship. Two forms could easily be "related" without being phylogenetically related as ancestors and descendants.

A subtle difference, I know. But exceedingly important.

...and apparently Charlie is out to prove that there are no cousins, only ancestors and descendants. Right....

Charlie Wagner said: Related means "being connected either logically or causally or by shared characteristics."

"I believe that you are missing the point of one of your clauses, “shared characteristics.” Characteristics are passed down by genetics. They are combinations of DNA sequences. So shared characteristics DOES imply phylogenic similarity. “Relatedness” may not prove evolutionary phylogeny but it is evidence toward a common ancestor."

All living things are "related".

"The wonderful lesson to come out of biology in the last five years is the same genes, the same parts, turn up again and again, from one species to another," she said. "The important lesson to realize is that we're all made of the same fabric, we're part of the same web, and there is some humility in the idea that is appropriate." - Victoria Foe

This "relatedness" may be evidence of a common origin but it
certainly says nothing about taxonomy or phylogeny, which are simply human artifacts.

phylogenies and taxonomies, like species, may merely be human conventions.

Stephen Wells said: ...and apparently Charlie is out to prove that there are no cousins, only ancestors and descendants. Right....

Welcome back Charlie. Not sure if you remember FL, but his account of natural history is as different from yours as mainstream science's is. Maybe you can debate your differences here.

"Welcome back Charlie. Not sure if you remember FL, but his account of natural history is as different from yours as mainstream science’s is. Maybe you can debate your differences here."

Charlie Wagner said:

"Welcome back Charlie. Not sure if you remember FL, but his account of natural history is as different from yours as mainstream science’s is. Maybe you can debate your differences here."

Thanks. I've been annoying PZ lately ;-) I would be more active if my body would cooperate. I have prostate cancer that spread to my spine and rendered me paraplegic. My left arm and hand are mostly useless. But I slog on. Fortunately the mind seems to be OK...for what that's worth! (who is FL?)

If PZ still thinks Ken Miller is a "creationist", then, by all means, continue to annoy him.

Thanks. I’ve been annoying PZ lately ;-) I would be more active if my body would cooperate. I have prostate cancer that spread to my spine and rendered me paraplegic. My left arm and hand are mostly useless. But I slog on. Fortunately the mind seems to be OK…for what that’s worth! (who is FL?)

— Charlie Wagner

I try to make a point of saying that I only wish the best for those with whom I disagree on evolution and other political hot buttons.

Laib JA, Marin JA, Bloodgood RA, Guilford WH. The reciprocal coordination and mechanics of molecular motors in living cells. Molecular motors in living cells are involved in whole-cell locomotion, contractility, developmental shape changes, and organelle movement and positioning. Whether motors of different directionality are functionally coordinated in cells or operate in a semirandom "tug of war" is unclear. We show here that anterograde and retrograde microtubule-based motors in the flagella of Chlamydomonas are regulated such that only motors of a common directionality are engaged at any single time. A laser trap was used to position microspheres on the plasma membrane of immobilized paralyzed Chlamydomonas flagella. The anterograde and retrograde movements of the microsphere were measured with nanometer resolution as microtubule-based motors engaged the transmembrane protein FMG-1. An average of 10 motors acted to move the microsphere in either direction. Reversal of direction during a transport event was uncommon, and quiescent periods separated every transport event, suggesting the coordinated and exclusive action of only a single motor type. After a jump to 32 degrees C, temperature-sensitive mutants of kinesin-2 (fla10) showed exclusively retrograde transport events, driven by 7 motors on average. These data suggest that molecular motors in living cells can be reciprocally coordinated to engage simultaneously in large numbers and for exclusive transport in a single direction, even when a mixed population of motors is present. This offers a unique model for studying the mechanics, regulation, and directional coordination of molecular motors in a living intracellular environment.

Matt Young said:

If PZ still thinks Ken Miller is a "creationist", then, by all means, continue to annoy him.

Miller is not a creationist in the usual sense of the word, someone who thinks that the universe was created by a deity in a way consonant with some religious myth or scripture. But you can make a case that any theist (or deist) who thinks that the universe was created by a deity is a species of creationist. The claim, for example, that evolution is God's way of creating humans (or beetles or prokaryotes or whatever) is surely a close relative to intelligent-design creationism and almost has to assume that the laws of nature were front-loaded in some manner. Unless, of course, humans were the result of an experiment gone awry. Not that I would discourage anyone from annoying Myers, you understand.

I also try to avoid ideology and stick to hard science. The evidence for ID, IMHO, resides in the data itself, not in the spin put on it by the author. My interpretation of this study is that this is prima facie evidence for ID:

— Charlie Wagner

"But surely you know that nothing in that abstract offers the slightest hope to the YEC and OEC followers of ID. And it should be quite clear from Dover and “Expelled” that the ID promoters are specifically targeting YECs and OECs in desperate hope that they infer their particular fairy tale out of all that “don’t ask, don’t tell what the designer did, when or how.”

I am an agnostic, if that helps and I am neither a YEC or OEC. I thought "Expelled" was a piece of crap and I gave up fairy tales when I was seven.

Charlie Wagner said: My interpretation of this study is that this is prima facie evidence for ID:

Laib JA, Marin JA, Bloodgood RA, Guilford WH. The reciprocal coordination and mechanics of molecular motors in living cells. Molecular motors in living cells are involved in whole-cell locomotion, contractility, developmental shape changes, and organelle movement and positioning. Whether motors of different directionality are functionally coordinated in cells or operate in a semirandom "tug of war" is unclear. We show here that anterograde and retrograde microtubule-based motors in the flagella of Chlamydomonas are regulated such that only motors of a common directionality are engaged at any single time. A laser trap was used to position microspheres on the plasma membrane of immobilized paralyzed Chlamydomonas flagella. The anterograde and retrograde movements of the microsphere were measured with nanometer resolution as microtubule-based motors engaged the transmembrane protein FMG-1. An average of 10 motors acted to move the microsphere in either direction. Reversal of direction during a transport event was uncommon, and quiescent periods separated every transport event, suggesting the coordinated and exclusive action of only a single motor type. After a jump to 32 degrees C, temperature-sensitive mutants of kinesin-2 (fla10) showed exclusively retrograde transport events, driven by 7 motors on average. These data suggest that molecular motors in living cells can be reciprocally coordinated to engage simultaneously in large numbers and for exclusive transport in a single direction, even when a mixed population of motors is present. This offers a unique model for studying the mechanics, regulation, and directional coordination of molecular motors in a living intracellular environment.

Charlie Wagner said:

I try to make a point of saying that I only wish the best for those with whom I disagree on evolution and other political hot buttons.

Thanks. I also make it a point never to take these disagreements personally. I also try to avoid ideology and stick to hard science. The evidence for ID, IMHO, resides in the data itself, not in the spin put on it by the author. My interpretation of this study is that this is prima facie evidence for ID:

Laib JA, Marin JA, Bloodgood RA, Guilford WH. The reciprocal coordination and mechanics of molecular motors in living cells. Molecular motors in living cells are involved in whole-cell locomotion, contractility, developmental shape changes, and organelle movement and positioning. Whether motors of different directionality are functionally coordinated in cells or operate in a semirandom "tug of war" is unclear. We show here that anterograde and retrograde microtubule-based motors in the flagella of Chlamydomonas are regulated such that only motors of a common directionality are engaged at any single time. A laser trap was used to position microspheres on the plasma membrane of immobilized paralyzed Chlamydomonas flagella. The anterograde and retrograde movements of the microsphere were measured with nanometer resolution as microtubule-based motors engaged the transmembrane protein FMG-1. An average of 10 motors acted to move the microsphere in either direction. Reversal of direction during a transport event was uncommon, and quiescent periods separated every transport event, suggesting the coordinated and exclusive action of only a single motor type. After a jump to 32 degrees C, temperature-sensitive mutants of kinesin-2 (fla10) showed exclusively retrograde transport events, driven by 7 motors on average. These data suggest that molecular motors in living cells can be reciprocally coordinated to engage simultaneously in large numbers and for exclusive transport in a single direction, even when a mixed population of motors is present. This offers a unique model for studying the mechanics, regulation, and directional coordination of molecular motors in a living intracellular environment.

Sylvilagus wrote:

"On what basis do you take this as evidence of any sort, prima facie or not, for ID? To me this looks like a biochemical process with no apparent (or otherwise)evidence of origin or type of origin.

Oh, and just so I understand your point, are you using prima facie in the sense of “appears” true at first impression or in the sense as “self-evident” or in the legal sense of sufficient by itself to establish a fact or point?"

Both.

The evidence resides in the interpretation of the data. These processes and systems that are described in this paper are composed of multiple structures and multiple processes that adapt means to ends. The structures support other structures, the processes support other processes and the structures and processes together support the system. All of these factors are subsequently integrated into a functional system whose goal is to carry out a single function. You can't explain why these particular parts were selected, why they're integrated together in just such a way and how they were assembled from raw materials without invoking an intelligent agent.

"Look round the world: contemplate the whole and every part of it: you will find it to be nothing but one great machine, subdivided into an infinite number of lesser machines, which again admit of subdivisions, to a degree beyond what human senses and faculties can trace and explain. All these various machines, and even their most minute parts, are adjusted to each other with an accuracy, which ravishes into admiration all men, who have ever contemplated them. The curious adapting of means to ends, throughout all nature, resembles exactly, though it much exceeds, the productions of human contrivance; of human design, thought, wisdom and intelligence. Since therefore the effects resemble each other, we are led to infer, by all the rules of analogy, that the causes also resemble; and that the Author of Nature is somewhat similar to the mind of men; though possessed of much larger faculties, proportioned to the grandeur of the work, which he has executed..." - Cleanthes to Demea in David Hume (Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion)

(BTW, although Hume is alleged to have defeated this argument, in fact he was wrong. It's still a powerful defense of design in nature)

John Kwok wrote"

"Charlie, you come across as the most intelligent ID supporter I’ve stumbled upon here at PT, but you are absolutely mistaken:"

Thank you.

And your rationalization is?

Charlie wrote:

"You can’t explain why these particular parts were selected, why they’re integrated together in just such a way and how they were assembled from raw materials without invoking an intelligent agent."

Allow me to translate:

I can't imagine how anything so complex could evolve, therefore it couldn't and until you can explain every little detail, I don't have to believe anything.

First, evolution is not limited by your imagination. Is it really impossible for you to imagine how response to temperature changes could be of selective value?

Second, yoiur interpretation of the data is not evidence. I don't think that these "motors" are quite as complex as you seem to think. What is described here is the coordination of the response, not the complexity of the "motor".

Third, I can imagine how such a system could evolve. Do you think that that is evidence that it did? Why is your interpretation more valid that mine? Do you have any evidence for this "intelligent designer" that your hypothesize? If not, my interpretation is that you have no viable alternative to the evolutionary explanation.

Fourth, I am sorry to hear about your health problems. I hope that you make a full recovery soon. Good luck and best wishes.

1. ID is based on supernatural (or otherwise untestable) causation, and thus is not science

2. There is a vast global conspiracy that has prevented even a single piece of data supporting ID from being published in peer-reviewed scientific literature

3. ID proponents are utterly incompetent at performing scientific research

Charlie Wagner said: You can't explain why these particular parts were selected, why they're integrated together in just such a way and how they were assembled from raw materials without invoking an intelligent agent. ... (BTW, although Hume is alleged to have defeated this argument, in fact he was wrong. It's still a powerful defense of design in nature)

Charlie Wagner said: John Kwok wrote" "Charlie, you come across as the most intelligent ID supporter I’ve stumbled upon here at PT, but you are absolutely mistaken:" Thank you. And your rationalization is?

John Kwok said: Indeed, noted philosopher of science Philip Kitcher regards it as "dead science" ...

Allow me to translate: I can’t imagine how anything so complex could evolve, therefore it couldn’t and until you can explain every little detail, I don’t have to believe anything.

I can imagine how such a system could evolve. Do you think that that is evidence that it did? Why is your interpretation more valid that mine?

Charlie Wagner said: The evidence resides in the interpretation of the data. ... You can't explain why these particular parts were selected, why they're integrated together in just such a way and how they were assembled from raw materials without invoking an intelligent agent.

Charlie Wagner said: Complexity and/or order can be generated by random processes, organization cannot.

Absolutely nothing in the paper invokes intelligent design.

Not a single paper refutes evolution, and not a single paper provides data in support of ID. What is the reason for this?

ID is based on supernatural (or otherwise untestable) causation, and thus is not science.

There is a vast global conspiracy that has prevented even a single piece of data supporting ID from being published in peer-reviewed scientific literature 3. ID proponents are utterly incompetent at performing scientific research In closing, I wish you well - I’ve lost family members to cancer and it’s an awful thing to go through. One of many reasons I became a scientific researcher.

Woodstock of evolution? That's how Nature descibes a meeting among sixteen leading biologists at the Konrad Lorenz Institute for Evolution and Cognition Research in Altenberg, Austria, 10-13 July 2008. The purpose of the meeting was to go beyond the modern synthesis that has held evolutionary theory together for more than sixty years. This is necessary because the existing theory leaves much unexplained — * "When the public thinks about evolution, they think about the origin of wings and the invasion of the land," says Graham Budd, a palaeobiologist at the University of Uppsala, Sweden. "But these are things that evolutionary theory has told us little about." * "The modern synthesis is remarkably good at modelling the survival of the fittest, but not good at modelling the arrival of the fittest," comments Scott Gilbert, an evo-devo researcher at Swarthmore College in Pennsylvania. The participants agreed that such shortcomongs must be carefully downplayed (see right), because "creationists seize on any hint of splits in evolutionary theory or dissatisfaction with Darwinism." Apparently darwinism is still gridlocked and real reform is not imminent.

It has everything to do with organization. Complexity and/or order can be generated by random processes, organization cannot. (see my website for a complete explanation)

— Charlie Wagner

Charlie Wagner said:

Not a single paper refutes evolution, and not a single paper provides data in support of ID. What is the reason for this?

Nor do I. Evolution is a fact. It is the mechanism that I take issue with. NS is a mechanism. So is ID. I prefer the latter.

Something to consider here is how much and what kind of "intelligence" is allegedly involved. The gene pool of an evolving species does have some of the attributes associated with intelligence: a way of trying out different things, and a way of remembering the ones of those that worked better than the others, and a way of fine tuning the efficiency of something that does work (by weeding out the variations that work less well than others).

There's also the point that James just made - "Intelligent Design" itself is not a mechanism; the engineer(s) that invented the design still have to implement it using some mechanism(s).

An additional point is that engineers (at least the ones I know anything about) tend to borrow ideas from other fields. In "lineages" of machinery, one expects to see devices copied from one area into another. Cars for example have computer chips, air conditioning, upholstery, lights, radios, etc., all copied from other areas of technical development.

So if living things were being engineered, one would expect to see cases in which some complex structure that apparently evolved in one branch of one taxonomic group, but was then reused intact in a branch of a separate taxonomic group. If that happened too often, the whole taxonomic group concept would never have worked in the first place.

Henry

Unless you have some unusual definition of “organization”, it’s not clear what you are saying. Yet you do make a distinction between order and organization.

but one thing I’d like to know is your definition of ID.

Charlie wrote:

"This type of organization is not obtainable without insight, and insight always requires intelligence. There is no way that these parts could be assembled in such a manner without insight."

This might be true of systems that are designed by intelligent agents, but it has been demonstrated that this is not true of living systems that are subject to cumulative selection. Claiming that this is true without any evidence is worthless.

"A mousetrap is unevolvable without intelligent input, not because you can’t take it apart without it losing it’s function, it’s unevolvable because you can’t put it together in the first place using only random, non-directed, accidental occurrences. The selection of the parts, the configuration in which they’re aligned, the assembly into one unit all require intelligent decisions at every step of the way."

This is just a twist on the old irreducible complexity argument. Once again, this has been shown not to be true of living systems. The argument is completely worthless. You can claim that something could not evolve all you want but that will never make it true.

Once again, my interpretation of the evidence is that living systems evolved. Why do you think that your interpretation is superior? What specific evidence, (other than the unfounded supposition that something could not possibly have evolved), do you have to support your idea? What predictions do you make that can be tested by the evidence? What do you predict that is not predicted by evolutionary theory? Science is not simply a matter of claiming that you are right until you get everyone to agree with you.

Organization is not the same as order. One must be careful not to confuse organization with order. There’s a lot of talk about ordered systems in the non-living world, snowflakes, tornadoes, etc. but this is not the issue.

— Charlie Wagner

Organization is a much different structure in which something is made up of elements with varied functions that contribute to the whole and to collective functions of the system. Ordered systems can result from non-intelligent processes, as has been seen many times and cited by numerous examples.

Dan wrote:
"Why do so many people share the misconception that evolution is a random process, even after distinguished and literate scientists from Darwin to Dawkins have labored for a century and a half to dispel it?"

It's simple...they're wrong! (Darwin and Dawkins)

Evolution is a fact. Darwin overstated the power of natural selection. Even HE knew that!

Natural selection can only act on pre-existing variation. It has no creative power by itself.

Variation arises from random mutation.

Therefore the whole process is random.

Random events can NEVER create organization.

Why do you think that your interpretation is superior? What specific evidence, (other than the unfounded supposition that something could not possibly have evolved), do you have to support your idea? What predictions do you make that can be tested by the evidence? What do you predict that is not predicted by evolutionary theory? Science is not simply a matter of claiming that you are right until you get everyone to agree with you.

But as I suspected, your definition of organization has an implicit teleology built into it. You are assuming that organization results from purpose or a planned layout to implement a purpose.

In my view, Latter-day Saints as well as serious Christians generally should be sympathetic to and supportive of intelligent design. We must reject materialism. We must accept God's intervention in nature. Finally, we must hold that God's action in nature is at times plainly visible. Once these core convictions are held as control beliefs, intelligent design cannot be denied.

Sorry, on my previous post, the link is working correctly. You can manually get to the paper by selecting v18, no 2. It's the third paper in the issue.

In nature, organization comes from interactions among constituents of a system that result in coordinated or patterned behavior. Those interactions are from gravitation, electromagnetism, strong force, weak force exchanges. Depending on the masses and “restoring forces” in the system, resonant phenomena can occur that throw the whole system into a dramatic synchronization of the constituents of the system. Not only does the system look ordered, it behaves dynamically in a highly coordinated fashion.

What is Organization?

A mousetrap has a quality called organization, which is much different from complexity or order. Each part of the mousetrap, the platform, the holding bar, the spring, the hammer and the catch each have specific functions. And each of these functions are organized in such a way that they support the other functions and the overall function of the mousetrap, which is to catch mice.

The function of the platform is to hold the parts, but it's there ultimately to facilitate the process of mouse catching. The function of the spring is to exert a force on the hammer, but it's ultimate goal is to enable the process of mouse catching. All of the parts have functions that not only support the other functions, but ultimately support the overall function of the device. This type of organization is not obtainable without insight, and insight always requires intelligence.

There is no way that these parts could be assembled in such a manner without insight. A mousetrap is a simple machine, made up of several structures and processes and exists for a purpose. The construction of the mousetrap was initiated with intent, and fashioned for a purpose.

Living organisms are similarly machines, with structures and processes that work together to create a function. In fact, all complex, highly organized machines in which means are adapted to ends are the product of intelligent design. The important point is that the adaptation of means to ends, the adaptation of structure and process to function requires insight. A mousetrap is unevolvable without intelligent input, not because you can't take it apart without it losing it's function, it's unevolvable because you can't put it together in the first place using only random, non-directed, accidental occurrences.

The selection of the parts, the configuration in which they're aligned, the assembly into one unit all require intelligent decisions at every step of the way. Similarly, living organisms show the same characteristics. It's not that you can't remove parts and lose total function, it's that you can't explain why these particular parts were selected, why they're integrated together in just such a way and how they were assembled from raw materials without invoking an intelligent agent.

Charlie wrote:

"Random events can NEVER create organization."

Prove it.

Therefore the whole process is random. Random events can NEVER create organization.

Nice try Charlie. That web site proves conclusively that no human designed machine can arise spontaneously in a box in a few days. That is not the issue. If that is the best you have got then I conclude that you have no evidence, that you have no hypothesis and that you have nothing but personal incredulity to support your position. Nice try at spoofing the scientific method though.

If you really think that this is a reasonable argument then here is my position. I have never seen anyone or anything design or produce a living organism. I cannot even imagine anyone or anything powerful enough or smart enough to do so. I have studied the natural processes by which living things evolve and I believe that they can indeed evolve increasing complexity and so called irreducibly complex systems. I cannot believe that anyone could doubt this so I don't believe that you really believe that it can't happen without intelligent intervention.

Even if I had not one bit of evidence to support my position, my idea would be at least as valid as yours. Why should anyone prefer your position?

Lots of random processes create organized results. did you never made rock candy as a child? Both the atoms in solution and the evaporation itself act totally randomly, yet teh result is always an organized cystal, millions of atoms on a side.

Charlie Wagner said: Mike Elzinga wrote:

In nature, organization comes from interactions among constituents of a system that result in coordinated or patterned behavior. Those interactions are from gravitation, electromagnetism, strong force, weak force exchanges. Depending on the masses and “restoring forces” in the system, resonant phenomena can occur that throw the whole system into a dramatic synchronization of the constituents of the system. Not only does the system look ordered, it behaves dynamically in a highly coordinated fashion.

I think you are still not clear on the difference between "order" and "organization". You are describing "ordered systems" not "organized systems". Read the chapter again! ;-) http://www.charliewagner.com/casefor.htm

I have never seen anyone or anything design or produce a living organism. I cannot even imagine anyone or anything powerful enough or smart enough to do so.

Please don’t patronize me about order and organization.

So then I guess you think that DNA is itself intelligent. If not, then that doesn't get you anywhere. Just exactly how do you think that DNA designs living things? Does it have foresight and planning? How can it produce irreducibly complex systems if it isn't intelligent? So then, nonintelligent processes are capable of producing irreducibly complex systems. There goes your agrument.

You definately don't need intelligence to explain the origin of DNA. Do you really want to state that that is all that is required in order for life to evolve? Exactly why couldn't any sequence of DNA evolve? If mutations are random, wouldn't every sequence eventually be produced? If you add cumulative selection it looks like a pretty good explanation.

By the way, you might want to tell the creationists that DNA contains all of the information necessary to produce an organism. Some of them apparently don't want to believe it.

Charlie Wagner said:

Lots of random processes create organized results. did you never made rock candy as a child? Both the atoms in solution and the evaporation itself act totally randomly, yet teh result is always an organized cystal, millions of atoms on a side.

The result is an ordered crystal. You still don't get it. Read the chapter again.

(from dictionary.com)

Ordered: neatly or conveniently arranged; well-organized: an ordered office; done according to specific principles or procedures: an ordered method of assembling the parts.

Organized: having a formal organization or structure, esp. to coordinate or carry out for widespread activities: organized medicine; organized crime.

Um, they both seem to be flavors of "organized structure", am I missing something, Charlie?

By the way, Charlie, I did read your page, but your explanation of the difference (under the Nelsons Law section) seems a distinction without a difference.

As to your example of the bicycle not assembling itself, it's not incidental that mechanical parts are known to be inert.

The same cannot be said of chemical compounds, especially the subset of simple chemical compounds that make up amino acids.

A room full of bike parts will sit there for eternity. A warm swimming pool into which you throw a couple of buckets of amino acids and stir once in a while will have a considerable amount of activity.

In fact, you can actually calculate the the amount of activity, and the mean length of time till some known self-replicating molecule is formed ( and that doesn't even begin to account for all the possible self-replicating molecules ).

Charlie Wagner said: Mike Elzinga wrote:

Please don’t patronize me about order and organization.

I didn't intend for it to be patronizing but I was getting the feeling that I wasn't getting my point across. How do you (and the entire physics, chemistry and biology community) define "organization"? How is it different from "order"?

Mike Elzinga wrote:

"Organization is a dynamic set of processes taking place over time and/or space that involves the coordinated motions and/or behaviors of the constituents of a physical system. The constituents can be particles such as electrons, nucleons, atoms, molecules, or whole systems of atoms and molecules constituting compounds, solids, liquids, gases, plasmas, organic strings and membranes, etc."

Well, the problem is clear; we're using different definitions of organization. Organization is a word like "entropy". It lacks intuitive clarity. Perhaps we need a different word!

That's why I was very careful to define my use of the word. Simply put, I mean something made up of elements with varied functions that contribute to the whole and to collective functions.

Organized systems contain structures and processes. The structures support other structures and other processes. The processes support other processes. Organized systems adapt means to ends.

The chloroplast is a perfect example of the integration of structure and processes all working together to produce a function: the synthesis of glucose.

Organized systems are made up of structures and processes integrated in such a way that they not only support each other, but they contribute to the overall function of the system. This type of organization, in which means are adapted to ends and multiple structures and processes perform multiple functions, all of which contribute to the overall functioning of the organism are unattainable by any kind of random process or chance occurrence. It requires insight and insight means intelligence. There's simply no way to get around that basic point.

Charlie wrote:

"The chloroplast is a perfect example of the integration of structure and processes all working together to produce a function: the synthesis of glucose."

You do know that there is a very good evolutionary explanation for the origin of the chloroplast don't you? Are you claiming that it is irreducibly complex and that it could not possibly have evolved?

"This type of organization, in which means are adapted to ends and multiple structures and processes perform multiple functions, all of which contribute to the overall functioning of the organism are unattainable by any kind of random process or chance occurrence. It requires insight and insight means intelligence. There’s simply no way to get around that basic point."

This is at least the fourth time that you have claimed this without any evidence whatsoever. For the last time, either try to demonstrate that this is true somehow or stop making the claim. No one will be convinced by mere repetition.

Charlie Wagner said: That's why I was very careful to define my use of the word. Simply put, I mean something made up of elements with varied functions that contribute to the whole and to collective functions.

Charlie Wagner said: Variation arises from random mutation. Therefore the whole process is random. Random events can NEVER create organization.

I think we're seeing the Paley Fallacy all over again, just phrased in another
fashion:

"Living things have a level of organization that nonliving things do not ... "

"Yah, I would agree with that as a rule ... "

" ... except for the nonliving artifacts that were created by humans ... "

"Ahhhh ... I think we're getting set up for Reasoning By Analogy here."

" ... and so it is obvious that living things must have been created by a superhuman intelligence."

"Hang on. That argument doesn't even address the possibility that the organization of living things might be due to some natural
process. It simply uses the analogy to jump to a conclusion without any
real consideration of evidence."

The Paley Fallacy is NOT thinking something was Designed when it wasn't. The
Paley Fallacy is simply assuming that because something is complicated (irreducibly complex, organized, whatever) it must have been Designed. Maybe
it was, maybe it wasn't, what does the evidence say? The complexity in itself
does not answer that question.

Extrapolating from the
fact that humans build complicated objects to proclaiming Design in the Universe
is seeing the Universe through a mirror that reflects our ways of doing things when,
as all agree ... the Universe is clearly not run by humans.

Cheers -- MrG / http://www.vectorsite.net/gblog.html

The Paley Fallacy is simply assuming that because something is complicated (irreducibly complex, organized, whatever) it must have been Designed.

Ah, I was suspecting so, but what we're seeing is the infamous "Law Of Conservation Of Information (LCI)" all over again: RANDOM PROCESSES CANNOT CREATE INFORMATION. ONLY AN INTELLIGENCE CAN CREATE INFORMATION.

Really? In Darwinian evolution, random mutations create information. The Grim Reaper then decides whether that information is useful or at least harmless and keeps it, or if it's harmful and then deletes it via extinction. The Grim Reaper
has made a 0 or 1 decision, enabled by the fact that living things have an interesting property that nonliving things do not: DEATH. Any calculation that can be performed can be performed as a sequence of simple 1 or 0 calculations; the Grim Reaper never sleeps, never tires, and over the aeons can potentially build up a great deal of elaboration.

Look in Wikipedia. There is no such thing as the LCI. It's a rephrasing of the Paley Fallacy by Darwin-bashers to make it sound "sciency". I keep wondering who was the first to pull it out of the fanny pack.

Cheers -- MrG / http://www.vectorsite.net/gblog.html

Another interesting thing here ... ID and evolution are not strongly compatible concepts. What point is there in Designing dodos? What point is there in Designing the same sorts of forms over and over again -- parallel evolution of sabrecats for example, or sharks and dolphins, or bats and birds -- or Designing different forms to do the same sorts of things -- antelopes and kangaroos? Why let them all go extinct and start over again? Why not just Design them right in the first place and let them go on?

One could of course invoke whim or stupidity, but then the supposedly "obvious" nature of Design suddenly becomes less obvious. One could claim that the real reason was that the Designer was trying to trick us into believing that evolution by an unplanned process (read "Darwinian evolution") was for real.

Cheers -- MrG / http://www.vectorsite.net/gblog.html

Well, the problem is clear; we’re using different definitions of organization. Organization is a word like “entropy”. It lacks intuitive clarity. Perhaps we need a different word!

— Charlie Wagner

You and the ID community, on the other hand, appear to be playing with etymology to convince people that nature cannot do what it does right in front of your face every day.

— Mike Elzinga

Charlie Wagner said: Living organisms are similarly machines, with structures and processes that work together to create a function. In fact, all complex, highly organized machines in which means are adapted to ends are the product of intelligent design. The important point is that the adaptation of means to ends, the adaptation of structure and process to function requires insight.

What’s important is that Paley didn’t reason TO design, he reasoned FROM what he could not doubt.

mrg said: Ah, I was suspecting so, but what we're seeing is the infamous "Law Of Conservation Of Information (LCI)" all over again: RANDOM PROCESSES CANNOT CREATE INFORMATION. ONLY AN INTELLIGENCE CAN CREATE INFORMATION. Really? In Darwinian evolution, random mutations create information. The Grim Reaper then decides whether that information is useful or at least harmless and keeps it, or if it's harmful and then deletes it via extinction. The Grim Reaper has made a 0 or 1 decision, enabled by the fact that living things have an interesting property that nonliving things do not: DEATH. Any calculation that can be performed can be performed as a sequence of simple 1 or 0 calculations; the Grim Reaper never sleeps, never tires, and over the aeons can potentially build up a great deal of elaboration.

"All right, but what do you mean by “collective functions” or even “functions”?

There are two kinds of function.

1.The kind of action or activity proper to a person, thing; the purpose for which something is designed or exists.

and

2. Co-opted functions; functions that are given to objects by intelligent choice, and for which they were not originally intended.

Your examples are co-opted functions. If I use a brick to hold a door open, that is not its function. It is co-opted for that purpose by intelligent choice. It's actual function is still to construct walls. Co-opted functions are only functions in the context of the viewer.

Charlie Wagner said: "All right, but what do you mean by “collective functions” or even “functions”? There are two kinds of function. 1.The kind of action or activity proper to a person, thing; the purpose for which something is designed or exists. and 2. Co-opted functions; functions that are given to objects by intelligent choice, and for which they were not originally intended. Your examples are co-opted functions. If I use a brick to hold a door open, that is not its function. It is co-opted for that purpose by intelligent choice. It's actual function is still to construct walls. Co-opted functions are only functions in the context of the viewer.

Your examples are co-opted functions. If I use a brick to hold a door open, that is not its function. It is co-opted for that purpose by intelligent choice.

"Notice that the definition of “function” used by Charlie assumes that anything with function is designed. Hence his definition cannot be used to prove that anything is designed, because (according to Charlie) simply stating that an object has a function is synonymous with stating that it’s designed.

The definition is circular!

True enough. Function implies purpose.

It is the integration of structure and process to create function that is the signature of intelligence.

Our good buddy FL gave away the whole game when he admitted that human conception is a design actuation event.

— Frank J

Dan said: Notice that the definition of "function" used by Charlie assumes that anything with function is designed. Hence his definition cannot be used to prove that anything is designed, because (according to Charlie) simply stating that an object has a function is synonymous with stating that it's designed. The definition is circular!

Charlie said: In fact, all complex, highly organized machines in which means are adapted to ends are the product of intelligent design.

"They’re been co-opted for another function but no intelligence is required."

WHAT !! Mussels have no intelligence?

Are we to deny the lowly mussel that proportional amount of intelligence to which it is entitled based on its rank in the hierarchy of life?

Charlie Wagner said: True enough. Function implies purpose. It is the integration of structure and process to create function that is the signature of intelligence.

Charlie Wagner said:

but one thing I’d like to know is your definition of ID.

See my website for a complete explanation: http://www.charliewagner.com/casefor.htm

Charlie Wagner said: "Notice that the definition of “function” used by Charlie assumes that anything with function is designed. Hence his definition cannot be used to prove that anything is designed, because (according to Charlie) simply stating that an object has a function is synonymous with stating that it’s designed. The definition is circular! True enough. Function implies purpose. It is the integration of structure and process to create function that is the signature of intelligence.

Are we to deny the lowly mussel that proportional amount of intelligence to which it is entitled based on its rank in the hierarchy of life?

Flint said: ... What's important is that Paley didn't reason TO design, he reasoned FROM what he could not doubt. The task here isn't to derive a conclusion from the evidence, but to filter the evidence through the conclusion to ratify our preferences and needs. And since Charlie's assertions are defeated by even a hazy inkling of what feedback is, he must necessarily pretend it doesn't exist. It simply won't fit through the filter.

a planet where mechanical devices were observed to run wild through the woods, fighting and mating and producing other mechanical devices all on their own, a planet where you could put two grandfather clocks in a room alone and soon you’d come back to find them nursing a new brood of wristwatches, a planet where you couldn’t turn over a rock in your garden without disturbing a nest of larval machine screws,

The entire ID/Creationist hoax seems pretty straight-forward. Play word games and create a pseudo-science that “proves” evolution to be wrong (and therefore a given sectarian belief to be right), and pass it off as the real thing.

Like in the novel Code of the Lifemaker by James P. Hogan?

In the usual Charlie Wagner iteration, we have now progressed from claims that ID is true because evolution doesn't work (nevermind other possible alternatives), that evolution doesn't work even though it is a fact because it is a random process, that evolution is a random process because natural selection doesn't work, that natural selection doesn't work because it is not adaptation towards a contingent changeable environment but adaptation towards a predetermined target, and that this "ID-isn't evolution-isn't natural selection-is intelligent selection-is intelligently designed evolution" is entirely due to preloaded DNA.
Apparently 4 Gy of mutation can't possibly shred any of the necessary genes for all possible environments. (Or, possibly, Charlie Wagner's environments are a predetermined few as well.)

It is ironic that creationists discussing "organization", "order" and "complexity" can't define the terms, but may accept the biologically useful primary "function"; one would think that it would tell them something about their presuppositions and their viability vs the factual biological process.

It is also ironic that someone who believes a reducibly complex mouse trap is the one and only outcome starting from, say, a springy wire, completely ignoring countless other contingent outcomes of selection for immediate intermediary function (what about a coathanger; or a cork screw; or a door stopper; or ... ?), doesn't read the post which is describing how ancestral systems could be responsible for both secretory systems, piluses or flagella, by several actually realized pathways.

My prediction is that the Wagnerian Inquisition has nearly run its course. As long as creationists uses Morton's Demon to filter out the contrary evidence of entirely natural pathways by demonstrated mechanisms, here by the sleight of hand of reversing causality (the future goal determines the present process in full), we can only point to their fables as the unsuccessful obvious-for-all apologetics for beliefs they are.

Mike Elzinga said: I looked at Charlie’s web site and read his stuff on evolution. He has bought into all the same pseudo-science promulgated by the ID/Creationists for decades; all the same misinformation and misconceptions. There is nothing new in his set of "arguments", and he appears never to have made an effort to really learn his science from reputable sources. Where he refers to reputable sources, he still uses the typical ID/Creationist misconceptions to explain the meaning of concepts (entropy, for example); obviously not having slogged through the explainations in the legitimate sources. The entire ID/Creationist hoax seems pretty straight-forward. Play word games and create a pseudo-science that “proves” evolution to be wrong (and therefore a given sectarian belief to be right), and pass it off as the real thing. Then prevent the rubes from ever comparing the pseudo-science with the real science by scaring the hell out of them with the threat that The Devil will go to great lengths to tempt and confuse them with lies and twisted words (oh the irony!). Keep the fear and paranoia levels high with vague inuendo about secular society and scientists, and use "the enemy" often in stern warnings. The shtick is still being played openly on the religion channels on TV; and apparently it still works. Charlie seems to have swallowed it hook, line, and sinker, but has convinced himself he believes it for rational reasons. Too bad; he seems like a nice, caring guy otherwise, and doesn't deserve to be duped like that.

neo-anti-luddite said: If this is the same Charlie Wagner (and I'm pretty sure it is), then IIRC he has claimed to have taught high-school science classes, which seems a bit off to me considering his breathtaking mangling of both science and the scientific method. When I got in to it with him about his whole "living things and machines both do stuff, so living things must be designed just like machines" crap, he couldn't figure out why the fact that living critters reproduce on their own and machines don't was such a huge problem for his little analogy. I'd say that if really is that willfully stupid, he surely does deserved to be duped like that. Of course, Charlie doesn't believe in devils; he's a space aliens guy....

"Wow! A high school science teacher. For shame!

I guess I missed all the fun the last time he showed up around here.

The space aliens thing is weird. The way he avoids learning real science strongly suggests a very significant psychological block; and that usually comes from terror of burning in hell or being ostracized by one’s religious cult when it involves evolution."

You're going to have to give me more to work with than that if you want me to reply with my legendary clever brilliance and witty persiflage. ;-)

I taught HS Chemistry and Physics for 33 years and the subject of evolution never came up once...never. So you can rest easily.

Charlie Wagner said: You're going to have to give me more to work with than that if you want me to reply with my legendary clever brilliance and witty persiflage. ;-) I taught HS Chemistry and Physics for 33 years and the subject of evolution never came up once...never. So you can rest easily.

I taught HS Chemistry and Physics for 33 years and the subject of evolution never came up once…never.

stevaroni said: I never understood why Paley was so influential anyhow.

All the components were known to be man-made. If Paley had been strolling through a meadow on a planet where mechanical devices were observed to run wild through the woods, fighting and mating and producing other mechanical devices all on their own, a planet where you could put two grandfather clocks in a room alone and soon you'd come back to find them nursing a new brood of wristwatches, a planet where you couldn't turn over a rock in your garden without disturbing a nest of larval machine screws, his argument falls apart. Thing is, as far as all of biology goes, he is on such a planet.

I taught HS Chemistry and Physics for 33 years…

— Charlie Wagner

15. Darwinian evolution violates the 2d Law of Thermodynamics. This law states that entropy (disorder) increases in all natural processes. The evolution of life from simple to complex is a decrease in entropy.

This is represented mathematically by S = k ln W where k is Boltzmann's constant and W is the probability of the occurrence of an event.

Where did you get the idea that W is the probability of the occurrence of an event?

Mike Elzinga said: Unless this is all a spoof you are perpetrating.

mrg (iml8) said: "Ah, so the SLOT ... somehow ... says that order will never arise from disorder, but only in FREE SNACK cases and never in FREE LUNCH cases. I see."

mrg (iml8) said: ... The answer to this is: THAT IS NOT THE SAME KIND OF ORDER. THOSE ARE FREE SNACKS. BUT YOU CAN'T GET A FREE LUNCH. ...

"Where did you get the idea that W is the probability of the occurrence of an event?"

From Richard Feynman "Lectures on Physics" - "Order and entropy" (vol I section 46-5) as follows:

"So we now have to talk about what we mean by disorder and what we mean by order. ... Suppose we divide the space into little volume elements. If we have black and white molecules, how many ways could we distribute them among the volume elements so that white is on one side and black is on the other? On the other hand, how many ways could we distribute them with no restriction on which goes where? Clearly, there are many more ways to arrange them in the latter case. We measure "disorder" by the number of ways that the insides can be arranged, so that from the outside it looks the same. The logarithm of that number of ways is the entropy. The number of ways in the separated case is less, so the entropy is less, or the "disorder" is less."

A state of high order has a low probability and a state of low order has a high probability. Feynman attaches NO UNITS to this type of entropy. The units are the result of introducing Boltzmann's constant, the constant of proportionality which serves to make the statistical mechanical entropy equal to the classical thermodynamic entropy of Clausius.

Claude Shannon, in his 1948 paper "A Mathematical Theory of Communication" attaches no units to entropy and never mentions Boltzmann's constant.

Some people say that the energy from the Sun allows life to evolve, but undirected thermal energy is only able to do the chemical and thermal entropy work in polypetide synthesis, but not the coding (or sequencing) portion of the configurational entropy work.... It is difficult to imagine how one could ever couple random thermal energy flow through the system to do the required configurational entropy work of selecting and sequencing.

"the entire argument is complete gibberish."

I'm sorry that you didn't understand my argument. I guarantee that it is perfectly valid.

Statistical (logical) entropy is a problem for a lot of people schooled in classical thermodynamics

Okay, Charlie, so tell us: how many ways can you arrange the "insides" of a living thing (or the system that produces them, or whatever it is that you think you're subjecting to measurement) so that "from the outside, it looks the same"?

Run the numbers, man!

Dazzle us with your incandescent stupidity!

Charlie Wagner said: "the entire argument is complete gibberish." I'm sorry that you didn't understand my argument. I guarantee that it is perfectly valid. Statistical (logical) entropy is a problem for a lot of people schooled in classical thermodynamics

"What do the units of entropy have to do with order?

What is the logarithm of a probability?

Do your answers to these questions cause you to question your understanding, or are you going to continue to blame Feynman?

Entropy is the measure of the disorder of a system. It is the natural logarithm of the number of ways you can distribute elements within a volume space so that from the outside it looks the same.

Did you not read what I wrote above?

I am not blaming Feynman because he is absolutely correct.

Neither he or I are responsible for anyone's failure to comprehend it.

"In my opinion, the audacious attempt to reveal the formal equivalence of the ideas of biological organization and thermodynamic order ...must be judged to have failed." — Peter Medawar

Charlie Wagner said: "What do the units of entropy have to do with order? What is the logarithm of a probability? Do your answers to these questions cause you to question your understanding, or are you going to continue to blame Feynman? Entropy is the measure of the disorder of a system. It is the natural logarithm of the number of ways you can distribute elements within a volume space so that from the outside it looks the same. Did you not read what I wrote above? I am not blaming Feynman because he is absolutely correct. Neither he or I are responsible for anyone's failure to comprehend it. be judged to have failed." — Peter Medawar

Hey Charlie, is the 2nd Law time-dependent? If not, why not?...g

Claude Shannon, in his 1948 paper “A Mathematical Theory of Communication” attaches no units to entropy and never mentions Boltzmann’s constant.

Mike Elzinga said: One of the major bugbears for the pseudo-scientist is inconsistency. Eventually a pseudo-scientific law runs into a problem in that it glaringly conflicts with some reality.

I am not blaming Feynman because he is absolutely correct. Neither he or I are responsible for anyone’s failure to comprehend it.

— Charlie Wagner

Mike Elzinga said: You still haven’t grasped the issue. You seem to be consciously avoiding the two questions I asked.

Charlie Wagner said: "What do the units of entropy have to do with order? What is the logarithm of a probability? Do your answers to these questions cause you to question your understanding, or are you going to continue to blame Feynman? Entropy is the measure of the disorder of a system. It is the natural logarithm of the number of ways you can distribute elements within a volume space so that from the outside it looks the same. Did you not read what I wrote above? I am not blaming Feynman because he is absolutely correct. Neither he or I are responsible for anyone's failure to comprehend it. "In my opinion, the audacious attempt to reveal the formal equivalence of the ideas of biological organization and thermodynamic order ...must be judged to have failed." — Peter Medawar

neo-anti-luddite said:

Mike Elzinga said: You still haven’t grasped the issue. You seem to be consciously avoiding the two questions I asked.

While Charlie may not have much of a grasp on logic or science, he's a master at consciously avoiding inconvenient rebuttals to his arguments. He usually avoids them by assuming that the person offering the rebuttal "doesn't get it" (with the implication often being that the person's understanding is rooted in outdated knowledge). If you're looking for the "mental block" Charlie's got going, my guess is that it's ego pure and simple: he just can't bear the thought that he really might be that dumb.

"That is a metaphor for a thermodynamic system whose macroscopic properties (total energy, pressure, temperature, magnetic properties, etc.) look constant to the outside observer. But there is lots activity going on inside; atoms oscillating or banging into each other, and so on. Each of these motions or activities involves a certain amount energy at the microscopic level."

The phase space, which includes both the microstates AND the macrostates that the statistical mechanical entropy model describes are NOT classical constructs. The entropies are array entropies, that are based on organization.
They are similar to the "sorting" described by Feynman above, more like the arrangement of molecules in an ideal gas than the thermal entropies that deal with energy, such as described by Clausius.
Only Boltzmann's constant, a human (and artificial!) construct connects statistical mechanical entropy to energy.

Charlie Wagner said: "Where did you get the idea that W is the probability of the occurrence of an event?" From Richard Feynman "Lectures on Physics" - "Order and entropy" (vol I section 46-5) as follows: "So we now have to talk about what we mean by disorder and what we mean by order. ... Suppose we divide the space into little volume elements. If we have black and white molecules, how many ways could we distribute them among the volume elements so that white is on one side and black is on the other? On the other hand, how many ways could we distribute them with no restriction on which goes where? Clearly, there are many more ways to arrange them in the latter case. We measure "disorder" by the number of ways that the insides can be arranged, so that from the outside it looks the same. The logarithm of that number of ways is the entropy. The number of ways in the separated case is less, so the entropy is less, or the "disorder" is less."

Charlie Wagner goes on to say: Some people say that the energy from the Sun allows life to evolve, but undirected thermal energy is only able to do the chemical and thermal entropy work in polypetide synthesis, but not the coding (or sequencing) portion of the configurational entropy work.... It is difficult to imagine how one could ever couple random thermal energy flow through the system to do the required configurational entropy work of selecting and sequencing.

I'll have Thousand Island dressing on mine. No, wait, make that ranch.

Dan Styer said: He admits that the entropy can decrease, but claims that it can decrease through one mechanism but not through another!

Charlie Wagner said: The phase space, which includes both the microstates AND the macrostates that the statistical mechanical entropy model describes are NOT classical constructs.

Charlie Wagner said: The entropies are array entropies, that are based on organization.

Charlie Wagner said: They are similar to the "sorting" described by Feynman above, more like the arrangement of molecules in an ideal gas than the thermal entropies that deal with energy, such as described by Clausius.

Charlie Wagner said: Only Boltzmann's constant, a human (and artificial!) construct connects statistical mechanical entropy to energy.

The 2nd law arguments are logical pap anyway.

Charlie organizes things all day, decreasing their entropy. Every time he writes in his blog, he (at least in theory) increases it's information, thus decreasing entropy.

We all agree that the 2nd law is not immutable, entropy can be decreased, at least locally, right Charlie?

The question is, under what conditions? What is required to decrease entropy?

Charlie would argue that intelligence is required, but this is manifestly not the case. Bower birds decrease the entropy around their nests by organizing bright shiny objects.

Still too "intelligent"? then how about a beetle walking across sand, leaving a pattern of tracks, thereby decreasing the entropy of the otherwise undisturbed surface.

Still too "intelligent"? Then how about the dandelion seeds and fungal "fairie rings" that dramatically and frustratingly decrease the entropy of my nice, even green lawn?.

No, the common denominator seems to be that life itself seems to have, as an innate ability, the power to locally decrease entropy.

So since only living things evolve, it doesn't make a rat's ass difference if entropy decreases in evolution, since living things have the ability to decrease entropy all the time.

QED.

And since the 2nd law does not apply to living things, we can stop using it as an excuse now.

(Yes, I know, I know.

But sometimes you have to think like a creationist to understand just how dumb their arguments are.

Ouch. Now my head hurts.)

"We’re probably being a bit rough on Charlie, but I sense from his website that he could come around. He was once a person who decided to become a science teacher. I don’t know the reasons he decided this, but I’m hoping it was a person who was fascinated with nature and wanted to keep learning. If such a person was in there, I’m hoping he still there and will come out."

I'm starting to feel like Beatrix Kiddo (Uma Thurman) in the scene in "Kill Bill" where she confronts O-Ren Ishii (Lucy Liu) and the rest of the "Crazy 88's"

Outnumbered?...Not.

I loved science and wanted to do research. But Mammon intervened when my second child was born. I became a teacher because I needed the income, but it turns out I was pretty good at it...damned good IMHO!
http://www.charliewagner.net/teach.htm

I’m starting to feel like Beatrix Kiddo (Uma Thurman) in the scene in “Kill Bill” where she confronts O-Ren Ishii (Lucy Liu) and the rest of the “Crazy 88’s”

Charlie Wagner said: I'm starting to feel like Beatrix Kiddo (Uma Thurman) in the scene in "Kill Bill" where she confronts O-Ren Ishii (Lucy Liu) and the rest of the "Crazy 88's" Outnumbered?...Not.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A FREE LUNCH! But free snacks are OK.

mrg (iml8) said: And what's the difference in these case[s]? Informally speaking, few would deny that biostructures are as a rule more elaborate than the structures of inanimate objects. But few would also deny that biochemistry is more elaborate than inorganic chemistry (we'll leave organic chemistry as kind of a border region here). However, the two are not operating by different rules of chemistry.

"No, the common denominator seems to be that life itself seems to have, as an innate ability, the power to locally decrease entropy."

You're partly right.
But only photosynthesis, chemosynthesis and intelligence has the ability to decrease entropy. on earth.

Well, I don’t know what you mean by “array entropy”, and given that you have your own private (and circular) definition for “organization”, whatever your “array entropy” is it can’t be connected with the public and well-defined concept of entropy.

— Dan Styer

Ouch. Now my head hurts.

— stevaroni

"So Mike, do you think we can call this confirmation of the “ego” theory of Charlie’s calculated ignorance?"

Ego has a lot to do with it...and a somewhat child-like need for attention.

neo-anit-luddite said:

Charlie Wagner said: I'm starting to feel like Beatrix Kiddo (Uma Thurman) in the scene in "Kill Bill" where she confronts O-Ren Ishii (Lucy Liu) and the rest of the "Crazy 88's" Outnumbered?...Not.

So Mike, do you think we can call this confirmation of the "ego" theory of Charlie's calculated ignorance? I love it when people prove me right so damn quickly.

Henry J said: In that case I'll have the onion rings.

Charlie Wagner said: "So Mike, do you think we can call this confirmation of the “ego” theory of Charlie’s calculated ignorance?" Ego has a lot to do with it...and a somewhat child-like need for attention.

Mike Elzinga said:

Charlie Wagner said: "So Mike, do you think we can call this confirmation of the “ego” theory of Charlie’s calculated ignorance?" Ego has a lot to do with it...and a somewhat child-like need for attention.

Yeah, but Heath Ledger got the Emmy; you didn’t.

eric said: Physical laws have - and can have - NO foreknowledge of what phenotype will be built from a mutational change in the genotype.

Hey scientists! Haven't you given Charlie Wagner too much time on his soapbox with his micro-cephalic arguments. He sounds good at first, but soon the blather comes out. Check him at RationalWiki.

Rocket Mike said: Hey scientists! Haven't you given Charlie Wagner too much time on his soapbox with his micro-cephalic arguments. He sounds good at first, but soon the blather comes out. Check him at RationalWiki.

Mr Wagner, would it be possible if I could ask if you can demonstrate to me, if not the others, how to detect and understand "design" in nature?

Scientists and the scientific-minded are rightfully extremely skeptical about the claims of Intelligent Design proponents as, given a thorough examination of biological phenomena, given the whimsical, nonsensical, or downright odd, awkward, and inefficient natures of these aforementioned phenomena, whoever or whatever is/are the designer has a weird sense of humor and or does not follow logic as humans can recognize it.

What I'm trying to say is, how does one go about recognizing "Intelligent Design" in nature?

How does one conclude that an Intelligent Designer designed organisms as weird as the Vetulicolia of the early to middle Cambrian? How does one realize that it was the doings of an Intelligent Designer that all of the Sarraceniaceae pitcher plants, only the Tate's marsh pitcher, Heliamphora tatei, has genes for proteolytic enzymes?

What sort of intelligence was behind the reasoning for modifying a panda's carpal bone to serve as a makeshift thumb, rather than modifying the fifth digit? What sort of intelligence lead horses to have no ability to taste sour foods?

It's been my unfortunate experience, Mr. Wagner, that Intelligent Design proponents have had no interest in answering these sorts of questions, and that disinterest is, in my opinion, probably the greatest fatal flaw in attempting to present Intelligent Design as a science.

"Mr Wagner, would it be possible if I could ask if you can demonstrate to me, if not the others, how to detect and understand “design” in nature?"

I would be happy to answer your questions.

First of all, I do not argue for "design". It's a loaded word with too much baggage. And it begs the question: "who is the designer.

You can detect intelligence in nature by the presence of organization.

Living systems are made up of structures and processes integrated in such a way that they not only support each other, but they contribute to the overall function of the living system.

This type of organization, in which means are adapted to ends and multiple structures and processes perform multiple functions, all of which contribute to the overall functioning of the organism are unattainable by any kind of random process or chance occurrence. It requires insight and insight means intelligence. There's simply no way to get around that basic point.

You ask questions that have no answers. I recognize that intelligent input is a requirement but I don't have a clue where this intelligence comes from.

I believe that life came to earth from elsewhere with its capacity to create diversity already present.

The Darwinian paradigm holds that copying mistakes and the shuffling of existing genes are sufficient to write the new genes needed for evolutionary advances. Cosmic Ancestry holds that these processes cannot write useful new genes. Instead, for a species to make evolutionary progress, new genes must first be installed into its genome from outside.

Charlie writes... You’re partly right. But only photosynthesis, chemosynthesis and intelligence has the ability to decrease entropy. on earth.

"Um, two out of three of those are unguided chemical processes, which seem to require no supernatural intervention."

No supernatural intervention but these processes are NOT unguided...Remember DNA?

"Chemosynthesis certainly works outside living organisms, as anyone who has dealt with endothermic catalyzed reactions (say, for example, a high school chemistry teacher) will attest."

I said "on earth", not "in living organisms".

No supernatural intervention but these processes are NOT unguided…Remember DNA?

Charlie Wagner said: I would be happy to answer your questions. First of all, I do not argue for "design". It's a loaded word with too much baggage. And it begs the question: "who is the designer. You can detect intelligence in nature by the presence of organization. Living systems are made up of structures and processes integrated in such a way that they not only support each other, but they contribute to the overall function of the living system. This type of organization, in which means are adapted to ends and multiple structures and processes perform multiple functions, all of which contribute to the overall functioning of the organism are unattainable by any kind of random process or chance occurrence. It requires insight and insight means intelligence. There's simply no way to get around that basic point.

You ask questions that have no answers. I recognize that intelligent input is a requirement but I don't have a clue where this intelligence comes from.

I believe that life came to earth from elsewhere with its capacity to create diversity already present.

The Darwinian paradigm holds that copying mistakes and the shuffling of existing genes are sufficient to write the new genes needed for evolutionary advances. Cosmic Ancestry holds that these processes cannot write useful new genes. Instead, for a species to make evolutionary progress, new genes must first be installed into its genome from outside.

Charlie Wagner said: "Um, two out of three of those are unguided chemical processes, which seem to require no supernatural intervention." No supernatural intervention but these processes are NOT unguided...Remember DNA? "Chemosynthesis certainly works outside living organisms, as anyone who has dealt with endothermic catalyzed reactions (say, for example, a high school chemistry teacher) will attest." I said "on earth", not "in living organisms".

Mike Elzinga said:

Charlie Wagner said: "Um, two out of three of those are unguided chemical processes, which seem to require no supernatural intervention." No supernatural intervention but these processes are NOT unguided...Remember DNA? "Chemosynthesis certainly works outside living organisms, as anyone who has dealt with endothermic catalyzed reactions (say, for example, a high school chemistry teacher) will attest." I said "on earth", not "in living organisms".

You need to get in contact with Philip Bruce Heywood. His theory of "superconduction" plus the Earth, Moon, Sun gravitational system imparting information to electrons is far more advanced than your theory. You've been out done by an Australian living in the Outback.

Charlie Wagner said: I would be happy to answer your questions. First of all, I do not argue for "design". It's a loaded word with too much baggage. And it begs the question: "who is the designer. You can detect intelligence in nature by the presence of organization. Living systems are made up of structures and processes integrated in such a way that they not only support each other, but they contribute to the overall function of the living system. This type of organization, in which means are adapted to ends and multiple structures and processes perform multiple functions, all of which contribute to the overall functioning of the organism are unattainable by any kind of random process or chance occurrence. It requires insight and insight means intelligence. There's simply no way to get around that basic point. You ask questions that have no answers. I recognize that intelligent input is a requirement but I don't have a clue where this intelligence comes from. I believe that life came to earth from elsewhere with its capacity to create diversity already present. The Darwinian paradigm holds that copying mistakes and the shuffling of existing genes are sufficient to write the new genes needed for evolutionary advances. Cosmic Ancestry holds that these processes cannot write useful new genes. Instead, for a species to make evolutionary progress, new genes must first be installed into its genome from outside.

Charlie wrote:

"The Darwinian paradigm holds that copying mistakes and the shuffling of existing genes are sufficient to write the new genes needed for evolutionary advances. Cosmic Ancestry holds that these processes cannot write useful new genes. Instead, for a species to make evolutionary progress, new genes must first be installed into its genome from outside."

Wrong again oh sultan of nonsense. We bloody well know where new genes come from and it ain't from "outside". So, do you really believe that every mutation is put into every organism by some unknown alien by some unknown mechanism for some unknown prupose, or is it just the beneficial ones? Did this process only occur in the past or is it still going on today? Got any evidence whatsoever for this or are you just content to try to claim that evolution couldn't happen without guidance?

By the way, you claim that you believe in evolution and yet you also claim that it couldn't have produced the organisms we see today without guidance. Exactly how can you claim to believe in evolution then? And who did the guiding? Why did they do it? How did they do it? When did they do it? Did they just introduce mutations and then stand back, or do they determine the outcome of selection as well? If not, why not? If so, then evolution really didn;t occur at all did it? If you can't answer these questions then you really don't have anything to offer at all. Don't worry, no one can force you to believe in evolution, especially if you already claim to.

Charlie Wagner said: "Um, two out of three of those are unguided chemical processes, which seem to require no supernatural intervention." No supernatural intervention but these processes are NOT unguided...Remember DNA? "Chemosynthesis certainly works outside living organisms, as anyone who has dealt with endothermic catalyzed reactions (say, for example, a high school chemistry teacher) will attest." I said "on earth", not "in living organisms".

First of all, I do not argue for “design”. It’s a loaded word with too much baggage. And it begs the question: “who is the designer. You can detect intelligence in nature by the presence of organization.

This type of organization, in which means are adapted to ends and multiple structures and processes perform multiple functions, all of which contribute to the overall functioning of the organism are unattainable by any kind of random process or chance occurrence. It requires insight and insight means intelligence. There’s simply no way to get around that basic point.

neo-anti-luddite said: That's Charlie, all right. He never fails to fail to impress....

Charlie Wagner said: "Um, two out of three of those are unguided chemical processes, which seem to require no supernatural intervention." No supernatural intervention but these processes are NOT unguided...Remember DNA? "Chemosynthesis certainly works outside living organisms, as anyone who has dealt with endothermic catalyzed reactions (say, for example, a high school chemistry teacher) will attest." I said "on earth", not "in living organisms".

Charlie Wagner said: The Darwinian paradigm holds that copying mistakes and the shuffling of existing genes are sufficient to write the new genes needed for evolutionary advances.

Charlie Wagner said: You ask questions that have no answers. I recognize that intelligent input is a requirement but I don't have a clue where this intelligence comes from.

mrg said: And what distinguishes "good" from "bad"? Nothing but the attentiveness of the Grim Reaper that lets the "good" predominate at the expense of the "bad". There's no way to just look at the sequence and say "good" or "bad".

mrg said:

eric said: Physical laws have - and can have - NO foreknowledge of what phenotype will be built from a mutational change in the genotype.

And what distinguishes "good" from "bad"? Nothing but the attentiveness of the Grim Reaper that lets the "good" predominate at the expense of the "bad". There's no way to just look at the sequence and say "good" or "bad". That gradual adaptation is what it's all about, and it can do a lot -- what good is half an eye? It's 1% better than 49% of an eye. This is exactly what would be expected under Darwinian evolution and exactly what is observed. Cheers -- MrG / http://www.vectorsite.net/gblog.html

Charlie Wagner said: “Um, two out of three of those are unguided chemical processes, which seem to require no supernatural intervention.” No supernatural intervention but these processes are NOT unguided…Remember DNA? “Chemosynthesis certainly works outside living organisms, as anyone who has dealt with endothermic catalyzed reactions (say, for example, a high school chemistry teacher) will attest.” I said “on earth”, not “in living organisms”.

Charlie Wagner said: You can detect intelligence in nature by the presence of organization. Living systems are made up of structures and processes integrated in such a way that they not only support each other, but they contribute to the overall function of the living system. This type of organization, in which means are adapted to ends and multiple structures and processes perform multiple functions, all of which contribute to the overall functioning of the organism are unattainable by any kind of random process or chance occurrence. It requires insight and insight means intelligence. There's simply no way to get around that basic point.

Gene duplication plays an essential role in evolution: otherwise all organisms would have the same number of genes. Charlie’s claim that evolution involves only “copying mistakes and the shuffling of existing genes” is (using the language of Judge Jones) “utterly false.”

Robin said: To be consistent though, 49% of an eye might actually be "better" than 50% - it depends on which gets by the Grim Reaper in a given environment.

what good is half an eye? It’s 1% better than 49% of an eye.

mrg said: what good is half an eye? It's 1% better than 49% of an eye. This is exactly what would be expected under Darwinian evolution and exactly what is observed.

mrg said: You don't have a one eye that's 1% better than the other, you have a population that could be represented by, say, a bell-shaped curve for eye effectiveness that ranges in a continuous fashion over a few percent.

I have proposed Nelson's Law…

Based on these observations and experiments, Nelson’s Law is proposed. In its simplest form, Nelson’s Law states that “things do not organize* themselves without intelligent guidance”.

There must be a superior, as yet undetected, signaling [sic] capability in Nature.

The signalling [sic] system must be able to communicate with living cells. The information carrier almost has to be some sort of waveform. Gravity is sufficiently mysterious to qualify as a candidate, but have we yet exhausted all the possibilities of electro-magnetism? The communications medium has to be more sophisticated than straightforward radio-type transmissions, but for purposes of testing options, let us for current purposes propose an adjunct or an associate of electro-magnetism as the medium, leaving the deep question of gravity in reserve.

The quantum computer performed. Can that (presumably) quantum-class communications capability be simulated, revisited, or imitated in some way? Is the tree of life for the healing of the nations (Rev.22:2) in some limited way, even now? And, in passing: if quantum-type computation implicating the solar system is assumed as an aspect of nature, the biblical account of origins and other hitherto mysterious parts of the Bible suddenly become hard fact. We have total correlation with the fossil record. The above deductions are a necessary outcome of taking that Book as the first document of quantum computation. Terms employed in the first chapters of Genesis and elsewhere are "to the manor born" in relation to this branch of science.

The design and assembly of such a machine could not have occurred without intelligent input anymore than your computer could have built itself.

eric said: Oh no, the problem for IDers is even worse than that. Eye A may give a 1% advantage over eye B in environment A', but eye B may give an advantage over A in environment B'. That's why its simply nonsensical to claim that mutation via natural selection can't produce improvement: what counts as an "improvement" is dependent on the specific details of the local conditions, information that is physically and temporally unavailble to DNA replication processes. How could the failure to develop an eye ever possibly be an advantage? When is not being able to see better than being able to see? When could poor sight ever be a better adaptation than good sight? Well, every structure has an opportunity cost. Cave moles don't waste their calories growing eyes. And humans don't waste their neurons supporting vision as good as a hawks. eric

eric said: Cave moles don't waste their calories growing eyes. And humans don't waste their neurons supporting vision as good as a hawks.

Robin said: Bingo! This is the point I was trying to get across. My apologies on poorly articulating it and I thank you Eric for addressing it better.

There must be a superior, as yet undetected, signalling capability in Nature.

The digit display on my irony meter just overflowed.

That's not an argument, Charlie it's just an emotional reaction (surprise...).

Address the man's points, show us what you actually know.

And answer my question: is the 2nd Law time-dependent? Are there more ordered states in the past than in the future?

gregwrld

"“Just in case you didn’t get the significance of Philip Bruce Heywood,"

You do realize that he's a creationist, right?

"Heywood makes the relevant point that God was, and still is, intimately involved in his creation. He is intimately involved with each one of us, and gives us a reason and purpose for living. This needs to be widely taught in our schools, churches and families."

http://www.creationtheory.com/printed.html

"Although there is a great deal of science included within the pages of this book (The Tree of Life and the Origin of the Species.), the reader does not need to have a broad understanding of science, for Heywood has done an excellent job of simplifying the complex so that everyone can understand the various ideas …. . …His goal is not to promote himself or his theory, but to see God glorified. For that he is to be congratulated."

From his biography at the above website:

PHILIP BRUCE HEYWOOD (b.1953).
….claims to be distinguished only as the most consummate of all fools and the chief of sinful men. He barely qualified for the University of Queensland, attending a Geology Department recently vacated by the world-respected anatomist, Dorothy Hill. With some difficulty, both on his own part and on that of the staff, he procured a B. Sc.(hons), under the dedicated tutorship of a staff that accepted evolution, but did not subscribe to Evolutionism, the personal philosophy. Some of the staff had once enjoyed personal contact with the "old school" of science pioneers, and possessed something of the aura of the great Seekers of truth. The author worked as a geologist, with a few completely obscure publications to his name. His calling lay firstly with farming/grazing.
Whilst caring for land under that remarkable evolution (unfolding) of a series of natural near-disasters - the Australian climate - he indulged in a minor, origins-related, educational project. Knowing that confusion reigned in these matters, and knowing little else, he asked for Higher revelation, to enable the project to proceed. The outcome begins to be tabulated herewith. Although all but disinterested in the topic, he saw a potential benefit in presenting some of these remarkable developments to the public.
For him, it has been a privilege to expound these truths. It is gratifying, after having set the story in print, to discover that the pioneering anatomists, especially Cuvier and Owen - of whom the author was in blissful ignorance - came to similar or identical conclusions, with much less information, almost 200 years ago. They could not proceed in these matters, lacking technological backup.
It is humbling to think that even minor truths, such as these, are entrusted to men.

That last post is all ad hominems, Charlie. Address the man's points, not his backgrounds and beliefs!

"And answer my question: is the 2nd Law time-dependent? Are there more ordered states in the past than in the future?

No. Time is an artifact

No.

There are more ordered states in the future than in the past.

In fact, the whole universe, and the life on it, is moving towards greater order. The increases in entropy that we see are local and illusory.

The cosmologists and physicists have it all backwards. It didn't start in the "past". It started in the "future". And the universe is being inexorably drawn to that consequence.

We are on an incredible journey to an unknown conclusion.

Charlie Wagner said: "“Just in case you didn’t get the significance of Philip Bruce Heywood," You do realize that he's a creationist, right?

Time is an artifact

Mike writes... Here are some comparisons of Charlie Wagner’s Theory of Intelligent Input and Philip Bruce Heywood’s Theory of Quantum Computation.

Charlie wrote:

"In fact, the whole universe, and the life on it, is moving towards greater order. The increases in entropy that we see are local and illusory."

Great. So the second law of thermodynamics is moot and evolution of increasing complexity is not a problem. Better inform the creationists pronto. I don't think they will agree.

Charlie, you have not answered any of my questions, or anyone else's that I can see. Please go away before you embaress yourself even more. Here is a hint: even you admit that Bruce is a pompous fraud and everyone here is saying that you look absolutely amateurish in comparison. What does that tell you about your ideas? You aren't fooling anybody, so please just go away.

This is like watching Abbott and Costello trying to convince Watson and Crick that DNA is not the genetic material. It might be good for a laugh, but it gets old real fast. I wonder if Ian thinks that Charlie read the book?

Charlie Wagner said: "Just in case you didn’t get the significance of Philip Bruce Heywood, here is a link to his First Book of Quantum Computation. As you can see, just this first chapter alone puts your Cosmic Ancestry to shame. And there is much more on his web site." I read the whole paper. It fails in the very first sentence!

There must be a superior, as yet undetected, signalling capability in Nature.

This is an unproven (and audacious!) assumption on which he bases his whole theory. My coclusion: Horsepooky

"and everyone here is saying that you look absolutely amateurish in comparison. What does that tell you about your ideas?"

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds"

- Albert Einstein

Charlie Wagner said: "and everyone here is saying that you look absolutely amateurish in comparison. What does that tell you about your ideas?" "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds" - Albert Einstein

Charlie Wagner said: “and everyone here is saying that you look absolutely amateurish in comparison. What does that tell you about your ideas?” “Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds” - Albert Einstein

Charlie Wagner said: "and everyone here is saying that you look absolutely amateurish in comparison. What does that tell you about your ideas?" "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds" - Albert Einstein

Charlie Wagner said: "and everyone here is saying that you look absolutely amateurish in comparison. What does that tell you about your ideas?" "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds" - Albert Einstein

I'm finished.

(Daniel Plainview in "There Will Be Blood")

fnxtr said: Isn't that worth 20 on the crank index right there?

Charlie Wagner said: I'm finished.

Charlie Wagner said: "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds" - Albert Einstein

This is certainly true. But it’s also true that poor spirits have encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds. And that mediocre spirits have encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds. And that non spirits have encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.

Charlie Wagner said: I'm finished. (Daniel Plainview in "There Will Be Blood")

stevaroni said: The common denominator here is the tendency of mediocre minds to reflexively oppose stuff. Violently.

Ouch! Thanks Mike. Now my head hurts again. Owie! Owie!

eric said:

Robin said: Bingo! This is the point I was trying to get across. My apologies on poorly articulating it and I thank you Eric for addressing it better.

I would say 'great minds think alike' but you may not want to be brought down to my level. I'm a lowly chemist, stuck halfway between the 'superior because its more fundamental' physicists and the 'superior because its more complicated' biologists. :-)

Charlie Wagner said: "And answer my question: is the 2nd Law time-dependent? Are there more ordered states in the past than in the future? No. Time is an artifact No. There are more ordered states in the future than in the past. In fact, the whole universe, and the life on it, is moving towards greater order. The increases in entropy that we see are local and illusory. The cosmologists and physicists have it all backwards. It didn't start in the "past". It started in the "future". And the universe is being inexorably drawn to that consequence. We are on an incredible journey to an unknown conclusion.

I wonder what the expansion of space (due to Big Bang) does to the entropy of stuff in a finite volume of that expanding space.

Henry J said: I wonder what the expansion of space (due to Big Bang) does to the entropy of stuff in a finite volume of that expanding space.

I've never understood that "when local expansion is faster than the speed of light" thing. If the rate of expansion is proportional to distance, there's going to be a distance short enough to be below c. Only way I can think to have particles unable to be closer together than that distance would be if it's quantum length distance that's expanding faster than c - is that what this was saying?

Henry

Robin said:

Charlie Wagner said: "And answer my question: is the 2nd Law time-dependent? Are there more ordered states in the past than in the future? No. Time is an artifact No. There are more ordered states in the future than in the past. In fact, the whole universe, and the life on it, is moving towards greater order. The increases in entropy that we see are local and illusory. The cosmologists and physicists have it all backwards. It didn't start in the "past". It started in the "future". And the universe is being inexorably drawn to that consequence. We are on an incredible journey to an unknown conclusion.

I call Poe

Methinks Charlie should acquaint himself better with the literature on entropy. Perhaps a read of Brain Greene's "The Fabric of the Cosmos". There's a nice section on the probability of the number of ordered states in the past versus the future.

I’m inclined to believe he was faking everything he said about himself.

Somehow this doesn’t feel like Charlie is a straight-up Poe. He’s been around too long and gone through too much trouble with the website and everything.

— stevaroni

Henry J said: I've never understood that "when local expansion is faster than the speed of light" thing. If the rate of expansion is proportional to distance, there's going to be a distance short enough to be below c. Only way I can think to have particles unable to be closer together than that distance would be if it's quantum length distance that's expanding faster than c - is that what this was saying? Henry

Henry J said: I've never understood that "when local expansion is faster than the speed of light" thing. Henry