Another smackdown of Dembski & Marks

In critiquing his [Dawkins’] example and arguing that information is not created by unguided evolutionary processes, we are indeed making an argument that supports ID.

Um, evidence that may not convict Johnny of stealing doesn't necessarily exonerate Jimmy. . . .

"Although the monkey/Shakespeare model is useful for explaining the distinction between single-step selection and cumulative selection, it is misleading in important ways." --Richard Dawkins

Well, I guess I'm glad Mr. Dembski agrees with Mr. Dawkins about that. (I guess.) Lol.

Anyone who has done even the simplest of computer programs to solve for root of equations would recognize that simply defining the problem to be solved also hauls in the characteristics of the allowed sets of solutions and the domains over which the functions are defined.

Even the Newton-Raphson method for finding the zeroes of a function makes use of differentiability.

Things like continuity, differentiability, analyticity or whatever other characteristics apply to the possible solution sets are all used in the computer algorithms that solve problems. You can’t even talk about solving a problem without envisioning the allowed solution sets and their characteristics.

It is also a scientific fact that much of the world of physics and chemistry, and by implication biology, are very well represented by mathematical functions which have the properties of continuity, differentiability, analyticity as well as domains over which the functions have any meaning.

Even in cases involving discreet solutions, such as those in quantum mechanics, we can know from Schrödinger’s equation, for example, what the distribution of probabilities might be.

And in highly non-linear problems that model much of the physical world, we see emergent properties and increasing complexity that accurately mimic the real world.

So D&M’s objections are both childish and churlish. Our understanding of nature is reflected in the accuracy of our computer models in producing observed phenomena.

We don’t smuggle in the answer, as they keep saying; we put in the processes of Nature as we understand them. Those processes lead to the “answers” in our programs, just as they do in Nature.

This blog is listed on

www.creationism.com

Dueling news feeds!

Keep an eye on the other guy!

Mike Elzinga said: We don’t smuggle in the answer, as they keep saying; we put in the processes of Nature as we understand them.

And of course, it's just another lazy attempt by creationists to "prove that evolution can't be possible" without addressing biology at all.

What about the very obvious measurable fact that when nucleic acids replicate in biological systems, the sequence of the copy strands is virtually never exactly the same as the sequence of the template strand (as would be predicted by everything we know about physics and chemistry)?

What about the undeniable fact that some nucleic acid changes will lead to phenotypic changes, and that some phenotypes will have a relative reproductive advantage, making it statistically likely that associated alleles will increase in frequency in the population?

What about the obvious fact that distribution of alleles can also be impacted by what we humans experience as "random chance", and that such effects can be quite strong when population sizes are low?

All of the above can be observed and quantified with ease. If the above is happening, and it is, then life MUST evolve.

How does Dembski square his abstract claim that evolution must be impossible (and that is clearly what he is claiming) with the simple observed fact that it must be happening?

Also, of course, even if we throw up our hands and "agree" with him that evolution as we now understand it "must be impossible" due to some arcane characteristic of "information", what is his explanation of the diversity of life on earth? If grizzly bears and polar bears aren't more similar to each other than they are to raccoons because of evolution, how does HE explain life's diversity? If he can "prove" that our major explanatory theory is wrong, what does he propose to replace it with?

wile coyote said: "No, it would be arbitrary if we DIDN'T. Elmer Fudd may not actually drop until he looks down after walking off a cliff, but a good gamesim RESPECTS THE LAWS OF PHYSICS."

Any student of physics knows that cartoons have their own Laws of Physics.

DNAJock said: Any student of physics knows that cartoons have their own Laws of Physics.

In order to reach the theoretical lower bound, which in this case is 93.28 nats (or 134.6 bits), the Weasel program must be modified so that fitness is evaluated on an absurdly biased scale with 10^40 possible unsatisfactory fitness values for every possible satisfactory value.

Not to mention the bird seed as bait, for a bird that would prefer a nice juicy lizard or snake... ;)

harold said: How does Dembski square his abstract claim that evolution must be impossible (and that is clearly what he is claiming) with the simple observed fact that it must be happening?

Daffyd ap Morgen said: What is also troubling is how the author of the Metropolis Sampler demonstrates how Dembski and Marks skewed their data:

In order to reach the theoretical lower bound, which in this case is 93.28 nats (or 134.6 bits), the Weasel program must be modified so that fitness is evaluated on an absurdly biased scale with 10^40 possible unsatisfactory fitness values for every possible satisfactory value.

Simply put, MetSam's analysis of their results shows D&M (as I suspected) re-wrote the "Weasel Program" until it gave them the results they wanted.

Creationists never stop trying to find a way to disprove evolution. Attack the biological evidence, get refuted. Attack the paleontological evidence, get refuted. Attack the geological record to say the earth is young, get refuted. Try irreducible complexity, get BLOWN OUT OF THE WATER on the witness stand. So information theory is the last, and furthest removed, desperate area in which these simpering buffoons can pin their hopes.

KP said: ...Try irreducible complexity, get BLOWN OUT OF THE WATER on the witness stand.

So information theory is the last, and furthest removed, desperate area in which these simpering buffoons can pin their hopes.

No-one seems to have commented on the nature of the journal that Dembski published in:
IEEE is an acronym for "Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers" .
I am not surprised that he chose (was obliged to?) publish in an Engineering Journal, given the number of creation-supporting "scientists" who are actually engineers. The paper would not have gotten past a biologially-trained referee, who would (likely) be familiar with the true nature of the Weasel program.

Search 'IEEE' and you will find a site listing that is followed by the blurb: "Technical objectives center on advancing the theory and practice of electrical, electronics, and computer engineering and science."

How D's paper meets these goals is not clear to me.

Marks is a fellow of IEEE. However, judging from the length of the list of fellows in just the southwest region that's not a particularly rare phenomenon.

Henry J said: Not to mention the bird seed as bait, for a bird that would prefer a nice juicy lizard or snake... ;)

Henry J said: Not to mention the bird seed as bait, for a bird that would prefer a nice juicy lizard or snake... ;)

djlactin said: No-one seems to have commented on the nature of the journal that Dembski published in: IEEE is an acronym for "Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers" . I am not surprised that he chose (was obliged to?) publish in an Engineering Journal, given the number of creation-supporting "scientists" who are actually engineers. The paper would not have gotten past a biologially-trained referee, who would (likely) be familiar with the true nature of the Weasel program. Search 'IEEE' and you will find a site listing that is followed by the blurb: "Technical objectives center on advancing the theory and practice of electrical, electronics, and computer engineering and science." How D's paper meets these goals is not clear to me.

And by "random variation + mutation" I meant "random variation + selection" ...

I've never been able to get an ID creationist to tell me where the 'smuggled information' came from in the case study lineage of The Evolution Origin of Complex Features. See here for a discussion here on PT )note that a platform migration totally wiped out the paragraphs in that post!).

SWT said:

djlactin said: No-one seems to have commented on the nature of the journal that Dembski published in: IEEE is an acronym for "Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers" . I am not surprised that he chose (was obliged to?) publish in an Engineering Journal, given the number of creation-supporting "scientists" who are actually engineers. The paper would not have gotten past a biologially-trained referee, who would (likely) be familiar with the true nature of the Weasel program. Search 'IEEE' and you will find a site listing that is followed by the blurb: "Technical objectives center on advancing the theory and practice of electrical, electronics, and computer engineering and science." How D's paper meets these goals is not clear to me.

The paper is about information and search algorithms, and so is appropriate for this IEEE publication (which has a pretty low impact factor compared to other IEEE journals). I doubt the paper would have passed muster in a biology-oriented journal because it's not about biology, but I'm not a biologist. If I had been one of the reviewers, my principal comments would have focused on the unremarkable nature of their conclusions and their failure to apply their concept to a significant example of an evolutionary search, or even a significant in silico instantiation of random variation + mutation such as is found in Avida or Tierra. Without such a demonstration, their conclusion that "attempts to characterize evolutionary algorithms as creators of novel information are inappropriate" is not justified. My recommendation would have been "may be publishable after major revision."

William Dembski: The implications of intelligent design are radical in the true sense of this much overused word. The question posed by intelligent design is not how we should do science and theology in light of the triumph of Enlightenment rationalism and scientific naturalism. The question is rather how we should do science and theology in light of the impending collapse of Enlightenment rationalism and scientific naturalism. These ideologies are on the way out…because they are bankrupt.

raven said: Let's play psychiatrist over the internet. 1. IIRC Dembski has an autistic child. 2. Autism has a strong genetic component. 3. Dembski is a kook, an a somewhat hostile one at that. Look what he did to Eric Pianka. He certainly hasn't displayed much of human affiliative behavior and his social skills got him kicked out of Baylor twice. It is quite possible that Dembski has an autism spectrum disorder. Just an opinion with some reasoning behind it and worth what you paid for it.

Dembski and his family have my sympathy in dealing with autism, and you are the one who needs counselling.

you are the one who needs counselling.

As a senior member of the IEEE, I am ashamed.

However, I must concur with the previous statement that this is easily the most obscure journal of the IEEE; I was unaware of it until now.

Dembski and Marks (2009a) mention “a simple self-replicating molecule, an autocatalytic set, or a lipid membrane” as examples of biological targets. However, these chemical concepts presuppose model assumptions from physics, chemistry and biochemistry and they could hardly be independent of the chemical processes by which they are thought to arise.

raven says: Dembski’s goal is to destroy Western civilization.

This is truly one of the most offensive things I have ever seen posted,

Dembski and his family have my sympathy in dealing with autism,

and you are the one who needs counselling.

Joel Felsenstein -

In fact, although again, I sympathize with your instincts, I find the most offensive statement in the entire exchange involving you and Raven to be your statement "you are the one who needs counseling".

You use the phrase "needs counseling" as a criticism. The implication is clearly that people who "need" counseling or therapy are less good than people who don't seek counseling or therapy.

Nobody "needs" anything except air, water, and a minimum supply of nutrients. Many people make use of professional therapy or counseling, for many reasons.

Obviously you didn't intend it that way.

harold said: I sympathize with where you're coming from, but this is an over-reaction to what was posted. The statement by Raven was somewhat insensitive toward Dembski, but was not insulting to individuals or families with autism in general. The factual part of the statement was factual. ... Surmising that someone might have a mild autism spectrum disorder is not that offensive.

Dembski and his family have my sympathy in dealing with autism,

And mine as well, whatever I may think of the way he makes his living.

and you are the one who needs counselling.

To some degree you are committing a milder version of the very behavior you condemn here. For all we know, the person who posts as Raven may get counseling or therapy for any number of reasons.

If you want to see who has made offensive statements.

Dembski openly hates "Enlightenment rationalism and scientific naturalism" and wants to replace them with a theocracy. At other times he has openly expressed his hatred of science and scientists. Once he said he wanted to disband all biology departments and fire all biologists.

He also made a bogus report to Homeland Security calling Eric Pianka, a prominent ecologist, a terrorist. Both Pianka and the Texas Academy of Science then received numerous death threats and Pianka was interviewed by the FBI. He never once said he was sorry, because he isn't.

As one who favors living in a free democratic country which was once the envy of the world and appreciates what modern science and medicine has done for us, this is profoundly unsettling and, you bet, offensive.

raven said: He also made a bogus report to Homeland Security calling Eric Pianka, a prominent ecologist, a terrorist. Both Pianka and the Texas Academy of Science then received numerous death threats and Pianka was interviewed by the FBI. He never once said he was sorry, because he isn't.

Amateurs (and often professionals) diagnosing cognitive or emotional disorders on the Internet is a fool's game at best, and is a style of commentary that's over the line. Commentary on the troubles of Dembski's (or anyone else's) family are out of line. So let that be the last of it. Had I not been busy elsewhere this afternoon I'd have sent the first offending post to the Bathroom Wall. Since there's a string of comments associated with it that have additional content I'll leave it, but let that be the last of such commentary.

Thanks,
RBH

stevaroni said:

raven says: Dembski’s goal is to destroy Western civilization.

(snip) The only saving grace is that Dembski doesn't have a television show on a news network.

You know, when this all broke out I actually went and commented on uncommon decent this, but apparently that was too easy, so they deleted my comment.

But seriously, was that so hard?

raven said: If you want to see who has made offensive statements. Dembski openly hates "Enlightenment rationalism and scientific naturalism" and wants to replace them with a theocracy. At other times he has openly expressed his hatred of science and scientists. Once he said he wanted to disband all biology departments and fire all biologists. He also made a bogus report to Homeland Security calling Eric Pianka, a prominent ecologist, a terrorist. Both Pianka and the Texas Academy of Science then received numerous death threats and Pianka was interviewed by the FBI. He never once said he was sorry, because he isn't. As one who favors living in a free democratic country which was once the envy of the world and appreciates what modern science and medicine has done for us, this is profoundly unsettling and, you bet, offensive.

So information theory is the last, and furthest removed, desperate area in which these simpering buffoons can pin their hopes.

— KP

Frank J said:

So information theory is the last, and furthest removed, desperate area in which these simpering buffoons can pin their hopes.

— KP

I see them as neither desperate nor buffoons. People of Dembski’s caliber in the anti-evolution movement have long moved past the “stages of grief” and have come to the grips with the fact that they have nothing new to offer science. They know what they need to do to be welcomed into the science (and math) and they don’t even try. So they have developed a multi-part strategy to fool their target audience. Part of their audience is mostly impressed with the high-tech talk between them and real scientists and mathematicians, and wrongly assumes a real controversy. Making matters worse is that their critics often come across as annoyed and impatient (which they have every right to be), while Dembski et al have nothing to lose, and thus possess a cocky confidence that just makes most people want to root for them. For another subset of their audience they can afford to recycle biology/chemistry/paleontology arguments that they know were long discredited. Whatever arguments they use, they are careful to only frame them to promote doubt of evolution, and not to make any claims for an alternate explanation (e.g. the independent origin of “kinds” per YEC and OEC) that they know can’t stand up to scrutiny. Why call attention to long-discredited origins stories when your audience usually infers their favorite one anyway – without thinking of critically analyzing it, or even being aware of its mutual contradictions with other falsified ones?

"are hoping to illicit much sympathy from a scientifically illiterate..." - what about literacy in English?

Why didn't Weber submit the critique to the IEEE journal? It seems to be the best appropriate place to critique Dembski's and Marks' paper.

novparl said: "are hoping to illicit much sympathy from a scientifically illiterate..." - what about literacy in English?

Enezio E. de Almeida Filho said: Why didn't Weber submit the critique to the IEEE journal? It seems to be the best appropriate place to critique Dembski's and Marks' paper.

386sx said:

In critiquing his [Dawkins’] example and arguing that information is not created by unguided evolutionary processes, we are indeed making an argument that supports ID.

Does Dembski ever give a rational for that? Or is it just a bald assertion. Lol. What a ridiculous statement. And there's that weasel word "unguided" again. People are supposed to know what it means? How come laws of nature can't "guide" things? (Actually they do know what it means. It means "without Jesus".)

The only way to understand the above is if one accepts the religious antievolution “two model” way of thinking. That goes like this: there are only two alternatives, evolution or {creation | design}. Therefore, evidence against evolution is evidence for {creation | design}. The “two model” argument got well-deserved thrashings in McLean v. Arkansas and Edwards v. Aguillard. It’s nice to see Dembski continuing to stick with just the classic, long-rebutted religious antievolution arguments.

John Kwok said: If you're really a Christian, then you'd reject Dembski's abysmal behavior towards the likes of the people of Dover, PA, noted evolutionary biologists Jerry Coyne and Kevin Padian, and, last but not least, a minor figure like yours truly.

For any physicists who happen to be paying attention:

I'm trying to get some help in arguing against the Dembski-Marks physical interpretation of active information.

As an unwashed non-physicist, I don't know of an instance in nature of a uniform random process over the full range of configurations of a macroscopic system, except when there is in some sense external control of the process. I'm thinking, for instance, that a deck of cards does not shuffle itself. Please set me straight, if necessary, or help me firm up my statement.

As a computer scientist, I know that it takes a lot of work to get a stream of apparently unbiased and uncorrelated bits from observations of quantum phenomena. Were I to be less "active" by ceasing to clean up the bit stream, a program using the stream to implement random search could gain active information. That is, reduced intervention of an "intelligent" entity in a search can introduce active information.

In the realm of engineering, the choice of a particular search algorithm over uniform sampling with replacement is in an intuitive sense active. We know that there is an engineer doing the choosing, and it is reasonable to ask, "What did you gain by doing things the way you did, rather than in an arbitrary fashion, and how did you know what to do?" But, as I have already shown, random search in computation does not result from inactivity. Thus the loaded term "active information" is problematic from the get-go.

When we turn to nature, there is no engineer to challenge as to choice of one process over another, unless we beg the question that nature is engineered. Deviations from uniformity in nature no more necessitate activity of some external entity than do deviations from uniformity in computation.

Thanks in advance for contributions to the argument.

Tom English--

The very strong input which creates the illusion of some "engineer doing the choosing" in evolution is the environment, including other living creatures. Lions and other African carnivores, for instance, do very actively choose less swift prey and those with less developed herd instincts. Consequently, they have "engineered" fast antelopes with strong herd instincts.

Dembski and the other IDers play on the general public's sense that animals like highly evolved antelopes must have been engineered in some way to claim that the engineer most have been some supernatural being.

You may note, however, that the carnivores are making life more difficult for their own descendants by creating ever swifter, more elusive, prey species. They never get together and decide, "say, let's go after those gazelles in the middle of the herd. That'll screw up gazelle herd instincts and make life easier for our grandchildren." This phenomenon is usually expressed by evolutionary theorists by the phrase, "evolution has no foresight."

ID theorists dwell endlessly on the apparent design in nature, but I've never read of one commenting on evolution's lack of foresight. If gazelles were truly shaped by a supernatural being instead of by lions and hyenas trying to make a living the easiest way possible, it must be a superlatively stupid supernatural being. The more plausible conclusion is, it's just lions and hyenas all the way down.

For any physicists who happen to be paying attention:

I’m trying to get some help in arguing against the Dembski-Marks physical interpretation of active information.

As an unwashed non-physicist

I don’t know of an instance in nature of a uniform random process over the full range of configurations of a macroscopic system, except when there is in some sense external control of the process.

I’m thinking, for instance, that a deck of cards does not shuffle itself. Please set me straight, if necessary, or help me firm up my statement.

As a computer scientist,

I know that it takes a lot of work to get a stream of apparently unbiased and uncorrelated bits from observations of quantum phenomena... ...When we turn to nature, there is no engineer to challenge as to choice of one process over another, unless we beg the question that nature is engineered. Deviations from uniformity in nature no more necessitate activity of some external entity than do deviations from uniformity in computation.

Thanks in advance for contributions to the argument.

A posting on UNCOMMON DESCENT identifies two individuals named "Tom English", one on each side of the ID fence. He may not be an evobasher; he may merely be someone with dismal communication skills.

Tom English is just one person, a published computer scientist with expertise in "No Free Lunch" theorems. He has criticized Dembski and Marks previously, while also saying that D&M have raised some legitimate questions. At one point, English lent his name as an associate of Marks' "Evolutionary Informatics Laboratory" effort as a protest against Baylor's actions, which English deemed to be contrary to academic freedom. English was clear then to distinguish his participation as such a protest, and not that he was agreeing with Marks and Dembski in their conceptual stances.

Tom's comment above is of a piece with his prior commentary on the topic: it accepts that some legitimate issues are raised, but notes some areas where the analysis by Dembski and Marks is misguided, and specifically he is seeking some further information to make a more extensive critique. While I tend to view the participation of Dembski and Marks in these topics to have little utility, seeing as the issues English notes as legitimate are not novel to D&M, I don't see the point to acting as if English is himself an enemy here.

Tom English said: As an unwashed non-physicist, I don't know of an instance in nature of a uniform random process over the full range of configurations of a macroscopic system, except when there is in some sense external control of the process. I'm thinking, for instance, that a deck of cards does not shuffle itself. Please set me straight, if necessary, or help me firm up my statement.

Are you? False claims of expertise in the physical sciences, engineering, or computer science are common on the creationist side of things. What type of physicist are you? ...

The connection between ID and creationism is inconsistent with Dembski's argument. To associate the two is a generalization of the facts of the argument. I am a creationist and would acknowledge the ID assumptions, but my assumptions are far more broad in that I put a face to the Intelligence "giver". Associating the two is a means of charging the evolution-creation debate. ID makes some consistent scientific observations about the nature of intelligence. These questions are worthy of study especially in light of the complex nature of cellular structures compared with Darwin's simplistic view.

Wesley R. Elsberry said:

386sx said:

In critiquing his [Dawkins’] example and arguing that information is not created by unguided evolutionary processes, we are indeed making an argument that supports ID.

Does Dembski ever give a rational for that? Or is it just a bald assertion. Lol. What a ridiculous statement. And there's that weasel word "unguided" again. People are supposed to know what it means? How come laws of nature can't "guide" things? (Actually they do know what it means. It means "without Jesus".)

If you know the historical context of the religious antievolution movement, one can understand why Dembski thinks he has a point:

The only way to understand the above is if one accepts the religious antievolution “two model” way of thinking. That goes like this: there are only two alternatives, evolution or {creation | design}. Therefore, evidence against evolution is evidence for {creation | design}. The “two model” argument got well-deserved thrashings in McLean v. Arkansas and Edwards v. Aguillard. It’s nice to see Dembski continuing to stick with just the classic, long-rebutted religious antievolution arguments.

"You don't need to see his identification. These droids aren't the ones you're looking for. ID is not a superfical mask for traditional creationism." The FORCE gives power over the weak of mind!

Jordan Wallace said: The connection between ID and creationism is inconsistent with Dembski's argument. To associate the two is a generalization of the facts of the argument. I am a creationist and would acknowledge the ID assumptions, but my assumptions are far more broad in that I put a face to the Intelligence "giver". Associating the two is a means of charging the evolution-creation debate. ID makes some consistent scientific observations about the nature of intelligence. These questions are worthy of study especially in light of the complex nature of cellular structures compared with Darwin's simplistic view.

Jordan Wallace said: ID makes some consistent scientific observations about the nature of intelligence.

386sx said: I wonder of Mr. Dembski has ever had anything to say about this particular criticism. Anybody could make a “two model” argument about anything. How's come cookies are missing from the cookie jar? Apply “two model” argument -> God is collecting cookies.

eric said:

Jordan Wallace said: ID makes some consistent scientific observations about the nature of intelligence.

Jordan, I'm not familiar with those. Could you tell me what ID has to say about the nature of intelligence? And congrats. Only four more posts until you earn that 20% of your grade.

Jordan Wallace said: The connection between ID and creationism is inconsistent with Dembski's argument. To associate the two is a generalization of the facts of the argument. I am a creationist and would acknowledge the ID assumptions, but my assumptions are far more broad in that I put a face to the Intelligence "giver". Associating the two is a means of charging the evolution-creation debate. ID makes some consistent scientific observations about the nature of intelligence. These questions are worthy of study especially in light of the complex nature of cellular structures compared with Darwin's simplistic view.

Jordan Wallace said:

eric said:

Jordan Wallace said: ID makes some consistent scientific observations about the nature of intelligence.

Jordan, I'm not familiar with those. Could you tell me what ID has to say about the nature of intelligence? And congrats. Only four more posts until you earn that 20% of your grade.

The point that Dembski and ID makes is that intelligence is not gained through evolutionary means. When you conclude that observations you make match reality you assume you have that capacity. Evolution does not provide for such intelligence. The structure of a cell is a complex of information systems working in an engineered pattern. Evolution (by evolution I mean Darwinian Evolution) provides no mechanism or causation for the presence of the engineered structures. Of course, this is the ID argument made on the basis of evidence. My creationistic presuppositions focus on the more certain reality of the God of the Bible. ID makes no claim to The God but only to intelligence and design in general.

wile coyote said: "You don't need to see his identification. These droids aren't the ones you're looking for. ID is not a superfical mask for traditional creationism." The FORCE gives power over the weak of mind!

You're still childish for subscribing to something that has no empirical support, John.

Rilke's Granddaughter said: You're still childish for subscribing to something that has no empirical support, John.

RG -

So you still think I am a "fan" and "autograph hound" simply because I asked Ken Miller to sign my copy of his "Only A Theory" at a New York City Brown alumni event held in his honor last spring? I think you are utterly delusional twit if you still believe that (I suppose you would make the same accusation of other Brunonians who asked Ken to sign copies of his books too at this event, right?).

Jordan Wallace said: The point that Dembski and ID makes is that intelligence is not gained through evolutionary means. When you conclude that observations you make match reality you assume you have that capacity. Evolution does not provide for such intelligence. The structure of a cell is a complex of information systems working in an engineered pattern. Evolution (by evolution I mean Darwinian Evolution) provides no mechanism or causation for the presence of the engineered structures. Of course, this is the ID argument made on the basis of evidence. My creationistic presuppositions focus on the more certain reality of the God of the Bible. ID makes no claim to The God but only to intelligence and design in general.

Jordan Wallace said: The point that Dembski and ID makes is that intelligence is not gained through evolutionary means.

Evolution (by evolution I mean Darwinian Evolution) provides no mechanism or causation for the presence of the engineered structures.

eric said:

Jordan Wallace said: The point that Dembski and ID makes is that intelligence is not gained through evolutionary means.

In their "technical" work Behe and Dembski have claimed that the mammalian immune system, the mammalian blood clotting system, and the flagella are designed. They have never made any claim that intelligence itself is the product of design and I challenge you to show me where they have. In fact Behe said in Dover that aliens were a possible intelligent designer, implying the opposite. Now, I'd agree with you that whether intelligence can evolve is the key question (because if it can, ID is irrelevant to questions about God). But outside of Church speeches Dembski has not "said something" about whether intelligence can evolve. Whenever they are speaking outside of their faith community, he and Behe stick to claiming that intelligence produced design, not that intelligence is the product of design. Many of us also find this 'different messages for different audiences' approach of theirs to be disingenuous. If they have a scientific case for intelligence being designed, they should make it. If they don't, they should stop implying to their co-religionists that they do.

Evolution (by evolution I mean Darwinian Evolution) provides no mechanism or causation for the presence of the engineered structures.

The mechanism is mutation followed by natural selection. Take any propagating string of C, G, A, and T, and mutate one of them or mutationally add/subtract to the string. If the results survive and propagate, you have yourself an "engineered structure" without a designer.

You're still childish for subscribing to something that has no empirical support, John.

Jordan Wallace said: The point that Dembski and ID makes is that intelligence is not gained through evolutionary means. When you conclude that observations you make match reality you assume you have that capacity. Evolution does not provide for such intelligence.

The structure of a cell is a complex of information systems working in an engineered pattern.

Evolution (by evolution I mean Darwinian Evolution) provides no mechanism or causation for the presence of the engineered structures.

SWT said: Dembski is on record defining intelligence as "the power and facility to choose between options." Evolutionary processes qualify as "intelligent" by Dembski's own definition.

Rilke's Granddaughter said: You're still childish for subscribing to something that has no empirical support, John.

Pete Dunkelberg and Wesley Elsberry -

Thanks for clearing up the identity of Tom English.

False claims to be a computer scientist, engineer, or physical scientist are common among creationist posters on the internet. I said perfectly clearly that I might be wrong and that my answer was the same anyway.

English's "questions" centered on purported analogies or models of biological evolution which are not used by anyone who understands biological evolution, and which were tantamount to straw man misrepresentations. I stated in my reply that I wasn't sure whether he was making those misrepresentations himself, or paraphrasing misrepresentations of Dembski and Marks.

I guess he's a well-meaning computer scientist and physicist who needs to learn more biology if he wants to discuss evolution.

I strongly defend my highly informative reply to him. Rather than merely explain that the existence of misleading straw man analogies does not challenge the theory of evolution, I went further and gave him terse but decent introduction to how biological evolution actually works. I'm sure he'll find that useful.

harold,

Great job on your reply to Tom English. Found it not only terse and to the point, but more importantly, quite lucid.

Appreciatively yours,

John

Rilke's Granddaughter said: You're still childish for subscribing to something that has no empirical support, John.

RBH said:

SWT said: Dembski is on record defining intelligence as "the power and facility to choose between options." Evolutionary processes qualify as "intelligent" by Dembski's own definition.

It's noteworthy that a Ph.D. neuroscientist of my acquaintance, who goes by the nom de net of "Febble," was banned from Uncommon Descent for making exactly that point.

Jordan Wallace said: The structure of a cell is a complex of information systems working in an engineered pattern. Evolution (by evolution I mean Darwinian Evolution) provides no mechanism or causation for the presence of the engineered structures. Of course, this is the ID argument made on the basis of evidence.

The structure of a cell is a complex of information systems working in an orderly fashion. Evolution (by evolution I mean Darwinian Evolution) provides a well documented mechanism or causation for the presence of such systems. They have been demonstrated to be produced by the combined effects of random mutations and cumulative selection. Of course, the ID argument is made on the basis of no evidence whatsoever, while the selection model hs been extensively documented for many structures and many different systems, many of which have been defined as "irreducibly complex" by ID advocates.

There, all fixed.

Jordan Wallace said:

eric said:

Jordan Wallace said: ID makes some consistent scientific observations about the nature of intelligence.

Jordan, I'm not familiar with those. Could you tell me what ID has to say about the nature of intelligence? And congrats. Only four more posts until you earn that 20% of your grade.

The point that Dembski and ID makes is that intelligence is not gained through evolutionary means. When you conclude that observations you make match reality you assume you have that capacity. Evolution does not provide for such intelligence.

Opinion masquerading as fact.

The structure of a cell is a complex of information systems working in an engineered pattern.

Engineered by what? Define *information system*

Evolution (by evolution I mean Darwinian Evolution) provides no mechanism or causation for the presence of the engineered structures. Of course, this is the ID argument made on the basis of evidence.

So complex electrical circuits designed by genetic algorithms do not exsist?

My creationistic presuppositions focus on the more certain reality of the God of the Bible. ID makes no claim to The God but only to intelligence and design in general.

The latter remark is a smokescreen if not an outright falsehood. Dembski himself says ID is just "Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory". I suppose that has nothing to do with God. Congratulations, you have bought the scam, hook, line and sinker.

Wesley R. Elsberry said: Tom English is just one person, a published computer scientist with expertise in "No Free Lunch" theorems. [...] Tom's comment above is of a piece with his prior commentary on the topic: it accepts that some legitimate issues are raised, but notes some areas where the analysis by Dembski and Marks is misguided, and specifically he is seeking some further information to make a more extensive critique. While I tend to view the participation of Dembski and Marks in these topics to have little utility, seeing as the issues English notes as legitimate are not novel to D&M, I don't see the point to acting as if English is himself an enemy here.

harold said: Tom English -

For any physicists who happen to be paying attention:

Why are you specifically asking physicists a question about biology?

Dan said: The situation of producing random outputs from various initial conditions is called "ergoditicity".

Sylvilagus said:

Jordan Wallace said: The structure of a cell is a complex of information systems working in an engineered pattern. Evolution (by evolution I mean Darwinian Evolution) provides no mechanism or causation for the presence of the engineered structures. Of course, this is the ID argument made on the basis of evidence.

Hi Jordan - Two comments. 1) Your argument here strikes me as circular. You predefine cells as working in an "engineered" pattern, which implies design. And hten claim that Darwinian evolution cannot account for the presence of engineered structures. How do you know these structures are engineered? You've just defined them that way. What's the evidence? 2)You claim that the ID argument is made on the basis of evidence. I'd be curious to see the evidence. can you offer even a single example of evidence of an "engineered" structure that evolution cannot account for? I can't think of any real evidence that ID is based upon. Just claims of "engineering" and "irreducible complexity" but no actual evidence of such. Thanks in advance for helping instruct me.

JW, Sylvilagus didn't state any "conclusion". S/he asked you for evidence.

You replied that you simply presuppose God, and therefore His craftsmanship. So you admit that there is no evidence of this?

Sylvilagus also asked you what evidence there is for design - engineering - in living things. You provided no evidence for that, either. You assume God; you assume his design. Evidence, apparently, is not required for these things, for you. Well, all right, if you say so. But let us enquire a little further.

You imply that your assumptions are of the same order as the assumption that naturalistic processes produced life. Not so. Your assumptions are far greater.

Naturalistic processes exist, and they operate by fixed principles that can be demonstrated empirically. They can, and do, create greater and greater amounts of complexity and order. There is no assumption there. It is true that the idea that they can produce self-replicating molecules in time, under the right conditions, is an extrapolation. But it is an extrapolation of evidence, not an assumption with no foundation whatsoever, like your assumptions.

And once self-replication occurs, then we are back in the arena of evidence once more. Descent with modification is a demonstrated fact. Natural selection is a demonstrated fact. Genetics, biochemical and molecular evidence, transitional species, perfect nesting, observed speciation and much other evidence, are demonstrated facts.

Thus, we must choose between a blind assumption on a basis of pure faith alone, and a much smaller extrapolation between two sets of known, demonstrable facts. I choose the latter.

If by "closed system" you mean the entire universe... yeah, I guess.

The method of inquiry as if natural processes are responsible for events and objects is used because it works.

It's all of a piece. For example: If the earth is 6,000 years old or so, then radio-isotope dating is wrong. If radio-isotope dating is wrong, then atomic theory, relativity, and quantum physics are all wrong. If they're wrong, your computer won't work. But it does. It's quite beautiful, really.

There may well be a 'first cause', but -- so far -- all understanding of the universe achieved in the last several hundred years shows that whatever it is, to all appearances it isn't currently interfering with natural processes. There is no reason to suspect biochemistry is any exception, except (heh), as you have admitted, a prior commitment to a supernatural explanation. Which is outside the scope of science.

You are free to believe whatever you want, but we ask you not to pretend it has any evidence behind it other than "just because".

I hope this was complementary to Dave's response and not redundant.

That really is what we’re up against: presuppositionalist thinking vs. evidential thinking, in Purdom’s terms. As I remarked in my AIG creationists on the jury post last week, for creationists evidence is not a means of testing presuppositions: evidence must be interpreted so as to corroborate them or one will fall into apostasy.

RBH -

I often say that science places no restrictions on where you get hypotheses, but that people who get them from Genesis have trouble taking no for an answer from nature.

Tom English said:

Dan said: The situation of producing random outputs from various initial conditions is called "ergoditicity".

I should have formalized a bit. D&M essentially believe that a natural process X1, X2, ..., Xn "ought to be" uniform on Omega^n, where Omega is, say, the set of all configurations of your five air-hockey disks. This implies ergodicity, but is much more restrictive.

harold said: Pete Dunkelberg and Wesley Elsberry - Thanks for clearing up the identity of Tom English. False claims to be a computer scientist, engineer, or physical scientist are common among creationist posters on the internet. I said perfectly clearly that I might be wrong and that my answer was the same anyway. English's "questions" centered on purported analogies or models of biological evolution which are not used by anyone who understands biological evolution, and which were tantamount to straw man misrepresentations. I stated in my reply that I wasn't sure whether he was making those misrepresentations himself, or paraphrasing misrepresentations of Dembski and Marks. I guess he's a well-meaning computer scientist and physicist who needs to learn more biology if he wants to discuss evolution. I strongly defend my highly informative reply to him. Rather than merely explain that the existence of misleading straw man analogies does not challenge the theory of evolution, I went further and gave him terse but decent introduction to how biological evolution actually works. I'm sure he'll find that useful.

Maternal effect genes are a special class of genes that have their effect in the reproductive organs of the mutant; they are interesting because the mutant organism may appear phenotypically normal, and it is the progeny that express detectable differences, and they do so whether the progeny have inherited the mutant gene or not.

Randomness, properly to be randomness, must leave nothing to chance. It must look like chance, like a child of the primeval chaos. But underneath a keen intelligence must be manipulating and calculating, taking advantage of this and that expedient so as systematically to concoct confusion.

Dan said: I read a few chapters of Dembski's "Design Inference" before giving up in a maze of jargon. My impression was that he ignored correlation throughout. That is, he thought all substances were the ideal gas.

Jordan Wallace said:

Sylvilagus said:

Jordan Wallace said: The structure of a cell is a complex of information systems working in an engineered pattern. Evolution (by evolution I mean Darwinian Evolution) provides no mechanism or causation for the presence of the engineered structures. Of course, this is the ID argument made on the basis of evidence.

Hi Jordan - Two comments. 1) Your argument here strikes me as circular. You predefine cells as working in an "engineered" pattern, which implies design. And hten claim that Darwinian evolution cannot account for the presence of engineered structures. How do you know these structures are engineered? You've just defined them that way. What's the evidence? 2)You claim that the ID argument is made on the basis of evidence. I'd be curious to see the evidence. can you offer even a single example of evidence of an "engineered" structure that evolution cannot account for? I can't think of any real evidence that ID is based upon. Just claims of "engineering" and "irreducible complexity" but no actual evidence of such. Thanks in advance for helping instruct me.

Your conclusion is expected becuase my presuppositions are quite clear. I presuppose the existence of a creator and designer. I beleive that to be the Christian God of the Bible. Your presupposition is that naturalistic processes in a closed system have produced the evidence you speak of. My assertion is that the evidence suggests the incredible craftsmanship of God. So, I know they are engineered because I accept the reality of a first cause (actually more than a first cause but that's outside this discussion). I have stated my position earlier in this regard. JW

Tom English said:

Dan said: I read a few chapters of Dembski's "Design Inference" before giving up in a maze of jargon. My impression was that he ignored correlation throughout. That is, he thought all substances were the ideal gas.

As it happens, I had thought about the ideal gas. In the classical thermodynamic case, I see Boltzmann, not uniform, distributions. If I understand you, a source of correlation in a non-ideal gas would be inter-molecular attraction. Right?

Dan said: If you feel that this is getting too technical for a general blog, you can contact me as Dan.Styer at oberlin.edu.)

Jordan Wallace said: Your conclusion is expected becuase my presuppositions are quite clear. I presuppose the existence of a creator and designer. I beleive that to be the Christian God of the Bible. Your presupposition is that naturalistic processes in a closed system have produced the evidence you speak of.

My assertion is that the evidence suggests the incredible craftsmanship of God.

Jordan Wallace said:

Sylvilagus said:

Jordan Wallace said: The structure of a cell is a complex of information systems working in an engineered pattern. Evolution (by evolution I mean Darwinian Evolution) provides no mechanism or causation for the presence of the engineered structures. Of course, this is the ID argument made on the basis of evidence.

Hi Jordan - Two comments. 1) Your argument here strikes me as circular. You predefine cells as working in an "engineered" pattern, which implies design. And hten claim that Darwinian evolution cannot account for the presence of engineered structures. How do you know these structures are engineered? You've just defined them that way. What's the evidence? 2)You claim that the ID argument is made on the basis of evidence. I'd be curious to see the evidence. can you offer even a single example of evidence of an "engineered" structure that evolution cannot account for? I can't think of any real evidence that ID is based upon. Just claims of "engineering" and "irreducible complexity" but no actual evidence of such. Thanks in advance for helping instruct me.

Your conclusion is expected becuase my presuppositions are quite clear. I presuppose the existence of a creator and designer. I beleive that to be the Christian God of the Bible. Your presupposition is that naturalistic processes in a closed system have produced the evidence you speak of. My assertion is that the evidence suggests the incredible craftsmanship of God. So, I know they are engineered because I accept the reality of a first cause (actually more than a first cause but that's outside this discussion). I have stated my position earlier in this regard. JW

Robin said: ...my entire framework of understanding is based on question beginning and allows...

Stanton,

Don't think I'd ever pass muster as an "Irish Jackie Chan".

However, on a more serious note, here's some more ample proof demonstrating that - contrary to Bill Dembski's breathtakingly inane assertion that ID demonstrates the "hand" of Yahweh as the "Intelligent Designer" - that if an Intelligent Designer ever existed, then he must have been a Klingon GOD:

http://www.geeks.co.uk/7200-klingon-keyboard-goes-on-sale

Qap'la,

John

Dembski and Marks (2009a) mention “a simple self-replicating molecule, an autocatalytic set, or a lipid membrane” as examples of biological targets. However, these chemical concepts presuppose model assumptions from physics, chemistry and biochemistry and they could hardly be independent of the chemical processes by which they are thought to arise. The same chemistry that allows us to define self-replicating molecules, autocatalytic sets and lipid membranes also has consequences for how such phenomena might arise in nature. In the language of the Dembski-Marks (or Wolpert-Macready) representation, this means that the target set (or fitness function) and the search algorithm are not independent of each other—they are both consequences of chemical model assumptions.

Tom,

As someone who claims expertise in statistics, Bil Dembski ought to know better than to claim something is "unique" with regards to uniform sampling with replacement. What he claims is "unique" is actually a nonsensical Panglossian approach to statistics, but one he knows will appeal to his fellow Xian faithful.

Regards,

John

Tom English said: As it happens, I had thought about the ideal gas. In the classical thermodynamic case, I see Boltzmann, not uniform, distributions. If I understand you, a source of correlation in a non-ideal gas would be inter-molecular attraction. Right?

All of them seem to make this assumption from trying to justify the Genesis story. They cannot conceive of order and increasing complexity “emerging from chaos” without the input of intelligence; and the reason for this is precisely because they are totally unaware of all the non-linear interactions that take place both classically and quantum mechanically in nature.

Tom English said: For just about any process that interests you, it is possible to define a "target" after the fact and associate positive active information with the process. Positive active information means no more than Golly, gee, will you look at that!?

Mike Elzinga said: Two material bodies, one like a moon or a planet, the other like the sun. They gravitationally attract. If these two bodies came into each other’s vicinity (not a head-on collision), their paths would each be deflected. What we would like to ask is how can they come to orbit each other? If no energy can be released, they would simply do a do-si-do and move on along hyperbolic or parabolic paths. To actually close the paths into elliptical orbits requires the loss of energy. How does that happen? Think about that for a few moments and try to come up with some mechanisms.

"No probability without process".

That is, the probability of things being a certain way is itself an outcome of the process(es) that lead to the result. For a simple example, the probability distribution of rolling dice is not a property of the dice. It is an outcome of rolling in a certain way (essentially random mixing). I can easily roll dice with my fingers to get the result I choose. And as everyone has commented, nature is full of processes that are not random mixing. When you find more than a few things together but not looking like a random mixture, that tells you that it is very likely that some processes besides (or in addition to) random mixing lead to the result.

An evolutionary process of note: repeated subsampling. It can take you far from the original distribution without anything else happening. And there are always other things happening.

Pete Dunkelberg said: And as everyone has commented, nature is full of processes that are not random mixing. When you find more than a few things together but not looking like a random mixture, that tells you that it is very likely that some processes besides (or in addition to) random mixing lead to the result.

wile coyote said: So how did get into orbit instead of being simply tossed back into solar space where they came from? It appears that early on, the Outer Planets had extended atmospheres that imposed drag on the visitors.

To actually close the paths into elliptical orbits requires the loss of energy. How does that happen? Think about that for a few moments and try to come up with some mechanisms.

The next step is to consider atoms or molecules in each other’s vicinity and how they can come to “stick together”. Where, and how, does the energy go? What remains, and how do we describe it?

Henry J said:

To actually close the paths into elliptical orbits requires the loss of energy. How does that happen? Think about that for a few moments and try to come up with some mechanisms.

I would presume that the kinetic energy gets converted into some other kind of energy, perhaps heat. (Or maybe gravity waves? I'm not sure about that.)

The next step is to consider atoms or molecules in each other’s vicinity and how they can come to “stick together”. Where, and how, does the energy go? What remains, and how do we describe it?

Photons or heat is produced, and the component particles have less rest mass than they do as free particles.

Henry J said:

To actually close the paths into elliptical orbits requires the loss of energy. How does that happen? Think about that for a few moments and try to come up with some mechanisms.

I would presume that the kinetic energy gets converted into some other kind of energy, perhaps heat. (Or maybe gravity waves? I'm not sure about that.)

The next step is to consider atoms or molecules in each other’s vicinity and how they can come to “stick together”. Where, and how, does the energy go? What remains, and how do we describe it?

Photons or heat is produced, and the component particles have less rest mass than they do as free particles.

Dembski and Marks were, IIRC, following Wolpert and MacReady in taking for analysis situations where there is sampling without replacement, not sampling with replacement.

I'm reading, folks. This is what I was looking for from the outset. Some of the remarks hang on my conceptual schemata, and others bounce off me. If you know the etymology of sophomore, you've got a good description of me in this context.

I believe that the non-existence of isolated systems is an important counter to the NFL regress. At UD, I told Dembski that there is no need to model a regress. He's committed to a finite universe, and the regress of environments in which there's a "search for a search" ends with the entire universe. Given that none of those environments is isolated, he should simply regard the universe as the environment of the base-level search. That is, his model collapses to a probability measure on Omega^n, and a probability measure on probability measures on Omega^n. This is a big problem for him, because there's no way to associate an objective probability with the universe. ("No probability without process," as Pete said.) Any statement that it is objectively improbable for the universe to do what it has done is absurd, as in meaningless.

Mike said that isolated systems are exceedingly rare, and I'd like to make sure I understand what he meant by that. We trace the observable universe back to a singularity, and I don't see how we can say that a physical system is isolated in an ultimate sense. It seems to me that we can at best frame a system in spacetime and argue that it is isolated within that frame. That's what I see Mike's experimenter in low-temperature physics doing. Am I making sense?

Wesley R. Elsberry said: Dembski and Marks were, IIRC, following Wolpert and MacReady in taking for analysis situations where there is sampling without replacement, not sampling with replacement.

Let X1 , X2 , ..., Xm denote Ω-valued random variables that are independent and identically distributed with uniform probability distribution U. X1 , X2 , ..., Xm therefore represents a blind search of Ω. Next, let Y1, Y2, ..., Ym denote Ω-valued random variables that are arbitrarily distributed.

P.S. - I've come to suspect that D&M developed active information entirely in response to Dawkins. They've covered the possibility that the problem is to open a combination lock. The benchmark search process, X, is the monkey at a typewriter. Dawkins displayed on his computer screen an indication of how many trials it would take the monkey to produce the target phrase. There was an implicit comparison of the probability of success for the Weasel program to that for the monkey. All Dembski and Marks did was to make the ratio of probabilities explicit and "informaticize" it.

Tom English said: ("No probability without process," as Pete said.) Any statement that it is objectively improbable for the universe to do what it has done is absurd, as in meaningless. Mike said that isolated systems are exceedingly rare, and I'd like to make sure I understand what he meant by that. We trace the observable universe back to a singularity, and I don't see how we can say that a physical system is isolated in an ultimate sense. It seems to me that we can at best frame a system in spacetime and argue that it is isolated within that frame. That's what I see Mike's experimenter in low-temperature physics doing. Am I making sense?

Tom English said: All Dembski and Marks did was to make the ratio of probabilities explicit and "informaticize" it.

Tom English said: Mike said that isolated systems are exceedingly rare...

Dan said: ... in other branches of physics, we approximate systems as isolated, and while it's rarely exactly true, it's often true enough to get, say, 5 digit accuracy --- and most physicists are delighted with this amount of accuracy!

Mike Elzinga said: What cleared it up for me was when I got into the technique of adiabatic demagnetization in my low temperature superconductivity work while trying to characterize delicate networks of percolating superconductivity taking place throughout a background of nearly constant resistivity.

Dan said: Were you one of Reddy's students?

I might add, with regard to the adiabatic demagnetization, I found a better way to get the data rather than having to push below 12 mK off the end of my dilution refrigerator.

The superconducting networks were so fragile to probing that I ended up developing a very highly sensitive SQUID magnetometer that enabled me to pull out both magnetic susceptibility and resistivity without having to attach anything to the samples. The rest involved very careful electromagnetic shielding to reduce interference inside the sample chamber of the dilution refrigerator.

The adiabatic demagnetization technique actually interfered with measurements and destroyed what I was trying to see. Measurements had to be made slowly and with only the slightest possible fields. That doesn’t work with one-shot dips to lower temperatures followed by warm-ups that are too fast to collect data.

I probably learned more about the difficulty of making an isolated system in that set of measurements than I ever learned from the literature or from textbooks.

I think I had mentioned earlier (probably on another thread; I can’t seem to find it) that on a recent flying trip I was outlining a “Weasel” algorithm for the HP 48/49/50 series graphing calculator.

Well, I finished a version that allows different probabilities for going from an incorrect character to correct than for going vice-versa. Latching can be done by simply setting to zero the probability for a correct character to change.

I also did a complete analysis of the program (similar to what Wesley Elsberry did) and plotted up these results in MathCad (I could also do that on the calculator as well). The results compare extremely well with everything we have been saying before on those threads discussing the algorithm. The graph is a straight line on a semi-log (log vs. linear) plot for many values of probabilities, population size, number of characters and string length.

String manipulation on the HP calculators is mostly non-existent, but I used lists of integers instead. Manipulation of lists and vectors is quite efficient on these calculators.

Also, the target is generated randomly at the beginning, as is the original parent. The parent can be made to have no matches with the target. The randomly generated target emphasizes the fact that there is no “information” whatsoever in the target. Just the rules of nature are involved; and that’s not cheating.

As I suspected, the algorithm is a battery eater for this calculator. The number of integers, length of list, population size, probabilities, can all be set at the beginning, so the algorithm can run with smaller sizes to conserve batteries.

The program works well, as expected. But the kicker is that it can be done on a graphing calculator while those characters over at UD still can’t figure out how to do it on a computer. Not only another language (this time RPL), but an entirely different platform. :-)

Now you're showing off, Mike. :)

RBH said: Now you're showing off, Mike. :)

Now you’re showing off, Mike. :)

Henry J said:

Now you’re showing off, Mike. :)

And he was getting graphic, too.