Open thread: questions and explanations

Lab exam tomorrow.

What's a good way to keep straight in my mind the differences between mice, rats, voles, moles, shrews, tenrecs, lemmings, and all the other rodents and rodent-like mammals?

I want to know which of the mutually contradictory anti-evolution positions (young earth, old-earth-young-life, old life without common descent, old life with common descent, etc.) is the "correct" one. I want only anti-evolutionists to answer, so if you think they're all wrong, please explain that elsewhere. I would especially like advocates of each anti-evolution position to tell me why the others all fail.

Most anti-evolutionists these days claim that "Darwinism" is wrong by focusing on (some of the) evidence, and not because some book says so, so you should be able to do the same with supporting your position, and refuting other anti-evolution positions.

WannaKnowBoutRodentsEtc said: Lab exam tomorrow. What's a good way to keep straight in my mind the differences between mice, rats, voles, moles, shrews, tenrecs, lemmings, and all the other rodents and rodent-like mammals?

Why haven't the science defenders around here written a single criticism of climate scientists who have thwarted FOIA requests by "losing" their data?

I mean, Dembski makes fart noises and you guys go ballistic for days.

Here's a bona fide threat to science - and you guys can't be bothered??

Nick,

Please feel free to delete this as well as chunkdz's comment, but The Sensuous Curmudgeon has written extensively on "Climategate," and not to defend anyone. Ronald Bailey (long time ID/creationism critic) has also weighed in. And I have not even tried to google it as chunkdz and any lurker can do. Only in the DI's fantasy are scientists "silent" on it.

Frank, my question was about Panda's Thumbs silence in particular.

I mean, really, ...the Kirk Cameron thread gets 80 comments but the world's foremost authority on climate destroying data does not even merit a single blog entry?

This is an honest question guys. "Assault on Science" is one of your most popular tag headings.

What’s a good way to keep straight in my mind the differences between mice, rats, voles, moles, shrews, tenrecs, lemmings, and all the other rodents and rodent-like mammals?

What is the source/nature of human consciousness and how did it evolve? What is the difference between human consciousness and animal consciousness, if any? What is the biggest question science has not spoken to regarding human consciousness?

Why do IDiota think their bastardized interpretation of the second law of thermodynamics is important? Won't the "designer" keep the world from ending in chaos"

Regarding the hacked emails and climate scientists:

Since this is a blog concerning life sciences, I am going to guess that folks here don't feel qualified to address the specific issues. However, the site Realclimate (realclimate.org) is fielding questions on this topic. (hundreds of questions, last I looked) Since these are climatologists doing the discussing, you might find your answers there.

nmgirl said: Why do IDiota think their bastardized interpretation of the second law of thermodynamics is important? Won't the "designer" keep the world from ending in chaos"

I want to know which of the mutually contradictory anti-evolution positions (young earth, old-earth-young-life, old life without common descent, old life with common descent, etc.) is the “correct” one. I want only anti-evolutionists to answer, so if you think they’re all wrong, please explain that elsewhere. I would especially like advocates of each anti-evolution position to tell me why the others all fail.

In Dawkins' "The Blind Watchmaker", he has a chapter about how replicating chemical reactions could have been a precursor to RNA molecules. In the chapter he talks alot about certain clays being important for the initial chemical reactions.

My experience with clays is only in the context of soil particle size relative to other soil particles (ie, sand, silt, and clay). Is Dawkins using the same definition I am thinking of or something different? How realistic is his scenario?

lkeithlu said: Regarding the hacked emails and climate scientists: Since this is a blog concerning life sciences, I am going to guess that folks here don't feel qualified to address the specific issues. However, the site Realclimate (realclimate.org) is fielding questions on this topic. (hundreds of questions, last I looked) Since these are climatologists doing the discussing, you might find your answers there.

nmgirl said: Why do IDiota think their bastardized interpretation of the second law of thermodynamics is important? Won't the "designer" keep the world from ending in chaos"

I have seen one thing from Panda's Thumb, and that is comments on the personal nature of emails and the violation that occurred. However, the people who actually wrote some of those emails, as well as those who were part of the discussions those emails pertained to, are better equipped to discuss them, especially since it appears that they were edited, taken out of context, or misinterpreted. Some of these scientists are the ones actually fielding the questions on realclimate.

Posters at the Panda's Thumb indeed defend the integrity of science against those who would misinform the public regarding biological evolution, usually for religious reasons. Most areas of science are not attacked in this way. This site attracts people who actually know the field well. They are prudent, however, in not making any statements regarding this event and its fallout; the area of science is not the same, and the emails are part of a much bigger picture, a picture that has been distorted for political reasons by the cherry-picking of content. Only the folks directly involved should be answering these claims. If anyone has been dishonest other climate scientists will be able to ascertain this. Unless, of course, folks believe that science is one big conspiracy. (which would be unlikely-that would require an awful lot of scientists to cooperate on so many levels, and like any group of people, they would fail spectacularly)

"Typically, these will be about evolution, but I imagine some people may have itching questions about climate science, given the recent denialgasm that’s been going on in the wingnut-o-sphere, found in some its most extreme, pitchforks-and-torches forms"

Hey, I have itching questions about ClimateGate, but I was never a ___ (fill in the blank with all those goofy terms you used in the attempt to shut down the debate). Really, with those expressions (denialgasm, wingnut-o-sphere, pitchforks), you're trying to get real scientists who want to speak out against ClimateGate to shut up.

Conrad said: In Dawkins' "The Blind Watchmaker", he has a chapter about how replicating chemical reactions could have been a precursor to RNA molecules. In the chapter he talks alot about certain clays being important for the initial chemical reactions. My experience with clays is only in the context of soil particle size relative to other soil particles (ie, sand, silt, and clay). Is Dawkins using the same definition I am thinking of or something different? How realistic is his scenario?

I'll ask my question:

Can any creationist or IDist provide me with a tool that I can use to predict the changes in a biological system?

If so, what is that tool and how should it be used?

My question:

Can any creationist or ID proponent provide me with a tool that I can use to quantitatively determine the complex specified information in a given genome, or, failing that, a tool which I can use to differentiate the specified information from the non-specified information?

OgreMkV said:

Conrad said: In Dawkins' "The Blind Watchmaker", he has a chapter about how replicating chemical reactions could have been a precursor to RNA molecules. In the chapter he talks alot about certain clays being important for the initial chemical reactions. My experience with clays is only in the context of soil particle size relative to other soil particles (ie, sand, silt, and clay). Is Dawkins using the same definition I am thinking of or something different? How realistic is his scenario?

Those are indeed the clays. It's been a while since I've taken these classes, but this ought to give you a starting point. 1) Clays are very good at forming a variety of structures (they are 'sticky'). Clays can form smooth sheets similar to micas or collections of spheres or other various shapes. This gives things that fall onto (or chemically attach to) some shape and structure. 2) Clays tend to have different particles (unlike a mineral or crystal that must be a regular repeating unit). This gives a variety of possible chemical reaction sites and types. The way I understand it is think of a clay sheet almost like a ribosome. Amino acids attach to the clays, then are shuffled when the clays move and attach to each other (as well as the clay). Several of the aa collections get together and you have a protein or a nucleotide sequence. I believe that at least one RNA sequence has been found that can self replicate. I hope that helps and if I missed somewhere, let me know.

OgreMkV said: I believe that at least one RNA sequence has been found that can self replicate.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1167856

I think that was what I had in mind.

nmgirl said: Why do IDiota think their bastardized interpretation of the second law of thermodynamics is important? Won't the "designer" keep the world from ending in chaos"

Mike Elzinga said:

nmgirl said: Why do IDiota think their bastardized interpretation of the second law of thermodynamics is important? Won't the "designer" keep the world from ending in chaos"

Basically their argument comes down to the following: If you put mouse in a thermos bottle, seal it tightly and put it on a shelf for, say, a few million years, when you finally open it, a cat won’t come out.

"Why is it, that no matter how many pairs I buy, I keep running out of socks?"

A question for god, if he isn't too busy talking to Mr Dembski.

Frank J said: I want to know which of the mutually contradictory anti-evolution positions (young earth, old-earth-young-life, old life without common descent, old life with common descent, etc.) is the "correct" one. I want only anti-evolutionists to answer, so if you think they're all wrong, please explain that elsewhere. I would especially like advocates of each anti-evolution position to tell me why the others all fail. Most anti-evolutionists these days claim that "Darwinism" is wrong by focusing on (some of the) evidence, and not because some book says so, so you should be able to do the same with supporting your position, and refuting other anti-evolution positions.

4 comments in, and a dishonest asshole uses the page as toilet paper for a surely endless sh*t!

And these people wonder why they are considered useless in their obsessive, vanity-driven idiocy?

Frank J said: I want to know which of the mutually contradictory anti-evolution positions (young earth, old-earth-young-life, old life without common descent, old life with common descent, etc.) is the "correct" one. I want only anti-evolutionists to answer, so if you think they're all wrong, please explain that elsewhere. I would especially like advocates of each anti-evolution position to tell me why the others all fail.

Why do animals of different species generally ignore each other? Well, apart from trying to eat each other? Even when they are in the same herd like zebra's and wildebeests

stevaroni said: My question: Can any creationist or ID proponent provide me with a tool that I can use to quantitatively determine the complex specified information in a given genome, or, failing that, a tool which I can use to differentiate the specified information from the non-specified information?

Re: climate change -- we at PT are not particularly nerds on this topic. I have actually spent a fair amount of time reading about it lately, but it gets complicated fast, and other bloggers are doing stuff better than I could do without a lot of work.

One question I have on this is the following: once you wade through the vast amount of crap spewed by Egnor and the wingnuts, what remains appears to be a question about how/why some tree-ring datasets seem to match up with direct temperature measurements from up until 1960, but not so much after. Far from being hidden, this is discussed directly in the 2007 IPCC report.

My questions, since I haven't found a handy explanation yet:

1. Apparently only some of the tree-ring datasets show this -- which ones? (Also, people like me don't innately know what "stripbark" means -- although I've figured that one out, explain similar terminology for treering datasets if possible.)

2. Why the divergence after 1960, if known, and what significance does it have to the big picture, if any?

3. Just how much uncertainty does the divergence problem add to:

* a statement like "the climate has warmed over the last 50 years"

* the climate over the last 10 years is likely warmer than natural variability over the last (say) few thousand years

StateMachine said: OK, I'll bite as an "anti-evolutionist", though I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea of theistic evolution (if it's good enough for Os Guinness...). For now, however, you can put me in the ID /"Darwin skeptic" camp. WRT the "correct" one, I'd lean towards one of the old life answers, I suppose because of what we know from geology and astronomy (with regards to age of the earth). One argument (from genetics) I found particularly convincing was the number of fixed alleles in the human race for a specific gene. I also think the plagiarism portion in "Darwin's Genome" of "Only a Theory" makes a good case for common descent, and I'm interest in critiques of this argument as well. That being said, I'm not going to set roots in any one position (that includes ID) and refuse to budge. So yes, many IDists agree with "Darwinists" in several areas. I hope this was an honest question, and that the point of this exercise is not merely to ask the question, "if you agree with them on these first matters, why not everything?"

StateMachine said:

Frank J said:

One argument (from genetics) I found particularly convincing was the number of fixed alleles in the human race for a specific gene.

An allele is fixed when it reaches a frequency of 100% in a population. Therefore, if an allele is fixed in a population, then there is only one allele for that specific gene present. There is extensive theoretical and experimental work showing how alleles can become fixed, so I'm not sure what 'argument' from genetics you find so convincing. Perhaps you could explain it a little better? Maybe give us a link?

By now, most people on both sides of the debate are familiar with Behe’s argument of IC, and the quote from Darwin’s Origin of Species: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Now, Darwin suggests this as a possible falsification of his theory, but proving that something “could not possibly” have happened is itself impossible, so Behe attempts to do the next best thing – show that it is mathematically improbable for some organs to the point of being virtually impossible. Critics call it an “argument from ignorance”. My question is this: how could one theoretically prove that an organ could not have evolved in a Darwinian fashion, thereby meeting the falsification criteria?

chunkdz -

1) This blog is not about "the integrity of science", broadly defined. No-one but you said it was. This is obviously a blog that focuses on evolutionary biology. That's obvious. There are plenty of climate science focused blogs.

2) Individual scientists in all fields commit ethical lapses at times. So do individual professionals in all other professional fields. Scientists are perhaps more likely to be caught, as others may try to replicate their results.

Ethical lapses by individual scientists do not negate strong bodies of scientific evidence.

Furthermore, we must greet accusations against individual scientists with skepticism, until they are definitively shown to have merit.

I hope this was an honest question, and that the point of this exercise is not merely to ask the question, “if you agree with them on these first matters, why not everything?”

— StateMachine

In regards to the organ question. What we do know about development at this point seems to suggest that these sorts of things are possible. To my knowledge however we don't have enough of the exact details down to run an evolutionary pathway analysis. These experiments have been done for some simple molecular systems where all of the mutants between two different points are created and measured for fitness. These experiments have reinforced that there are pathways that can be traversed by natural selection, but also eliminated many others.

StateMachine said: By now, most people on both sides of the debate are familiar with Behe's argument of IC, and the quote from Darwin's Origin of Species: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." Now, Darwin suggests this as a possible falsification of his theory, but proving that something "could not possibly" have happened is itself impossible, so Behe attempts to do the next best thing -- show that it is mathematically improbable for some organs to the point of being virtually impossible. Critics call it an "argument from ignorance". My question is this: how could one theoretically prove that an organ could not have evolved in a Darwinian fashion, thereby meeting the falsification criteria?

Eddie Janssen said: Why do animals of different species generally ignore each other? Well, apart from trying to eat each other? Even when they are in the same herd like zebra's and wildebeests

On the origin of LIFE:
does this process likely continue somewhere in hot oceans miles inside the earth?

can we re-create that?

and if so, can i think of those nucleic acids as alien DNA... just for fun?

WannaKnowBoutRodentsEtc said: Lab exam tomorrow. What's a good way to keep straight in my mind the differences between mice, rats, voles, moles, shrews, tenrecs, lemmings, and all the other rodents and rodent-like mammals?

Kevin:
I may have read Watership Down too often...

Another question: (this time from an even more hopelessly romantic book from Jean M. Auel) is there any indication when (how many years ago) humans figured out that the birth of a baby had something to do with all sorts of activity 9 months earlier.

harold said: chunkdz - 1) This blog is not about "the integrity of science", broadly defined. No-one but you said it was. This is obviously a blog that focuses on evolutionary biology. That's obvious.

There are plenty of climate science focused blogs.

2) Individual scientists in all fields commit ethical lapses at times. So do individual professionals in all other professional fields. Scientists are perhaps more likely to be caught, as others may try to replicate their results. Ethical lapses by individual scientists do not negate strong bodies of scientific evidence.

Furthermore, we must greet accusations against individual scientists with skepticism, until they are definitively shown to have merit.

StateMachine wrote: "For now, however, you can put me in the ID /”Darwin skeptic” camp."

Sorry StateMachine, but there's no such thing as a Darwin skeptic, only a Darwin Denier. Why, you ask? Because. Just because.

I recently read Dr. Dembski's book "The End of Christianity" and i just wanted to share one of my favorite exerts from it. I am just getting into the whole evolution vs Intelligent design or creation, so this is all so interesting to me. I loved how this book talks about the natural evils of life. It does an excellent job of explain it.
It reads:
Poised between the Garden of Eden and the future Paradise, we can be like fugitives stranded in a no-man's land without a sense of purpose. We know of a primordial state of bliss we lost and of a perfected state of bliss toward which we are moving, but in the meantime we are here, on this earth with its perplexing mix of beauty and tragedy.

This reminded me that we are all here for such a short time and it is what we do here on Earth with the time we are given that counts.
The book goes on to say:

Though banished from the Garden with its gate forever barred, the memory of that perfect union with God keeps alive the hope of Paradise. When we let that memory fade, this earth is a place of exile. But when we remember that the divine image is in each of us, this earth becomes an arena of purpose. Then our vision is liberated. The divine images in all of us shine and collectively illumine the way- a way of purpose. What is the divine image that generates purpose? God, the Divine, is Love. Thus our divine image, our defining feature, is love.

I really hope that you enjoyed this exert as much as I did. Weather you are a believer or not, you should be challenged by this. It was a great reminder to me.

I really hope that you enjoyed this exert as much as I did. Weather you are a believer or not, you should be challenged by this. It was a great reminder to me.

— John

chunkdz said: Why haven't the science defenders around here written a single criticism of climate scientists who have thwarted FOIA requests by "losing" their data?

My question to the PT group (and one I've asked elsewhere)...

Is ID dead?

By that, I mean has ID creationism run its course as a means to circumvent the SCOTUS ruling against creationism in public school science classes? Scientifically, IDC was stillborn and has never shown any signs of life, and politically it seems the creationist crusade on the public schools has already moved on to the next strategy, i.e. "academic freedom" and "strengths and weaknesses of evolution".

One of the ways I measure IDC's activity is via this blog. When ID creationists were actively pushing for IDC's inclusion in public school science curricula, the PandasThumb was a virtual beehive of activity, with new entries on IDC almost every day.

Now? The PT is mostly about "Hey, look what Dembski/Luskin/Egnor/Behe said on this website", pictures, and updates on the Freshwater case. As far as actually combating IDC's efforts to invade the public schools, judging by this site one could argue that that particular battle is over (at least for the moment).

Of course IDC lives on in the public mind as a vague reference to Goddidit, but is there any other way in which IDC can be considered to be "alive"?

Why haven’t the science defenders around here written a single criticism of climate scientists who have thwarted FOIA requests by “losing” their data?

— chunkdz

Chunkdz,

My understanding of the climate emails is that the didn't "destroy data" (as in the data no longer exists), but they deleted emails to avoid having them become part of a FOIA request. The two are not the same. And as a government scientist, if the latter turns out to be true, it's simply something you cannot do under any circumstances.

So, John, do you admit that ID is purely religious and utterly devoid of scientific merit (as demonstrated by the admitted religoius motivations of prominent cdesign proponentsists and their total failure to support their claims through experiment or evidence)? If not, can you be the first IDiot in the history of the planet to actually show us some scientifically valid evidence for ID?

chunkdz said: Why haven't the science defenders around here written a single criticism of climate scientists who have thwarted FOIA requests by "losing" their data? I mean, Dembski makes fart noises and you guys go ballistic for days. Here's a bona fide threat to science - and you guys can't be bothered??

Tell you guys what. Why don't you go to the NASA GISS site and use their data and develop a model that you then make totally public (including the source code) and run your sims and then publish the results in a peer-reviewed journal.

Heck, you might (and I say MIGHT) be able to use excel to examine the trends.

Then you're doing science. Hacking an e-mail server is not science. Screaming about the ethics of science because of something that may or may not have occured (I mean, why delete the e-mails with data, yet leave the e-mail that says "delete those e-mails") is not science.

Comon, go do it. Publish the results.

Oh, BTW, anyone have a tool that uses ID to predict results of population experiments?

Kevin (aka OgreMkV) said: Tell you guys what. Why don't you go to the NASA GISS site and use their data and develop a model that you then make totally public (including the source code) and run your sims and then publish the results in a peer-reviewed journal.

I don't know why. Here's the data:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

The data available includes the global-mean monthly,seasonal,zonal and hemisphere data from both met-stations and land-ocean temperature index (whatever that is).

It took my about 5 minutes to import the text file to Excel and generate a chart. I only did Jan for each year listed (1880-2009), but anyone with half an interest in this could do it themselves.

I'll also point out that the model NASA uses can be downloaded as source code so you can make whatever changes you want.

Here's the source pages to the articles used.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/references.html

This includes several articles on historical climate data and how to analyze climate data.

Alternately you could go here:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/mpp/freedata.html

In spite of the name, much of the data is not free for download, but a decent researcher wouldn't mind paying US$80 for 1697-present Surface Data for the Global Historical Climate Network. (I guess those thousands of weather stations cost some bucks to install huh?)

There it is. Go for it. You do the math, you publish your source code and then let's all take a look at your results. Please. We're begging you to do science here... instead of bitching about how we do it, you try it.

chunkdz said:

Kevin (aka OgreMkV) said: Tell you guys what. Why don't you go to the NASA GISS site and use their data and develop a model that you then make totally public (including the source code) and run your sims and then publish the results in a peer-reviewed journal.

Actually I hear that NASA is being sued for failure to provide data after 3 years of FOIA requests. Haven't heard from the "Defenders of the Integrity of Science" about that one either.

Frank J said:

Why haven’t the science defenders around here written a single criticism of climate scientists who have thwarted FOIA requests by “losing” their data?

— chunkdz

I hope that everyone who covered up data pays big time. And I wish no harm to Kirk Cameron. I even pray for him. I also pray for Dembski and his family, because he has a son who is autistic. Happy yet?

Richard Simons said: According to Tim Lambert "In fact, they did not destroy primary datasets, and they did not have permission to redistribute the data requested using the FOIA."

Show us that scientific data was deleted.

phantomreader42 wrote: "do you admit that ID is purely religious ...(as demonstrated by the admitted religoius motivations of prominent cdesign proponentsists )

Phantomreader, what do you do with the agnostics who defend or support ID? Such as Berlinski and Monton?

John: This reminded me that we are all here for such a short time and it is what we do here on Earth with the time we are given that counts. The book goes on to say:

Isn't Berlinski a fellow at DI? Don't all of them have to sign a statement that says (paraphrase) "no matter what we will say that God did it"?

How is that agnostic?

Wait, so the CRU deleted "their copies" of the data while each met station still has every bit of the original data that it generated?

That's what you're so up in arms about? Really?

I guess I better go back to saving all those National Geographics. Obviously the articles I get online aren't as good as the original paper version. I didn't realize.

raven writes: "All he has done is try very hard to make things worse for everyone.

1. Attacking science, the basis of modern civilization ..."

Couldn't we judge him favorably and just accuse him of attacking
what-he-considers-to-be-bad-science?

@Kevin: Source please?

Jose Fly said: My question to the PT group (and one I've asked elsewhere)... Is ID dead? By that, I mean has ID creationism run its course as a means to circumvent the SCOTUS ruling against creationism in public school science classes? . . . but is there any other way in which IDC can be considered to be "alive"?

http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/nov/homepagenews/CRUupdate

My reading of the various articles on this source is that 95% of the data that the CRU uses is from the Global Historical Climate Data Network all of which is available (for a fee) at the link I previously provided. The rest is still in private hands and is not allowed to be publically released because of the dollar value of the data.

chunkdz said: My question is why the "Defenders of the Integrity of Science" have not blogged word one about the issue of deleting scientific data.

This is a threat to the integrity of science.

raven said:

John: This reminded me that we are all here for such a short time and it is what we do here on Earth with the time we are given that counts. The book goes on to say:

Too bad Dembski hasn't taken his own advice. All he has done is try very hard to make things worse for everyone. 1. Attacking science, the basis of modern civilization while pushing the lie/pseudoscience of creationism. 2. Filing a false report accusing Dr. Eric Pianka of being a terrorist. Pianka then received numerous death threats from so called xians. 3. There is lots more. When Dembski dies, the earth will be a better place. Words are cheap and anyone can claim to speak for the gods. Actions count for more.

For someone who is such a devout "Christian" like Dembski, can he - or indeed anyone - excuse him for his reprehensible behavior, which includes not only what you mentioned, but also a blatant attempt at censorship against me over at Amazon.com, and, more importantly, all but admitting that he stole a Harvard University cell animation video that was produced for one of Harvard's biological science departments by the CT-based scientific animation firm XVIVO (I will remind others that we have to thank science blogger Abbie Smith for her excellent detective work, which forced Dembski to all but admit that he had stolen the video from Harvard.).

Therefore, in light of what you and I have said regarding Dembski's reprehensible behavior, no one should feel sorry for Dembski for having an autistic child. It's merely the least that the Almighty could do to Dembski for not measuring up to Christ's standards, but instead, acting like the servant of Lucifer that he most certainly is.

Please forgive me, but I think it is utterly reprehensible to suggest that some poor kid was born autistic specifically to punish Dembski. Maybe you had better read When Bad Things Happen to Good People.

Phantomreader, what do you do with the agnostics who defend or support ID? Such as Berlinski and Monton?

Matt Young said: Please forgive me, but I think it is utterly reprehensible to suggest that some poor kid was born autistic specifically to punish Dembski. Maybe you had better read When Bad Things Happen to Good People.

Hector said: phantomreader42 wrote: "do you admit that ID is purely religious ...(as demonstrated by the admitted religoius motivations of prominent cdesign proponentsists ) Phantomreader, what do you do with the agnostics who defend or support ID? Such as Berlinski and Monton?

John Kwok -

Dembski is a very unpleasant person, but I would urge you not to let him get to you and cause you to make statements that refer to his family or his physical well-being. It's beneath you.

nmgirl said:

Jose Fly said: My question to the PT group (and one I've asked elsewhere)... Is ID dead? By that, I mean has ID creationism run its course as a means to circumvent the SCOTUS ruling against creationism in public school science classes? . . . but is there any other way in which IDC can be considered to be "alive"?

funny you should ask this question today. i just finished reading "The Wedge document" on the NCSE website. You are correct that ID's Phase 1 objective of producing real scientific results has been a massive failure. But as the rest of the document makes clear, scientific success or failure is not necessary to achieve their ultimate goal: to create a Christian theocracy in the US. The IDiota are fighting a "hearts and minds" battle through the media and stunts like Comfort's 'new' edition of the OOS last week. In the wedge document, they laid out a 20 year program to achieve their goals. Their target audience is not scientists, it is the regular joe schmoe who wouldn't know a wiwaxia from a bikini wax. By keeping the propaganda machine running, they hope to win the cultural war. I do think they underestimated the opposition from the scientific community, especially at the college level. that is why their focus has shifted to the secondary schools. Teachers at that level are just not as connected to their peers across the nation and are usually not as politically active. Is ID dead? Unfortunately not.

Jose Fly -

ID is approximately as dead as "creation science" claims that evidence supports a 6000 year old earth and global flood, as far as public school curricula are concerned.

Only a theocratic coup could get it into public schools now, and if that happened, there would be no need for watered-down stealth creationism anyway.

However, it's still excellent for routine moronstream media claims that "some 'scientists' doubt evolution", pompous letters to the editors of newspapers from small town lawyers, drunken confrontations at parties, angry blog posts by self-styled "geniuses" with low level comp sci degrees who "know" that they know more about "information" than all biomedical scientists (including the many who are cross-trained in math and comp sci), etc.

Just as old newspaper can be used to wrap fish, or even as a substitute for certain other paper products, ID still has some uses.

Kevin (aka OgreMkV) said: My reading of the various articles on this source is that 95% of the data that the CRU uses is from the Global Historical Climate Data Network all of which is available (for a fee) at the link I previously provided. The rest is still in private hands and is not allowed to be publically released because of the dollar value of the data.

harold said: Jose Fly - ID is approximately as dead as "creation science" claims that evidence supports a 6000 year old earth and global flood, as far as public school curricula are concerned. Only a theocratic coup could get it into public schools now, and if that happened, there would be no need for watered-down stealth creationism anyway. However, it's still excellent for routine moronstream media claims that "some 'scientists' doubt evolution", pompous letters to the editors of newspapers from small town lawyers, drunken confrontations at parties, angry blog posts by self-styled "geniuses" with low level comp sci degrees who "know" that they know more about "information" than all biomedical scientists (including the many who are cross-trained in math and comp sci), etc. Just as old newspaper can be used to wrap fish, or even as a substitute for certain other paper products, ID still has some uses.

chunkdz,

You're missing another important piece of the puzzle here. The PandasThumb has predominately been about the creationism/evolution battles (the name itself speaks to that), and as such, its contributors are folks who have scientific and/or legal expertise, as well as personal experience in this particular area.

AFAIK, there aren't any climatologists who contribute to the PT.

chunkdz said:

Kevin (aka OgreMkV) said: My reading of the various articles on this source is that 95% of the data that the CRU uses is from the Global Historical Climate Data Network all of which is available (for a fee) at the link I previously provided. The rest is still in private hands and is not allowed to be publically released because of the dollar value of the data.

So CRU's own website says they did nothing wrong. In the words of Gomer Pyle, "Surprise, surprise, surprise". Is this the reason that the Defenders of the Integrity of Science have not posted a single blog on this issue? Does the same logic go for the emails that were deleted to circumvent FOIA? The plans to squelch dissenting opinions and Journals that publish them? Are the Defenders of the Integrity of Science ignoring all of this because 'CRU says it did nothing wrong'? I'm sure Kirk Cameron likewise feels he has done nothing wrong in engaging in a little free speech with a college coed. Yet The Defenders of the Integrity of Science have labeled Kirk Cameron's conversation with a coed to be an "Assault on Education". Do we have our priorities slightly askew?

The problem with ID is there was never any there, there. so how do you say something that never existed in the first place is gone.

Just like creationism morphed to creation science to intelligent design, we need to be on the lookout for the next code words they come up with.

Jose Fly said: chunkdz, You're missing another important piece of the puzzle here. The PandasThumb has predominately been about the creationism/evolution battles (the name itself speaks to that), and as such, its contributors are folks who have scientific and/or legal expertise, as well as personal experience in this particular area. AFAIK, there aren't any climatologists who contribute to the PT.

harold said: [Reading into my answer] "But for some reason - presumably a need to conform to a social-political movement in a particularly rigid way - I just can't say that, and I have to call myself a 'skeptic'..."

harold said: [Again reading into my answer] "But if I admit that I’ll be seen as admitting that ID makes no sense to me. Therefore, here are three paragraphs of arm-waving. If you read my three paragraphs, you'll find that I admit that I can't even imagine measuring those things in software code..."

harold said: 1) Behe attempts to show that it is mathematically improbable for certain systems - for example, a mechanical mousetrap (as an analogy), the blood clotting system of vertebrates, and the bacterial flagellum - to have evolved. In all cases, his specific attempts have failed. He is a classic example of one who makes the logical error of argument from ignorance. ... You, too, seem to make a serious error about probability. You seem to assume that a small finite probability and a zero probability ("impossible") can be taken to mean the same thing. Behe's assigned "probabilities" for evolutionary events are nonsense, but we should also clear up this nonsense. In some applied circumstances, it is appropriate to take a very small probability as a decent approximation of a zero probability. However, this is an example of an approximation, which is only acceptable where it is appropriate. Any event with a probability greater than zero is by definition, strictly speaking, not "impossible".

harold said: How could one "theoretically prove" that the earth does not revolve around the sun? It would be very difficult.

chunkdz -

What follows is strictly my own personal opinion, do not impute it to others.

You must obey your right wing masters, for whatever reason.

They need the support of the racists and religious fanatics, so they deny evolution. This is true even in the unlikely event that you are neither a racist nor a religious fanatic.

Paradoxically, they also seek to please the fossil fuels industry, a high-tech industry grounded in mainstream geology. Contradiction? No problem. Simply deny another major batch of scientific data, that which supports the rather intuitive conclusion that when humans pump a lot of CO2, from formerly sequestered sources, into the atmosphere, in a short time, it may contribute to climate change.

Have fun bending your brain around all of that. I don't have to.

Dan said: This is one of a host of impossibility theorems that arise from the second law of thermodynamics: for example, it is impossible to have a triple point without a kink in the phase boundary, which is a consequence of the Clapeyron equation http://serc.carleton.edu/research_education/equilibria/clapeyronequation.html Ultimately, it is impossible to have a kinkless triple point, because a kinkless triple point could be used to construct a perpetual motion machine! Now, StateMachine suggests that it's impossible to use such theorems to show that the evolution of an organ is impossible. This is quite false. For example, it would be very advantageous for any organism to posses an organ that would extract thermal energy from a uniform-temperature environment, leaving the organism somewhat higher in energy and the environment a bit lower in temperature. According to the second law of thermodynamics, no such organ will ever evolve because it's impossible.

Kevin (aka OgreMkV) said: Isn't Berlinski a fellow at DI? Don't all of them have to sign a statement that says (paraphrase) "no matter what we will say that God did it"? How is that agnostic?

PhantomReader wrote: "Therefore, any person who actually believes the claims of ID cannot be an agnostic."

How about /many/ of the claims? It's not all or none, you know.

Harold wrote: "If they believe in the necessity of a supernatural (from human perspective) “designer”, how can they be agnostics? "

Who says they believe in the necessity of a supernatural designer?

"Even if they think the designer is the Might Thor, why aren’t they worshiping him?"

Just proves my point -- that maybe ID need not be religious.

"Apparently, you seem to be implying that if an idea is “supported” by two self-proclaimed agnostics, that over-rules its obvious religious motivation, funding, and associations."

Nope, not implying that. I know that many ID supporters, nay most, wish you'd graduate from "designer" to "Jesus". I'm challenging the claim that ID is /inherently/ religious, and I'm using these two men as support for that idea. By the way, Bradley Monton is an atheist, not an agnostic. I should've stated that.

harold said: chunkdz - What follows is strictly my own personal opinion, do not impute it to others. You must obey your right wing masters, for whatever reason. They need the support of the racists and religious fanatics, so they deny evolution. This is true even in the unlikely event that you are neither a racist nor a religious fanatic. Paradoxically, they also seek to please the fossil fuels industry, a high-tech industry grounded in mainstream geology. Contradiction? No problem. Simply deny another major batch of scientific data, that which supports the rather intuitive conclusion that when humans pump a lot of CO2, from formerly sequestered sources, into the atmosphere, in a short time, it may contribute to climate change. Have fun bending your brain around all of that. I don't have to.

chunkdz said: Hi Jose, I really don't understand climate science very well, and I don't expect to find discussions of it here. It's fairly complicated stuff, near as I can tell. But I do understand the importance of peer review, and the importance of transparency - and their relevance to the integrity of science. Throwing away data (paid for with tax dollars), conspiring against Journals that publish dissenting opinions, and thwarting FOIA requests for information are not in the interest of science - they are in the interest of politics. (None of these are controversial, by the way, as the CRU has admitted to the veracity of all of these charges. Their defense so far is of the "no harm, no foul" variety) I had assumed that Defenders of the Integrity of Science would have felt the desire to defend the integrity of science.

You’re right, I fully accept the “Darwinist” position, but being a Fox News-watching, gun-toting, Texas oil-man / televangelist does not allow me to publicly state these views.

I answered that “no”, I’m not aware of a simple method, and it is unrealistic to expect a simple method to exist.

By analogy, I extended this to “software size”.

Your response (if I summarize correctly) is that a) he has failed to show that evolutionary pathways towards the complex organs was improbable

and that b) even if it was shown to be exceedingly improbable, this is not an example of where it is “appropriate” to approximate probability as zero.

[On a side note, I’m not sure where you got the idea that I “assume that a small finite probability and a zero probability (“impossible”) can be taken to mean the same thing.” I hold no such assumptions, hence the qualifier “virtually” in my original statement.] Nevertheless, it was the (b) answer that I was interested in.

What, exactly, is your position? That there is no such thing as specified information

Proving that the earth does not revolve around the sun would require observations analogous to those that astronomers used to realize that the sun does not revolve around the earth, such as the trajectories of celestial bodies over time. The method of falsification is quite clear, which is the reason that in the absence of such falsification we believe it that much stronger. My point is that this method of falsification that Darwin gives to disprove his theory would seem to require an argument similar to that of Behe’s,

Kevin (aka OgreMkV) said: I'll take a stab at this one. Short answer: It wastes energy that could be better used for other things.

Jose Fly said: You're assuming that the accusations you listed are accurate.

Perhaps it is simply a case where PT contributers became aware of the email theft and their contents, saw the accusations, looked at the rebuttals, and concluded that the accusations were largely false and not being climatologists, and this not being a climatology blog, elected not to comment.

It doesn't take too much effort to come to realize this blog was created and exists to comment on the creationism/evolution wars. The title, the contents, and the contributors all center on the same theme...and it isn't climatology.

It looks to me like you're just trolling for an argument about the stolen emails. If that's the case, one has to wonder why you chose The Pandas Thumb as your trolling grounds. Are you harboring some resentment towards this place, perhaps as an ID creationist who's looking for any reason to attack PT? 'Cause whatever charade you thought you were pulling about asking questions in good faith is long gone.

Jose Fly said: You're assuming that the accusations you listed are accurate. Perhaps it is simply a case where PT contributers became aware of the email theft and their contents, saw the accusations, looked at the rebuttals, and concluded that the accusations were largely false and not being climatologists, and this not being a climatology blog, elected not to comment. It doesn't take too much effort to come to realize this blog was created and exists to comment on the creationism/evolution wars. The title, the contents, and the contributors all center on the same theme...and it isn't climatology. It looks to me like you're just trolling for an argument about the stolen emails. If that's the case, one has to wonder why you chose The Pandas Thumb as your trolling grounds. Are you harboring some resentment towards this place, perhaps as an ID creationist who's looking for any reason to attack PT? 'Cause whatever charade you thought you were pulling about asking questions in good faith is long gone.

Dude, we get it. Kirk Cameron is no threat. OK, you can stop now. (I will submit that is was funny as hell though.. except for the damn horn player.)

Still, my question is not one of whether the science is sound or not.

my question is why, after all your months of spouting nothing but inanity, you are allowed to persist in trolling this blog.

it's my only question.

Hector said: PhantomReader wrote: "Therefore, any person who actually believes the claims of ID cannot be an agnostic." How about /many/ of the claims? It's not all or none, you know.

"For climate change research, the body of research in the literature is very large and the dependence on any one set of research results to the comprehensive understanding of the climate system is very, very small. Even if some of the charges of improper behavior in this particular case turn out to be true — which is not yet clearly the case — the impact on the science of climate change would be very limited."

chunkdz said: Do you need to be a climate scientist to know that destroying data is wrong?

harold said: John Kwok - Dembski is a very unpleasant person, but I would urge you not to let him get to you and cause you to make statements that refer to his family or his physical well-being. It's beneath you.

chunkdz said: Do we have our priorities slightly askew?

Ichthyic said: chunkie just refuses to understand how science actually works. the science regarding cimate change NEVER relied on a single data set, regardless of what feux news tells you.

science is done in journals, not tabloids. deleted emails are irrelevant to published, peer-reviewed data that is ALREADY out there and readily available.

morons like yourself like to create a stink that doesn't serve anyone or anything.

it's like claiming the american army is communist because someone was seen wearing a red arm band.

you simply don't understand what the hell you're talking about, and obviously you never will. it saddens me that the folks at PT have allowed you to derail thread after thread after thread for months.

StateMachine said: Darwin's falsification criteria was to have someone take an organ that existed, and then prove that the organ could not have evolved. You have proven that an organ could not evolve because it could not exist. Do you see the difference?

Dan said:

chunkdz said: Do you need to be a climate scientist to know that destroying data is wrong?

Destroying data is NOT wrong. I throw out canceled checks after seven years. My dissertation research generated about 100,000 pages of data --- about 200 standard books. I didn't use all of it. I was not about to lug it around all my life, so I threw out what wasn't essential. Even if, perchance, I kept all my canceled checks and all my dissertation research data, it still wouldn't mean that that data would never be destroyed ... it just means that the executor of my will would destroy it instead of me. chunkdz, have you ever thrown out a canceled check, or a receipt? Then you have destroyed data. Yawn.

chunkdz said:

morons like yourself like to create a stink that doesn't serve anyone or anything.

Actually there's a woman on the Kirk Cameron thread who feels very pressured to home school her child because she is afraid that people like Kirk might expose her child to God. But if her child is home-schooled in a God free environment but someday isn't allowed to voice a dissenting opinion in a scientific journal you will have won the battle and lost the war.

Dan said:

chunkdz said: Do we have our priorities slightly askew?

You have said this several dozen times. We understood you the first time.

Deleted emails, destroyed data, and politicizing dissent are relevant to transparency,

you haven't the slightest clue what you're talking about.

seriously.

you must have completely ignored the part where the data is already published, aside from the fact that it is indeed only one sample we are speaking of amongst many.

this is very much sounding like the damn obama birth certificate argument.

he's published his actual birth certificate, but it's not the original one the hospital gave his mother, but a state copy, ergo there is no "transparency". :P

you guys invent conspiracies where there are none.

you entirely ignored the fact regardless of whether even an entire original dataset was lost, the data WAS published already, did undergo peer review etc. it's not like the data, even in that specific, one, instance, never existed.

you guys are complete, utter, morons.

No, it's more like asking why The Defenders of the Integrity of Science are not defending the integrity of science.

why not make up another one?

why not say we aren't fighting communism in Japan?

would make as much sense.

Throwing out a canceled check = destroying publicly funded scientific data used in unreplicated climate modelling that may ultimately affect trillions of dollars in global commerce?!?

um, moron, the hyberbole is all of your own manufacture.

it's why we are not overly concerned with your concerns.

... and as usual, you miss the comparison.

paper trail wise, it is exactly the same as throwing out a returned check from the bank.

the bank recorded and verified the data on the check before sending it back to you, just as the data we are talking about was recorded, used, verified, and published by a scientific journal.

not tossing out the check is always a nice safeguard, but it simply isn't necessary... unless you think the all banks are continually participating in a global conspiracy to alter the value of every check ever submitted.

you, uh don't think that, do you?

otoh, somehow it wouldn't surprise me if you did, and you do in fact have every original check the bank has returned to you in your whole life, just in case there really IS a conspiracy...

Stanton said: So, are we to understand that you would prefer that this woman expose her child to a dangerously stupid person like Kirk Cameron, who learned "science" from Ray Comfort, a man who takes pride in refusing to understand the biological phenomenon of how the males and females within a species are capable of evolving together?

StateMachine said: By now, most people on both sides of the debate are familiar with Behe's argument of IC, and the quote from Darwin's Origin of Species: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." Now, Darwin suggests this as a possible falsification of his theory, but proving that something "could not possibly" have happened is itself impossible, so Behe attempts to do the next best thing -- show that it is mathematically improbable for some organs to the point of being virtually impossible. Critics call it an "argument from ignorance". My question is this: how could one theoretically prove that an organ could not have evolved in a Darwinian fashion, thereby meeting the falsification criteria?

chunkdz said: If I were one of you Defenders of the Integrity of Science I would defend science wherever I felt it was under assault.

chunkdz said:

Dan said:

chunkdz said: Do you need to be a climate scientist to know that destroying data is wrong?

Destroying data is NOT wrong. I throw out canceled checks after seven years. My dissertation research generated about 100,000 pages of data --- about 200 standard books. I didn't use all of it. I was not about to lug it around all my life, so I threw out what wasn't essential. Even if, perchance, I kept all my canceled checks and all my dissertation research data, it still wouldn't mean that that data would never be destroyed ... it just means that the executor of my will would destroy it instead of me. chunkdz, have you ever thrown out a canceled check, or a receipt? Then you have destroyed data. Yawn.

Throwing out a canceled check = destroying publicly funded scientific data used in unreplicated climate modelling that may ultimately affect trillions of dollars in global commerce?!? Kirk Cameron must really terrify you.

chunk, did you read anything I wrote?

The kirk cameron thing was FUNNY. That's why there are many blog posts about it. He got pwned by a college freshman, who (as I understand it) is not a biology major. It's called humor.

Back to the data... you still have yet to show that data has been destroyed and that the data is no longer available to anyone because of this destruction. I've shown you where the original data is. You can download it for US$80.

You're wasting everyone's time by refusing to listen... I'm not sure how else to put this so you understand. "THERE IS NO MISSING DATA"

...and thanks, Nick, for opening this thread. I was excited at the beginning to see several of the sincere queries for information or explanation that I had in mind--and some very lucid answers from the PT pros. It's especially gratifying to see names popping up that I don't recall seeing before. This idea did seem to draw out a few fellow lurkers and seekers-after-truth.

But then, totally disregarding the stated purpose of the thread, somebody upCHUNKed and the dreary axe-grinding proceeded. I was hoping that all that, amusing as it sometimes is, and certainly serving a purpose, could remain elsewhere. My fear is that other PT drop-bys, who might have legitimate, non-confrontational questions, seeing a place to maybe post them, would give up after reading about 2/3 of the way through all this other misplaced crap.

Ah, if there could only remain one pure refuge in this sinful world!

But I would tend to think of Kirk Cameron as more of a sideshow whereas CRU is the main event.

speaking of sideshow clowns....

"THERE IS NO MISSING DATA"

...and there is no missing birth certificate, either.

because i know that the same people pushing this nonsense are also the ones who pushed the birth certificate nonsense.

it really does work to hook morons like chunkie, apparently.

fwiw: The data were thrown away in the 1980s. Source.
Money shot:"Jones was not in charge of the CRU when the data were thrown away in the 1980s, a time when climate change was seen as a less pressing issue."

BTW irreducible complexity is not a problem for evolution it's a prediction. More.

even LGF doesn't buy the data conspiracy hoopla:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/35233_Did_Climate_Scientists_Destroy_Data_A-_No

sandefeur will be ecstatic i linked to LGF :P

"Jones was not in charge of the CRU when the data were thrown away in the 1980s, a time when climate change was seen as a less pressing issue."

wait... who was president then?

It's a conspiracy i tells ya!

Ichthyic writes: "even LGF doesn’t buy the data conspiracy hoopla"

Eh, Ichy, if you knew how LGF evolved over the past year or so, you would know that your introductory word, "even," is out of place.

Phantom reader, take up your ever-so-polite question with Bradley Monton (see his site) and get back to me.

Eh, Ichy, if you knew how LGF evolved over the past year or so, you would know that your introductory word, "even," is out of place.

it's no longer a hotbed of inane babble masquerading as conservatism?

You gotta admit, LGF was pretty good when he was uncovering Rathergate and Fauxtography. Lately he has, well, the URL says it all.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/35243_Why_I_Parted_Ways_With_The_Right

Just Bob said: ...and thanks, Nick, for opening this thread. I was excited at the beginning to see several of the sincere queries for information or explanation that I had in mind--and some very lucid answers from the PT pros. It's especially gratifying to see names popping up that I don't recall seeing before. This idea did seem to draw out a few fellow lurkers and seekers-after-truth. But then, totally disregarding the stated purpose of the thread, somebody upCHUNKed and the dreary axe-grinding proceeded. I was hoping that all that, amusing as it sometimes is, and certainly serving a purpose, could remain elsewhere. My fear is that other PT drop-bys, who might have legitimate, non-confrontational questions, seeing a place to maybe post them, would give up after reading about 2/3 of the way through all this other misplaced crap. Ah, if there could only remain one pure refuge in this sinful world!

Statemachine,

Are you going to clarify the genetic argument you brought up about fixation of alleles in human populations?

Jose Fly said: My question to the PT group (and one I've asked elsewhere)... Is ID dead? By that, I mean has ID creationism run its course as a means to circumvent the SCOTUS ruling against creationism in public school science classes? Scientifically, IDC was stillborn and has never shown any signs of life, and politically it seems the creationist crusade on the public schools has already moved on to the next strategy, i.e. "academic freedom" and "strengths and weaknesses of evolution".

this is sucky. chunkdz isn't asking genuine questions, but rhetorical ones, i.e. thinly disguised, weasely assertions attacking the "scienciness" of evolutionists. as such all the posts on this topic should be deleted (unless I misunderstood the guidelines). there's no point having any other conversation if we have to wade through all this bullcrap

snaxalotl said: chunkdz isn't asking genuine questions, but rhetorical ones, i.e. thinly disguised, weasely assertions attacking the "scienciness" of evolutionists.

Hector said: Phantom reader, take up your ever-so-polite question with Bradley Monton (see his site) and get back to me.

Hector said: Phantom reader, take up your ever-so-polite question with Bradley Monton (see his site) and get back to me.

snaxalotl said: this is sucky. chunkdz isn't asking genuine questions, but rhetorical ones, i.e. thinly disguised, weasely assertions attacking the "scienciness" of evolutionists.

John Wilkes Kwok said: For someone who is such a devout "Christian" like Dembski, can he - or indeed anyone - excuse him for his reprehensible behavior, which includes not only what you mentioned, but also a blatant attempt at censorship against me over at Amazon.com, and, more importantly, all but admitting that he stole a Harvard University cell animation video that was produced for one of Harvard's biological science departments by the CT-based scientific animation firm XVIVO (I will remind others that we have to thank science blogger Abbie Smith for her excellent detective work, which forced Dembski to all but admit that he had stolen the video from Harvard.). Therefore, in light of what you and I have said regarding Dembski's reprehensible behavior, no one should feel sorry for Dembski for having an autistic child. It's merely the least that the Almighty could do to Dembski for not measuring up to Christ's standards, but instead, acting like the servant of Lucifer that he most certainly is.

nmgirl said: But as the rest of the document makes clear, scientific success or failure is not necessary to achieve their ultimate goal: to create a Christian theocracy in the US.

chunkdz said: No, it's more like asking why The Defenders of the Integrity of Science are not defending the integrity of science.

undereducated atheist said:

nmgirl said: But as the rest of the document makes clear, scientific success or failure is not necessary to achieve their ultimate goal: to create a Christian theocracy in the US.

To the creos out there: I agree with nmgirl about the ultimate goal of creationism. What I cannot understand is why anyone would want to live in such a society. Is your life now so bad that you have a burning desire to return to the Dark Ages? What on earth (or elsewhere) could make one detest themselves and the rest of humanity so much? Also, why do you care what others believe and what other people's children are taught? I'm not trying to bait anyone, I've just never had the opportunity to ask these questions and would really appreciate an answer. Thanks.

phantomreader42 said:

undereducated atheist said:

nmgirl said: But as the rest of the document makes clear, scientific success or failure is not necessary to achieve their ultimate goal: to create a Christian theocracy in the US.

To the creos out there: I agree with nmgirl about the ultimate goal of creationism. What I cannot understand is why anyone would want to live in such a society. Is your life now so bad that you have a burning desire to return to the Dark Ages? What on earth (or elsewhere) could make one detest themselves and the rest of humanity so much? Also, why do you care what others believe and what other people's children are taught? I'm not trying to bait anyone, I've just never had the opportunity to ask these questions and would really appreciate an answer. Thanks.

At least some of them believe that once they've turned the world into an unlivable hellhole, Jesus will come back to whisk the True Believers away to paradise and murder and eternally torture eveyone else.

I think the ID/Creationist crowd simply thinks that if the Bible says it, then it must be the best way. Their intentions, not disguised in anyway, is to make the US a theocratic state... just like Iran. [This includes the removal of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights.]

They believe that their way is the only way and that everyone should do like they want. Your beliefs do not matter. Your beliefs are not relevent. And your beliefs are wrong (unless you agree with them 100%).

As best as I can figure, they really believe that reality is determined by consensus and he who is most unwavering wins. Therefore, his reality is true.

I'd laugh my tail off about it, but I'm stuck on the same planet as these clowns. Unfortunately, most of them are also on my continent and on the school board in my state.

jerrym said: What is the source/nature of human consciousness and how did it evolve? What is the difference between human consciousness and animal consciousness, if any? What is the biggest question science has not spoken to regarding human consciousness?

I have the feeling that what you say is true, but I just want to see “them” say it. Oops, there goes my chance at an honest answer…

— undereducated atheist

Frank J said: You could still ask Michael Medved or Ben Stein about the Jesus part.

Hey Nick, how's that experiment working out?

HearHear said:

jerrym said: What is the source/nature of human consciousness and how did it evolve? What is the difference between human consciousness and animal consciousness, if any? What is the biggest question science has not spoken to regarding human consciousness?

I would like to hear others weigh in on jerrym's question. I am a graduate student in anthropology, but in my wee days I studied linguistics. Recently I have been hearing people touting the belief that consciousness did not develop until long after the Greek Dark Ages (so after about 800 BCE)--- therefore a Babylonian sitting next to us at the bar would have no idea what reality was. The very existence of language on one hand and a writing system (or literacy) on the other hand is known to shape consciousness, so I find the argument that when the Greeks heard gods talking it was really their bi-cameral minds screwing with them completely bogus from a linguistic point of view. However, I would like to know where consciousness comes from. I once heard a convincing argument from a transhumanist/evolutionary biologist that consciousness is a trick--- I'm okay with that existentially, but can we develop the topic any further?

I was watching "how the earth was made" last night on the grand canyon. i am surprised that IDiota have not jumped on John douglass' hypothesis that initial(?) down cutting was caused by a large lake overflowing. Wouldn't they want to exploit ANY idea that supports a flood, or is his 5 mya timeframe too old?

does anyone know where i can find the complete article on John's idea. i am curious how a channel that formed from the east is connected to a river coming from the north and east.

Stanton said: Tenrecs are not closely related to shrews: the closest relatives of tenrecs are golden moles, elephant shrews, hyraxes and elephants, while the closest relatives of shrews are bats. The 2 main differences between shrews and tenrecs are that 1) tenrecs have a cloaca where their urogenital and anal openings open into, while shrews and their ilk do not, and 2) male tenrecs lack scrotums.

Torbach said: On the origin of LIFE: does this process likely continue somewhere in hot oceans miles inside the earth? can we re-create that? and if so, can i think of those nucleic acids as alien DNA... just for fun?

Hey Nick, how's that experiment working out?

how many people, say in the last week, have repeated to you that you are a waste of space?

gotta be at least a handful?

here's me, adding on.

Ichthyic said: Hey Nick, how's that experiment working out? how many people, say in the last week, have repeated to you that you are a waste of space? gotta be at least a handful? here's me, adding on.

OK, another legit question. Someone, in this thread or another, referred to the folding up of DNA strands within the nucleus. It's been a looong time since Bio 101, so here are some embarrassingly basic questions.

Is each chromosome a single strand of DNA, all scrunched up? If I'm not mistaken, the actual chromosomes only form at the time of cell division. At other times, the DNA is unraveled so it can do its template work, correct? But in the non-chromosome state, it's still all wadded up in the nucleus. Is it wadded into a particular necessary pattern, or just random, like a mass of spaghetti? If the complex 3-D pattern of the tangled mass is non-random, then is the pattern necessary for the proper functioning? Say if 2 areas widely separated linearly on a strand are shoved together in the "mass", does that allow them to interact in ways that they couldn't otherwise? I believe I've seen color-coded diagrams of gene locations that looked like parts of the gene were widely separated on the strand. Does the folding-up of the strand allow them to come into contact and thus work together? And I assume strands from other chromosomes are all mixed together--or are they somehow segregated? And if they are mixed together, is there a pattern, or is that random? And if there is a pattern, is that significant to their function (is it necessary for different strands to get together for something)?

And if this is all completely off-base and a total crock, I'll appreciate that answer too. Then I'll be a little less crocked.

Coincidentally, while debating someone on another venue about the "climategate" thing, I was confronted by the writings of one Roy Spencer, who is (in addition to a AGW denier) an ID advocate. In addition to pointing out his lack of peer-reviewed work (not editorials or vanity papers hosted on his own site) significantly challenging the consensus, I said he also has a problem understanding how science works because he thinks "evolutionism" is on equal scientific and philosophical footing as ID. I got a retort saying it was irrelevant and that Spencer was right about it anyhow, so I explained that I consider it a litmus test on scientific literacy for people who claim, like Spencer, to have read up on the relevant subjects.

I figure a lot of PTers might have a similar opinion to mine on the subject, but is it acceptable to bring up such things during the course of arguing about the consensus of climate change and the "deniers," or entirely inappropriate because he was speaking outside of his field?

This is a repeat from page 2, but someone got in the way...

Another question: is there any indication when (how many years ago) humans figured out that the birth of a baby had something to do with all sorts of activity 9 months earlier.

chunkdz said: Frank, my question was about Panda's Thumbs silence in particular. I mean, really, ...the Kirk Cameron thread gets 80 comments but the world's foremost authority on climate destroying data does not even merit a single blog entry? This is an honest question guys. "Assault on Science" is one of your most popular tag headings.

undereducated atheist said: What I cannot understand is why anyone would want to live in such a society.

Eddie Janssen said: This is a repeat from page 2, but someone got in the way... Another question: is there any indication when (how many years ago) humans figured out that the birth of a baby had something to do with all sorts of activity 9 months earlier.

Just Bob said: OK, another legit question. Someone, in this thread or another, referred to the folding up of DNA strands within the nucleus. It's been a looong time since Bio 101, so here are some embarrassingly basic questions. Is each chromosome a single strand of DNA, all scrunched up?

If I'm not mistaken, the actual chromosomes only form at the time of cell division. At other times, the DNA is unraveled so it can do its template work, correct?

But in the non-chromosome state, it's still all wadded up in the nucleus. Is it wadded into a particular necessary pattern, or just random, like a mass of spaghetti?

If the complex 3-D pattern of the tangled mass is non-random, then is the pattern necessary for the proper functioning? Say if 2 areas widely separated linearly on a strand are shoved together in the "mass", does that allow them to interact in ways that they couldn't otherwise?

I believe I've seen color-coded diagrams of gene locations that looked like parts of the gene were widely separated on the strand. Does the folding-up of the strand allow them to come into contact and thus work together?

And I assume strands from other chromosomes are all mixed together--or are they somehow segregated? And if they are mixed together, is there a pattern, or is that random? And if there is a pattern, is that significant to their function (is it necessary for different strands to get together for something)?

Thanks so much, John! That's just the kind of help I was looking for. Now I wonder if there's any possibility that bits of DNA on a strand that happen to be near each other or even touching do influence each other or work together in any way. Has anyone done any research on that, or is there reason to think that there couldn't be any such interaction?

Eddie Janssen said: ... is there any indication when (how many years ago) humans figured out that the birth of a baby had something to do with all sorts of activity 9 months earlier.

ow I wonder if there’s any possibility that bits of DNA on a strand that happen to be near each other or even touching do influence each other or work together in any way.

Just Bob -

That is said to rarely be the case in hunter-gatherer societies, although presumably only in circumstances where they don't have to make observations about the reproductive cycles of prey species.

Any society that engages in any form of animal husbandry whatsoever has to understand sexual reproduction.

Just Bob said: Thanks so much, John! That's just the kind of help I was looking for. Now I wonder if there's any possibility that bits of DNA on a strand that happen to be near each other or even touching do influence each other or work together in any way. Has anyone done any research on that, or is there reason to think that there couldn't be any such interaction?

Hector said: What do you do with the agnostics who defend or support ID? Such as Berlinski and Monton?

hector: Couldn’t we judge him {Dembski} favorably and just accuse him of attacking what-he-considers-to-be-bad-science?

To the creos out there: I agree with nmgirl about the ultimate goal of creationism. What I cannot understand is why anyone would want to live in such a society.

Eddie Janssen said: This is a repeat from page 2, but someone got in the way... Another question: is there any indication when (how many years ago) humans figured out that the birth of a baby had something to do with all sorts of activity 9 months earlier.

Hector said: What do you do with the agnostics who defend or support ID? Such as Berlinski and Monton?

bryce said: "Typically, these will be about evolution, but I imagine some people may have itching questions about climate science, given the recent denialgasm that’s been going on in the wingnut-o-sphere, found in some its most extreme, pitchforks-and-torches forms" Hey, I have itching questions about ClimateGate, but I was never a ___ (fill in the blank with all those goofy terms you used in the attempt to shut down the debate). Really, with those expressions (denialgasm, wingnut-o-sphere, pitchforks), you're trying to get real scientists who want to speak out against ClimateGate to shut up.

Brad said: Since, this is about evolution, let me ask a question. Have you or any evolutionist that you know explored Christianity to its fullest? Have you studied the manuscripts and looked at the person, deity, and life of Jesus Christ? Or, do you believe that most atheists or evolutionist simply believe that because that is how they have been raised or believe it, in order, to fit their own personal lifestyle that they would refuse the change regardless? If so, wouldn't this be the same argument that they said about Christians? Concerning the fact that Christians do not think or reason, they simply have faith. Would this not be the same thing atheists and evolutionist do just on the opposite end of the spectrum? If Jesus is right in what he said, then he really is the Son of God and he is the only way to heaven. There would be a heaven and there would be a hell.

bryce said: "Typically, these will be about evolution, but I imagine some people may have itching questions about climate science, given the recent denialgasm that’s been going on in the wingnut-o-sphere, found in some its most extreme, pitchforks-and-torches forms" Hey, I have itching questions about ClimateGate, but I was never a ___ (fill in the blank with all those goofy terms you used in the attempt to shut down the debate). Really, with those expressions (denialgasm, wingnut-o-sphere, pitchforks), you're trying to get real scientists who want to speak out against ClimateGate to shut up.

But Brad, if you've actually got some evidence that Christianity is true, bring it out. I'd love to find an intelligent theist to argue with for a change.

Brad asks: Since, this is about evolution, let me ask a question. Have you or any evolutionist that you know explored Christianity to its fullest? Have you studied the manuscripts and looked at the person, deity, and life of Jesus Christ?

Brad. I think you'll find that the vast majority of atheists and agnostics come from a religious background especially in America.
Also evolution ≠ atheism.

Since, this is about evolution, let me ask a question.

Have you or any evolutionist that you know explored Christianity to its fullest? Have you studied the manuscripts and looked at the person, deity, and life of Jesus Christ?

Or, do you believe that most atheists or evolutionist simply believe that because that is how they have been raised or believe it, in order, to fit their own personal lifestyle that they would refuse the change regardless?

If so, wouldn’t this be the same argument that they said about Christians?

Concerning the fact that Christians do not think or reason, they simply have faith. Would this not be the same thing atheists and evolutionist do just on the opposite end of the spectrum?

If Jesus is right in what he said, then he really is the Son of God and he is the only way to heaven. There would be a heaven and there would be a hell.

Brad asks: Since, this is about evolution, let me ask a question. Have you or any evolutionist that you know explored Christianity to its fullest? Have you studied the manuscripts and looked at the person, deity, and life of Jesus Christ?

brad the idiot troll: Or, do you believe that most atheists or evolutionist simply believe that because that is how they have been raised or believe it, in order, to fit their own personal lifestyle that they would refuse the change regardless?

Brad the idiot: Concerning the fact that Christians do not think or reason, they simply have faith.

Brad said: Have you or any evolutionist that you know explored Christianity to its fullest?

Brad said: Have you studied the manuscripts and looked at the person, deity, and life of Jesus Christ?

Brad said: Or, do you believe that most atheists or evolutionist simply believe that because that is how they have been raised or believe it, in order, to fit their own personal lifestyle that they would refuse the change regardless?

Brad said: If Jesus is right in what he said, then he really is the Son of God and he is the only way to heaven.

Since, this is about religion, let me ask a question. Have you or any fundamentalist christian that you know explored any other religion, or science, or philosophy beyond your own to its fullest?

Have you studied the manuscripts and looked at the texts, evidence, and/or beliefs of any science, religion, or philosophy that is not your own?

Or, do you believe that most other ways of thinking simply are wrong because they are different than yours?

If so, wouldn't this be the only argument that you use?

Concerning the fact that Fundamentalist Christians do not think or reason, they simply have faith. Which is exactly the entire point. They do not (in general) think or reason.

Would this not be the same thing atheists and evolutionist do just on the opposite end of the spectrum? And thinking Christians too, but yes

If Jesus is right in what he said, then he really is the Son of God and he is the only way to heaven. There would be a heaven and there would be a hell. That's a mighty big IF to want to kill thousands of homosexuals, pagans, and scientists because they are anathema to your Christian philosophy

Fixed that for you...

Brad said: Since, this is about evolution, let me ask a question. Have you or any evolutionist that you know explored Christianity to its fullest? Have you studied the manuscripts and looked at the person, deity, and life of Jesus Christ?

Brad wrote:

"Or, do you believe that most atheists or evolutionist simply believe that because that is how they have been raised or believe it, in order, to fit their own personal lifestyle that they would refuse the change regardless?"

In my experience, no. In my experience most people believe in their religion because of the way that they were raised or as a matter of personal lifestyle. Very few religious beliefs are based on evidence. Some may be based on personal experiences, but that is not the same thing.

The only valid reason to believe in evolution is because of the evidence. There really is no other reason to believe it. It does not fit with any personal lifestyle choices. It does not give you the freedom to disregard the law or behave immorally. It doesn't mean that you have to give up any religious beliefs, except possibly those that conflict with reality. And it is not usually what you were raised with. In my experience, it is a position that is reached after carefully considering the evidence, usually within the setting of higher education.

As for atheism, I actually don't know that many people who identify themselves as atheists, most who do not have any religious beliefs would probably use the label agostic. In my experience, the most common reason why people lose their faith or belief in God is because of the dishonesty and hypocricy of religious people who deny reality. In fact, I suppose that this is a major reason for the recent decline in organized religion in the United States.

In my experience, many people often use their religious beliefs to justify all types of immoral behavior. That is a real turn off to those who are honestly searching for truth amd meaning in their lives.

Since, this is about evolution, let me ask a question. Have you or any evolutionist that you know explored Christianity to its fullest? Have you studied the manuscripts and looked at the person, deity, and life of Jesus Christ?

— Brad

Wow. 150+ comments and unless I missed 1 or 2, I see that no long time (e.g. FL) or new (e.g. Steve P.) PT anti-evolutionist has shown up to support their own alternative on its own merits. I long suspected that they had little confidence in their own "theories" but this silence really shouts it.

Maybe if I make it easier, and limit my question to a specific question regarding human origins, they might stop "expelling" themselves. My question is, which of these fossils do you think is of the human "kind" and which is of the ape "kind"? Or do you agree with Michael Behe who thinks they are all one "kind," along with dogs, cats and broccoli?

ID proponents keep referring to some kind of "information" that pervades all nature like ether. But I realized that the concept of information is also used by serious scientists in the context of evolution. When was this term introduced to biology?

raven said:

Brad the idiot: Concerning the fact that Christians do not think or reason, they simply have faith.

Cthulhu, could you be any dumber? Who said Xians don't think or reason? Some do, maybe most do. You aren't one of them. Roughly half the scientists in the US are...xians.

Brad said: Or, do you believe that most atheists or evolutionist simply believe that because that is how they have been raised or believe it, in order, to fit their own personal lifestyle that they would refuse the change regardless? If so, wouldn't this be the same argument that they said about Christians?

If Jesus is right in what he said, then he really is the Son of God and he is the only way to heaven. There would be a heaven and there would be a hell.

Kattarina98 said: ID proponents keep referring to some kind of "information" that pervades all nature like ether. But I realized that the concept of information is also used by serious scientists in the context of evolution. When was this term introduced to biology?

Thank you, stevaroni! You really made it easy to understand. And the links in the Wikipedia article will keep me busy over the weekend.

But the genome isn’t like that. It’s more like a billion byte hard drive, containing thousands and thousands of copies of short little hundred line programs.

Splendid analogy! I have every intention of plagiarizing it at the next possible opportunity.

— Matt Young

Stevaroni, that was great. I'm not a computer person so i was always confused by the IDiota also.

Here's one:

Reading microcosm got me wondering: when looking at genetic similarities between organisms, how does the geneticist distinguish between similarities because of descent from similarities because of lateral gene transfer? I can guess that basic functional genes are mostly likely inherited, but is there a 'grey area' where it's hard to tell whether material is inherited or has been donated? Especially since the donated material ends up being passed down too, dunnit?

fnxtr wrote:

"...how does the geneticist distinguish between similarities because of descent from similarities because of lateral gene transfer?"

You are correct, that can be a big problem. That is why it is so important to distinguish bewtween gene phylogenies and organismal phylogenies.

The short ansewer is that phylogenetic analysis can determine the relationships for different genes and even different parts of genes. There are certain patterns that are produced by descent with modification and other patterns that are characteristic of lateral gene transfer. These patterns can even detect mosiaciasm within individual genes. This general approach has been used to identify the origin of mitochondrial genes and mitochondrial derived nuclear genes and mitocchondrial derived pesudogenes.

Another approach is to look for tell tale signs of transfer events, such as those left behind by transposition, retrotransposition, processed pseudogenes, etc. As we discover more and more mechanisms of lateraal gene transfer, we are better able to detect the signs of these events.

I hope that that addresses your question. Others may feel free to add details or specific examples.

stevaroni said: And all those little programs run in parallel, and they all have write privileges.

Brad,

When I was a child I was a Lutheran Protestant Christian and slowly drifted from the Church. I am now a satisfied Deist. However, I do have relatives who are Christians, Jews, Agnostics and Atheists, and at least two who are clerics; one is a retired Methodist minister and the other is a certain famous - or infamous (depending on your perspective ) - former United States Army Sunni Muslim chaplain. I've read the Bible several times, though I will admit that I haven't read it in years, nor do I really wish to when I have other, far more interesting, books that I am more interested in reading.

There are many religiously devout scientists who see no conflict whatsoever between their belief in an Almighty and recognizing that evolution is valid science. All I have known personally have put their scientific duties substantially way ahead of any religious feelings they may have, in stark contrast to the so-called "scientific" creationists at Answers in Genesis, Institute for Creation Research and other creationist organizations. None of the scientists who accept evolution as valid science regard it as a "belief"; a sentiment that I endorse wholeheartedly.

Brad = drive-by theist. No guts. No glory. No evidence. Sigh.

Brad said: Since, this is about evolution, let me ask a question. Have you or any evolutionist that you know explored Christianity to its fullest?

OK, here's one: Are viruses alive?

I guess a better question would be, Is there an accepted definition of life that lets biologists draw a line between life and non-life? I suppose this relates to creationism in that Genesis seems to make a clear and easily discernible distinction between those things given the "breath of life" and the nonliving. But I suspect that in reality it's not that simple.

Here's my tuppence worth: a wood frog hopping around is clearly alive. The same frog frozen solid is no longer alive. The fact that it is "resurrected" when it thaws doesn't negate the fact that while it's frozen, it's dead. The potential for life does not equal living.

Viruses, FWIW, I would say are in a twilight zone--sort of living--almost living. I guess that means that I don't see why there has to be an absolute boundary. Why can't there be a gray area? Sort of like ape-human ancestors. Creationists get bent out of shape drawing arbitrary lines between ape and human, but to us more reasonable folk--why does it matter? There should be many gradations that are ape/human. (Yes, I know, we are apes. And I, for one, am damn proud of the tremendous strides my ancestors have made.)

I believe that viruses pass one of the tests for "life" insofar as they reproduce, after a fashion. But the reproduction is termed "replication" due to the fact that they can only do it by using (abusing?) the chemical machinery within a living cell of some (cell-based) organism. Hence, viruses are not protolife. They are essentially parasites that have lost all functions that they can extract from a host, including even that of reproduction.

Is a frog alive if it is frozen solid and shows no sign of life? IMHO, if it can be thawed and when thawed, is plainly alive again, then it was always alive. It is only that the "signs of life" that must be looked for are more subtle than watching to see if it jumps about. But that's only one take on it.

One of the most horrible experiences anyone has when observing anything in nature - or in history, oddly enough - is when one realises that there isn't actually an absolute boundary between any two conditions. Or practically so.

Just Bob said: OK, here's one: Are viruses alive? I guess a better question would be, Is there an accepted definition of life that lets biologists draw a line between life and non-life? I suppose this relates to creationism in that Genesis seems to make a clear and easily discernible distinction between those things given the "breath of life" and the nonliving. But I suspect that in reality it's not that simple. Here's my tuppence worth: a wood frog hopping around is clearly alive. The same frog frozen solid is no longer alive. The fact that it is "resurrected" when it thaws doesn't negate the fact that while it's frozen, it's dead. The potential for life does not equal living. Viruses, FWIW, I would say are in a twilight zone--sort of living--almost living. I guess that means that I don't see why there has to be an absolute boundary. Why can't there be a gray area? Sort of like ape-human ancestors. Creationists get bent out of shape drawing arbitrary lines between ape and human, but to us more reasonable folk--why does it matter? There should be many gradations that are ape/human. (Yes, I know, we are apes. And I, for one, am damn proud of the tremendous strides my ancestors have made.)

seed magazine: Over time, the NASA scientists came to agree that what sets life apart is its ability to evolve according to the basic rules Darwin proposed 150 years ago. Life, they decided, was a self-sustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution. It was the origin of this evolving system that marked the origin of life. Now chemicals were organized into cells, into species, into lineages that survived and changed over millions of years in a process that Earth had never seen before. “History starts to be written in molecules,” says Joyce. “That’s why biology is different than chemistry.”

A recent definition of life created by Gerald Joyce of the Scripps Research Institute doesn't mention either metabolism or water. This definition says that life is "a self-sustaining system capable of Darwinian evolution." But Clark says most life forms technically are not self-sustaining. Animals feed on plants or other animals, plants need microorganisms at their roots to take up nutrients, and bacteria often live inside other organisms, relying on the internal environment of their host. He says the only truly self-sustaining organisms are chemolithotrophs and photolithotrophs, and they are relatively rare. Clark says that Darwinian evolution is another problematic criteria. How could you tell if something has undergone Darwinian evolution? The time scales involved are enormous - scientists would need a complete understanding of an organism's fossil history before being able to declare that the object is, indeed, alive. According to Clark, living organisms exhibit at least 102 observable qualities. Adding all these qualities together into a single - if exceedingly long - definition still does not capture the essence of life. But Clark has picked out three qualities from this list that he considers universal, creating a new definition of life. This definition says that "life reproduces, and life uses energy. These functions follow a set of instructions embedded within the organism."

raven said: Are viruses alive? Sure.

seed magazine: Over time, the NASA scientists came to agree that what sets life apart is its ability to evolve according to the basic rules Darwin proposed 150 years ago. Life, they decided, was a self-sustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution. It was the origin of this evolving system that marked the origin of life. Now chemicals were organized into cells, into species, into lineages that survived and changed over millions of years in a process that Earth had never seen before. “History starts to be written in molecules,” says Joyce. “That’s why biology is different than chemistry.”

Most definitions of life are a bit out of date. Lately life is being defined as " replicating independent evolutionary units." This excludes mitochondria and chloroplasts as not independently evolving since much of their genome has migrated to the nucleus. It includes viruses. Even though they only do anything in cells, the same is true of many endosymbiotic bacteria such as Rickettsias and Chlamydia. It is amusing to note that being able to evolve is central to the definition. As has been said many times, nothing makes sense in biology without evolution, the great underlying and unifying theme.

I'm not sure I agree with that. Lenski's Avida program has actual evolution (including unique functions that are not 'programmed' into the system). Yet, I would not consider them life.

Other systems use genetic and evolutionary algorithms to generate novel features, but they are not alive nor produce living things.

Hmmm... it does bear thinking on.

And my admittedly demented brain continues to tick over (I suspect it's alive). About that frozen frog being alive--what if it never thaws? Is it still alive after 50 years? After 10,000? Suppose it's thawed after 100,000 years and it doesn't "come back to life." At what point during its big freeze did it "die"? How would you tell without allowing it to thaw?

And about cells: Don't slime molds have a stage without cell membranes, where they're one big blob with many nuclei floating around in them?

Just Bob said: And my admittedly demented brain continues to tick over (I suspect it's alive). About that frozen frog being alive--what if it never thaws? Is it still alive after 50 years? After 10,000? Suppose it's thawed after 100,000 years and it doesn't "come back to life." At what point during its big freeze did it "die"? How would you tell without allowing it to thaw? And about cells: Don't slime molds have a stage without cell membranes, where they're one big blob with many nuclei floating around in them?

Dave Luckett said: One of the most horrible experiences anyone has when observing anything in nature - or in history, oddly enough - is when one realises that there isn't actually an absolute boundary between any two conditions. Or practically so.

OgreMkV said: So, is an upload human personality 'alive'? Will it have rights? Is it just a copy? Can it be patented? All kinds of crazy questions like this will need to be thought about. End ramble... I'm going to bed now... Interesting, I don't think that there's an answer though. "I can't define life, but I know it when I see it."

DS said: fnxtr wrote: "...how does the geneticist distinguish between similarities because of descent from similarities because of lateral gene transfer?" You are correct, that can be a big problem. That is why it is so important to distinguish bewtween gene phylogenies and organismal phylogenies. The short answer (snip)

PhantomReader42 wrote:

"So, Hector, you’re too much of a coward... you’re too lazy ...Get off your ass, Hector!

Oh, shut the fuck up, John Wilkes Kwok! You’re a tedious, irritating asshole. ...

... even more a worthless piece of shit than you or Dembski.

Get over yourself, brainless troll. Everyone here knows you don’t give a flying fuck about the integrity of ANYTHING.

...Did you need a divine sockpuppet who’s as crazy and hateful as you are?"

Repeat after me...
"hateful as you are"
"hateful as you are"
"hateful as you are"

You can add the 'crazy' part if you wish.

Just Bob said: And my admittedly demented brain continues to tick over (I suspect it's alive). About that frozen frog being alive--what if it never thaws? Is it still alive after 50 years? After 10,000? Suppose it's thawed after 100,000 years and it doesn't "come back to life." At what point during its big freeze did it "die"? How would you tell without allowing it to thaw? And about cells: Don't slime molds have a stage without cell membranes, where they're one big blob with many nuclei floating around in them?

veronica said: PhantomReader42 wrote: "So, Hector, you’re too much of a coward... you’re too lazy ...Get off your ass, Hector! Oh, shut the fuck up, John Wilkes Kwok! You’re a tedious, irritating asshole. ... ... even more a worthless piece of shit than you or Dembski. Get over yourself, brainless troll. Everyone here knows you don’t give a flying fuck about the integrity of ANYTHING. ...Did you need a divine sockpuppet who’s as crazy and hateful as you are?" Repeat after me... "hateful as you are" "hateful as you are" "hateful as you are" You can add the 'crazy' part if you wish.

Ok so here is my question. Let me know what yall think.

My struggle with the Theory of Evolution is that it is limited to changes over time for the purpose of survival.
So here is where I’m at. I can see that there is evidence for some type of environmentally caused evolution. We can see it happening all the time (on a small scale) within animals and plants. It makes sense that birds beaks will change (depending on the environment) so that they can eat and survive. And over a long period of time the changes can seem very drastic. This falls in line perfectly with the ToE; environmentally induced changes through Natural Selection and random mutations. This happens so that animals and plants can survive. This is Darwin’s theory, which is about survival.
What doesn’t make sense to me is evolution in regards to humanity. Humans are very different from animals and plants. The intelligence found in humanity seems very unlikely to have evolved. I mean why would a being need to be able to read or write in order to survive? Why would he need to create music or paint a masterpiece in order to survive?
I also don’t see any examples of intelligence having evolved since the beginning of mankind. For example, in ancient Babylon there were air conditioners and other inventions to provide comfort. Mechanical machines are now used instead of the less elaborate systems 3,000 years ago. I will admit that humanity has tried many new things and technology is far more advanced than it was 3,000 years ago, but intelligence has not grown or evolved. Those who built the pyramids and the Roman coliseum were no less intelligent than those who built the empire state building or the personal computer. Each had different tools, materials, and purposes. The very fact that humans try new things and invent new things only gives evidence to the fact that they are unique.
In addition, the fossil record (to my knowledge) doesn’t have one clear piece of evidence for the progression from chimp to man. Sure we’ve found fossils over and over, claiming they are the “missing link” in evolution, but after more careful research they fall short of being human or chimp. Those fossils could have a number of reasons for their oddities and deformities. I understand that fossil research is hard because it is a great deal of speculation, and trial and error.
Still, it is hard for me to see how intelligence could have evolved so dramatically. Humans do more than just survive. They philosophize, create music, and make art. So if natural selection compounded by slow mutations over time is utilized for survival according to the environment, why would human intelligence evolve so drastically? Intelligence isn’t required for survival. Philosophy isn’t required for survival. Aesthetics aren’t required for survival. Animals and plants have survived without the same amount and depth of cognition of humans. So why are humans so different? And how can the ToE explain the drastic jump in intelligence if it goes outside the confines of the theory (i.e. it proposes something beyond survival)?
I think the intelligence of humanity is one of the biggest challenges to evolution. Study the fruit flies, the plants, the bacteria, all you want. Humanity is unique in comparison to them all.
Humanity is special. Somehow they are very different from the rest of the world. And it seems much more likely that humanity was designed or created differently from the rest. Biologically there are many similarities, but intellectually, humanity is far superior to everything else. And as I said before, humans have not evolved intellectually. We may have discovered more materials that we can manipulate, but we have not increased our mental potential.
So the ToE falls short in explaining the need for human intelligence. Is there a theory that does explain it? I can find only two options.
Intelligent design is not bound by the survival limits of the ToE. It even predicts it because a extremely intelligent designer could design and create something that had a similar intelligence and ability to design/create.
Creationism says that a Divine being created humans separately, and they were made in the image of God. This special creation can account for the drastic difference in the intelligence and creative ability of humans (that goes well beyond the confines of survival) in comparison with the plants and animals (not that the animals aren’t intelligent, they just aren’t on the same level as humanity).
Either of these, can explain the uniqueness of humanity. The ToE cannot.

Right?

phantomreader42 said: So, veronica, I take it you have no problem at all with chunkdz's constant, shameless lying and trolling, nor with hector's slimy, dishonest, evidence-free defense of the frauds at the DI, nor can you bring yourself to object in any way to John Wilkes Kwok babbling that "the almighty" is punishing Dembski by making his autistic daughter suffer, nor to the barbarous idea of punishing an innocent child for the acts of its father, nor to calling for the assassination of the President of the United States. Yet calling someone out for doing these things is, in your mind, an intolerable and scandalous act of pure hatred. What the hell is wrong with your moral compass, that you think lying is a-ok, defending liars is fine, making fun of an autistic child to screw with her asshole dad is just peachy, but insulting those people is evil? I also see that you have nothing at all of any substance to say, and you have no interest whatsoever in actually understanding statements in context. You're just here to quote-mine and whine. You're wasting your time and everyone else's. Fuck off.

veronica said: PhantomReader42 wrote: "So, Hector, you’re too much of a coward... you’re too lazy ...Get off your ass, Hector! Oh, shut the fuck up, John Wilkes Kwok! You’re a tedious, irritating asshole. ... ... even more a worthless piece of shit than you or Dembski. Get over yourself, brainless troll. Everyone here knows you don’t give a flying fuck about the integrity of ANYTHING. ...Did you need a divine sockpuppet who’s as crazy and hateful as you are?" Repeat after me... "hateful as you are" "hateful as you are" "hateful as you are" You can add the 'crazy' part if you wish.

Not really.

First, I really suggest you watch all three episodes of the PBS Nova on Becoming Human (they are free on-line). That explains a great deal of the evolution of humans from our earliest ancestors to present and what evolutionary changes happened and when.

As far as the not evolving anymore... any proof of that, other than what you think should be happening? I'm not asking to be snotty, because at least one recent journal paper (2007 if I remember correctly) reports that human evolution is speeding up and has been for the last ten thousand years.

Finally, I suggest that you try to seperate (in your mind) the types of things that evolution does from the results of those evolutionary changes. For example, philosophy... evolution didn't develop a gene that allows us to be philosphers. Evolution developed our minds to be able to deal with concepts that are not immediately concrete (like, "if we don't leave here before winter, we'll starve") and advanced thinking and planning (like, "I'll chase the herd toward you and you jump out and stab the closest antelope with a spear"). These two traits taken together allow things like philosophy, advanced mathematics, etc.

Watch the Nova show, it's really very good. There's another one and the name escapes me about the work of the geneticist at the end of the Nova series. He went to a street fair in New York and took genetic samples of a hundred people or so, then used them to trace the changes in human DNA throughout our history. Really fascinating stuff.

BTW: Humanity is NOT unique. Yes, we think we're better than dolphins because we invented the internet, New York, and atomic bombs and the dolphins just eat, play, and have sex. Of course, the dolphins think they are better for exactly the same reasons.

Start doing some research on human genetics. For example, the proteins used in our eyes to absorb light are found in almost every organism on this planet (including most bacteria). Our genome is 99% the same as chimpanzees. We only think we're special and unique... and some people jsut can't accept that we really aren't.

So tell me, what are differences (measurement and expected values please) of a life form that is designed to be intelligent and one that developed intelligence from a naturalistic method?

Mac said: Ok so here is my question. Let me know what yall think. My struggle with the Theory of Evolution is that it is limited to changes over time for the purpose of survival. So here is where I’m at. I can see that there is evidence for some type of environmentally caused evolution. We can see it happening all the time (on a small scale) within animals and plants. It makes sense that birds beaks will change (depending on the environment) so that they can eat and survive. And over a long period of time the changes can seem very drastic. This falls in line perfectly with the ToE; environmentally induced changes through Natural Selection and random mutations. This happens so that animals and plants can survive. This is Darwin’s theory, which is about survival. What doesn’t make sense to me is evolution in regards to humanity. Humans are very different from animals and plants. The intelligence found in humanity seems very unlikely to have evolved. I mean why would a being need to be able to read or write in order to survive? Why would he need to create music or paint a masterpiece in order to survive? I also don’t see any examples of intelligence having evolved since the beginning of mankind. For example, in ancient Babylon there were air conditioners and other inventions to provide comfort. Mechanical machines are now used instead of the less elaborate systems 3,000 years ago. I will admit that humanity has tried many new things and technology is far more advanced than it was 3,000 years ago, but intelligence has not grown or evolved. Those who built the pyramids and the Roman coliseum were no less intelligent than those who built the empire state building or the personal computer. Each had different tools, materials, and purposes. The very fact that humans try new things and invent new things only gives evidence to the fact that they are unique. In addition, the fossil record (to my knowledge) doesn’t have one clear piece of evidence for the progression from chimp to man. Sure we’ve found fossils over and over, claiming they are the “missing link” in evolution, but after more careful research they fall short of being human or chimp. Those fossils could have a number of reasons for their oddities and deformities. I understand that fossil research is hard because it is a great deal of speculation, and trial and error. Still, it is hard for me to see how intelligence could have evolved so dramatically. Humans do more than just survive. They philosophize, create music, and make art. So if natural selection compounded by slow mutations over time is utilized for survival according to the environment, why would human intelligence evolve so drastically? Intelligence isn’t required for survival. Philosophy isn’t required for survival. Aesthetics aren’t required for survival. Animals and plants have survived without the same amount and depth of cognition of humans. So why are humans so different? And how can the ToE explain the drastic jump in intelligence if it goes outside the confines of the theory (i.e. it proposes something beyond survival)? I think the intelligence of humanity is one of the biggest challenges to evolution. Study the fruit flies, the plants, the bacteria, all you want. Humanity is unique in comparison to them all. Humanity is special. Somehow they are very different from the rest of the world. And it seems much more likely that humanity was designed or created differently from the rest. Biologically there are many similarities, but intellectually, humanity is far superior to everything else. And as I said before, humans have not evolved intellectually. We may have discovered more materials that we can manipulate, but we have not increased our mental potential. So the ToE falls short in explaining the need for human intelligence. Is there a theory that does explain it? I can find only two options. Intelligent design is not bound by the survival limits of the ToE. It even predicts it because a extremely intelligent designer could design and create something that had a similar intelligence and ability to design/create. Creationism says that a Divine being created humans separately, and they were made in the image of God. This special creation can account for the drastic difference in the intelligence and creative ability of humans (that goes well beyond the confines of survival) in comparison with the plants and animals (not that the animals aren’t intelligent, they just aren’t on the same level as humanity). Either of these, can explain the uniqueness of humanity. The ToE cannot. Right?

How exactly would reading Malthus help Mac understand that evolution in humans has not stopped?

Mac said: What doesn’t make sense to me is evolution in regards to humanity. Humans are very different from animals and plants.

The intelligence found in humanity seems very unlikely to have evolved. I mean why would a being need to be able to read or write in order to survive?

I also don’t see any examples of intelligence having evolved since the beginning of mankind.

The very fact that humans try new things and invent new things only gives evidence to the fact that they are unique.

In addition, the fossil record (to my knowledge) doesn’t have one clear piece of evidence for the progression from chimp to man.

if natural selection compounded by slow mutations over time is utilized for survival according to the environment, why would human intelligence evolve so drastically? Intelligence isn’t required for survival.

So the ToE falls short in explaining the need for human intelligence.

Mac said: Ok so here is my question. Let me know what yall think.

John Wilkes Kwok said: 2) Only a demented delusional asshole like yourself would insist on bringing up stuff that I recanted

John Wilkes Kwok said: .... and mind you, I only brought it up in the context that I was afraid that Obama might try governing as a Marxist - Leninist...

Mac said: What doesn’t make sense to me is evolution in regards to humanity. Humans are very different from animals and plants. Either of these, can explain the uniqueness of humanity. The ToE cannot.

phantomreader42 said:

John Wilkes Kwok said: 2) Only a demented delusional asshole like yourself would insist on bringing up stuff that I recanted

I was not aware that you had recanted your delusional fantasies of assassination. I would find your claim to have recanted them easier to believe if you did not attempt to justify them in this very post.

John Wilkes Kwok said: .... and mind you, I only brought it up in the context that I was afraid that Obama might try governing as a Marxist - Leninist...

A fear wholly unsupported by evidence, but one you nonetheless screeched at the top of your lungs, getting progressively more unhinged as time wore on, until you made a total laughingstock of yourself. And a fear that, even if it were true, would NOT justify assassination! And, as you made no attempt whatsoever to address the issue, I take it you have NOT recanted your absurd claim that Dembski's autistic daughter is divine punishment for his asshattery, nor have you been able to see what is wrong with punishing a child for the actions of her father. And on top of that, you have again claimed to be a deist, but deism is the belief in a non-interventionist god, one that does not dole out divine punishments, and so you either do not know the meaning of the religion you claim, or you were lying about it. So you're a profoundly ignorant liar who babbles insanely about things he has no evidence of, and calls for the assassination of people based on delusional fantasies. You'd be quite at home on the Bathroom Wall with Mabus and other creationist nutjobs.

Mike Elzinga said:

Mac said: Ok so here is my question. Let me know what yall think.

Try collecting your thoughts and learn to write in paragraphs that contain roughly a single idea. Human intelligence is an emergent phenomenon. Like all emergent phenomena in Nature, it happens in big, unpredictable jumps as complexity increases. Just note the difference going from atoms and molecules to liquids and solids; and that is at the most elementary level. If you think humans are all that much different from other creatures that have come and gone on this planet, you might consider the stupid things humans do in addition to all the things that seem admirable. “Higher intelligence” also leads to “higher stupidity.” Even bower birds with their bird brains make some pretty elaborate things. If the neural system of the brain becomes bigger and more complex, who knows what they would build (or destroy)?

Kevin (aka OgreMkV) said: How exactly would reading Malthus help Mac understand that evolution in humans has not stopped?

Mac wrote:

"In addition, the fossil record (to my knowledge) doesn’t have one clear piece of evidence for the progression from chimp to man. Sure we’ve found fossils over and over, claiming they are the “missing link” in evolution, but after more careful research they fall short of being human or chimp."

Really? Well perhaps you should go to talkorigins.org and search the archive for the topic hominid evolution. There are at least twelve intermediates in the fossil record between humans and chimps. This demonstrates conslusively that chimps are the proper sister group to humans, a conclusion supported by all of the available genetic and developmental evidence.

Why exactly do you not accept the findings of scientists? Why exactly do you conclude that the intermediates all "fall short of being human oir chimp"? What do you think the characteristics of a true intermediate should be? Why do you think that anyone will care what you think if you cannot understand this simple concept?

mac: What doesn’t make sense to me is evolution in regards to humanity. Humans are very different from animals and plants. The intelligence found in humanity seems very unlikely to have evolved.

Mac, definitely watch the nova series. These are some of the ideas I took from the series:

as hominids became more removed from the apes, they became more and more defenseless: no big teeth, no claws, can't climb trees well, can't run fast, etc. I suppose physical adaptations were possible, but we took a different path. Our ape ancestors already had basic social skills and early hominids built on them. In order to survive they gathered into groups and over time these groups got larger. A larger group requires more social skills and different rules. Think of how much more complicated social interaction and communication becomes in your own circle as more people get involved.

And all this social activity was going on in conjunction with an unfriendly and variable physical environment. Our ape ancestors were well adapted to their environments so haven;t changed as much in the last few million years.

A human infant is a compromise between what a mother can safely carry and deliver and the survival needs of a hairless ape. I wonder if the physical weakness of that infant is a way to make the brain as big as possible at birth because there is so much learning that has to occur?

mac being wrong: “In addition, the fossil record (to my knowledge) doesn’t have one clear piece of evidence for the progression from chimp to man.

DS said: Mac wrote: "In addition, the fossil record (to my knowledge) doesn’t have one clear piece of evidence for the progression from chimp to man. Sure we’ve found fossils over and over, claiming they are the “missing link” in evolution, but after more careful research they fall short of being human or chimp." Really? Well perhaps you should go to talkorigins.org and search the archive for the topic hominid evolution. There are at least twelve intermediates in the fossil record between humans and chimps. This demonstrates conslusively that chimps are the proper sister group to humans, a conclusion supported by all of the available genetic and developmental evidence. Why exactly do you not accept the findings of scientists? Why exactly do you conclude that the intermediates all "fall short of being human oir chimp"? What do you think the characteristics of a true intermediate should be? Why do you think that anyone will care what you think if you cannot understand this simple concept?

John Wilkes Kwok said: I didn't advocate assassination dumb ass. I only said that if Obama tried to rule like a Marxist - Leninist dictator, then maybe he should be removed by a military coup, by those military officers interested in preserving our democratic republic.

John Wilkes Kwok said: If you still can't accept this and insist on referring to me as "John Wilkes Kwok" then I wish you well in assuming room temperature soon

John, I have no doubt that Malthus influenced Darwin and Wallace, but he was and remains an economist first. His application was to resources (industry, raw materials, work), Darwin recognized that Malthus' thoughts could be more widely applied to non-human areas too. I agree that this is an important concept that helped Darwin.

I just don't think it will help Mac. Any decent history of Darwin (even most Ken Miller's high school Biology book) covers Malthus as much as he needs to be covered.

We've gone a long way since Darwin and Malthus and I think knowledge of genetics, current evolutionary thinking, and such as that would be more useful to Mac.

Kevin (aka OgreMkV) said: John, I have no doubt that Malthus influenced Darwin and Wallace, but he was and remains an economist first. His application was to resources (industry, raw materials, work), Darwin recognized that Malthus' thoughts could be more widely applied to non-human areas too. I agree that this is an important concept that helped Darwin. I just don't think it will help Mac. Any decent history of Darwin (even most Ken Miller's high school Biology book) covers Malthus as much as he needs to be covered. We've gone a long way since Darwin and Malthus and I think knowledge of genetics, current evolutionary thinking, and such as that would be more useful to Mac.

phantomreader42 said:

John Wilkes Kwok said: I didn't advocate assassination dumb ass. I only said that if Obama tried to rule like a Marxist - Leninist dictator, then maybe he should be removed by a military coup, by those military officers interested in preserving our democratic republic.

Oh, I see now! You didn't call for him to be ASSASSINATED, you just said he should be dragged out of his house in the middle of the night by a bunch of guys with guns bent on overthrowing the government, all because you had some delusional fantasy about a vast communist conspiracy run by Kenyan time-travelers who planted a forged birth certificate in Hawaii! That's TOTALLY DIFFERENT than killing him! As we all know, no military coup in history has EVER murdered the leader they overthrew! You now admit that the birfer crap is nonsense, but can you still not see how insane you were? Obviously not, since you're still trying to defend that insanity.

John Wilkes Kwok said: If you still can't accept this and insist on referring to me as "John Wilkes Kwok" then I wish you well in assuming room temperature soon

And I'm sure this is another of those times where you're not REALLY wanting someone to be killed, you just say that you'd like them to die and that's somehow totally different. Interesting, with your pathological addiction to name-dropping, that such a simple thing as giving you an apt nickname has you in murder mode. And I notice you've dodged the questions about your attacks on Dembski's innocent daughter yet again.

John Kwok said: Kevin, It can be said that Malthus founded the science of demography given the importance placed on his treatise on population growth. The patterns and processes that he described with respect to humans, both Darwin and Wallace recognized, independently of each other, could be used to explain what was occurring in nature. It may surprise you to learn that there are other aspects of evolutionary biology that have been influenced even more so than Natural Selection by successful application of economic principles (I am thinking in particular of community ecology):

Kevin (aka OgreMkV) said: John, I have no doubt that Malthus influenced Darwin and Wallace, but he was and remains an economist first. His application was to resources (industry, raw materials, work), Darwin recognized that Malthus' thoughts could be more widely applied to non-human areas too. I agree that this is an important concept that helped Darwin. I just don't think it will help Mac. Any decent history of Darwin (even most Ken Miller's high school Biology book) covers Malthus as much as he needs to be covered. We've gone a long way since Darwin and Malthus and I think knowledge of genetics, current evolutionary thinking, and such as that would be more useful to Mac.

Remind me never to get on Kwok's bad side. Threats and ill-wishes on the internet are just farts in the wind, but who needs the stink.

mac being silly: I also don’t see any examples of intelligence having evolved since the beginning of mankind.

John Wilkes Kwok said: Thanks for demonstrating that you are just as delusional as any of the usual creos dropping by here, whether it is Robert Byers or Sal Cordova or Larry Fafarman. I didn't answer anything about Dembski and his child because I've said enough (Again, if one is religious, then it is only fitting to think that Dembski has been "punished" by the Almighty for his bizarre behavior, which are far more consistent with a servant of Lucifer's than of Christ.). Wish you well in assuming room temperature soon. Do it and we'll decrease the surplus population of delusional nuts posting here at PT:

My struggle with the Theory of Evolution is that it is limited to changes over time for the purpose of survival.

well then, let me put your mind at ease. This is not what the ToE actually says, so you have nothing to struggle over.

Instead, evolution functions on the idea of reproductive success, not just survival.

try working that in, and see if things start making a bit more sense for you.

oh, btw, as an aside, have I ever mentioned here on PT how much of an ass I think John Kwok is?

Yes, I believe I have....

raven said: We humans are tough, smart, and ruthless. Anything that gets in the way or offers us a hint of competition has a habit of going extinct.

And a further thought on the glories of human intelligence:

Think of the many extinct animals whose extreme adaptations probably led to their extinction when the environment changed: Irish elk with giant antlers; mammoths with 4-meter tusks and hair all over; sauropods weighing as much as a herd of elephants, etc. It's the small, less extreme generalists that seem to come out the other side of major extinction events.

Now think of our "extreme" intelligence. Sure, it has had great adaptive benefits. But it could be as much of an evolutionary dead end as the armor of a glyptodont. Our intelligence has rendered us capable of destroying ourselves. No other creature has invented nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. It's very possible, at least with nuclear and biological weapons, to destroy, intentionally or inadvertently, the entire human species. Also recall that at least for those of us in the "developed" world, we are almost completely dependent for our continued survival on the mechanisms of modern society. How long after an irreversible power grid failure would there be food riots, then mass starvation?

I maintain that the jury is still out on whether human intelligence will prove to be a successful long-term survival strategy.

If we fail, the "stupid" rats and cockroaches will continue just fine (unless, of course, we're "intelligent" enough to invent a way to destroy all multicellular life).

Oh, and BTW, we have invented religious factions that would gladly destroy the species or all life if they had the power.

After 8 pages of really stupid, icky bullshit, can we declare the idea that motivated this thread a failure?

I won't be back - this sort of thing can be found wherever heads are pointed, cheesy poofs are consumed, and hypocrisy and deceit are seen as the weapons of sexually-frustrated mens and wimmins.

I mean, yuck!

Great experiment Nick. Very revealing.

chunkdz said: Great experiment Nick. Very revealing.

phantomreader42 said: So, just to recap, John Wilkes Kwok loved the idea of a military coup in the United States based on fantasies about communist conspiracies to sap and impurify our precious bodily fluids, claims he has recanted that insanity but still defends it to this day, he accuses people who disagree with him of devil worship and calls upon god to murder them and torment their innocent children, while claiming to be a deist (but apparently not even knowing what deism means), he constantly repeats preprogrammed phrases that have no meaning to anyone else, is a pathological name-dropper who can't stand being referred to by an insulting nickname, and he says OTHER PEOPLE are delusional! Thank you, John, for demonstrating your mastery of creationist tactics. They're still as crazy and worthless when you use them. Go ahead, tell us all how much you'll love it when you get to watch me burning in hell, and your transition to the dark side will be complete.

John Wilkes Kwok said: Thanks for demonstrating that you are just as delusional as any of the usual creos dropping by here, whether it is Robert Byers or Sal Cordova or Larry Fafarman. I didn't answer anything about Dembski and his child because I've said enough (Again, if one is religious, then it is only fitting to think that Dembski has been "punished" by the Almighty for his bizarre behavior, which are far more consistent with a servant of Lucifer's than of Christ.). Wish you well in assuming room temperature soon. Do it and we'll decrease the surplus population of delusional nuts posting here at PT:

John Kwok said: You are the male equivalent of what Dan Ackroyd called Jane Curtin on "Saturday Night Live"; an ignorant slut. Wish you much success in mastering the time-honored Japanese tradition of seppuku. Again, if you do do it, you will help decrease the surplus population of delusional internet trolls posting here at PT. On the other hand, maybe I might prefer instead a "trial by combat" between you and Dembski using whatever weapons you wish to use at your disposal. With any luck you would both lose:

phantomreader42 said: So, just to recap, John Wilkes Kwok loved the idea of a military coup in the United States based on fantasies about communist conspiracies to sap and impurify our precious bodily fluids, claims he has recanted that insanity but still defends it to this day, he accuses people who disagree with him of devil worship and calls upon god to murder them and torment their innocent children, while claiming to be a deist (but apparently not even knowing what deism means), he constantly repeats preprogrammed phrases that have no meaning to anyone else, is a pathological name-dropper who can't stand being referred to by an insulting nickname, and he says OTHER PEOPLE are delusional! Thank you, John, for demonstrating your mastery of creationist tactics. They're still as crazy and worthless when you use them. Go ahead, tell us all how much you'll love it when you get to watch me burning in hell, and your transition to the dark side will be complete.

John Wilkes Kwok said: Thanks for demonstrating that you are just as delusional as any of the usual creos dropping by here, whether it is Robert Byers or Sal Cordova or Larry Fafarman. I didn't answer anything about Dembski and his child because I've said enough (Again, if one is religious, then it is only fitting to think that Dembski has been "punished" by the Almighty for his bizarre behavior, which are far more consistent with a servant of Lucifer's than of Christ.). Wish you well in assuming room temperature soon. Do it and we'll decrease the surplus population of delusional nuts posting here at PT:

Rilke's granddaughter said: So now you're telling someone to go kill himself? Kwok, get hold of yourself. This is insane.

John Kwok said: You are the male equivalent of what Dan Ackroyd called Jane Curtin on "Saturday Night Live"; an ignorant slut. Wish you much success in mastering the time-honored Japanese tradition of seppuku. Again, if you do do it, you will help decrease the surplus population of delusional internet trolls posting here at PT. On the other hand, maybe I might prefer instead a "trial by combat" between you and Dembski using whatever weapons you wish to use at your disposal. With any luck you would both lose:

phantomreader42 said: So, just to recap, John Wilkes Kwok loved the idea of a military coup in the United States based on fantasies about communist conspiracies to sap and impurify our precious bodily fluids, claims he has recanted that insanity but still defends it to this day, he accuses people who disagree with him of devil worship and calls upon god to murder them and torment their innocent children, while claiming to be a deist (but apparently not even knowing what deism means), he constantly repeats preprogrammed phrases that have no meaning to anyone else, is a pathological name-dropper who can't stand being referred to by an insulting nickname, and he says OTHER PEOPLE are delusional! Thank you, John, for demonstrating your mastery of creationist tactics. They're still as crazy and worthless when you use them. Go ahead, tell us all how much you'll love it when you get to watch me burning in hell, and your transition to the dark side will be complete.

John Wilkes Kwok said: Thanks for demonstrating that you are just as delusional as any of the usual creos dropping by here, whether it is Robert Byers or Sal Cordova or Larry Fafarman. I didn't answer anything about Dembski and his child because I've said enough (Again, if one is religious, then it is only fitting to think that Dembski has been "punished" by the Almighty for his bizarre behavior, which are far more consistent with a servant of Lucifer's than of Christ.). Wish you well in assuming room temperature soon. Do it and we'll decrease the surplus population of delusional nuts posting here at PT:

Yeah, you guys--cut it out!

The idea was good: straightforward questions and answers minus the contention, insults, and baiting (hey, it was MY idea).

Then a troll showed up with unrelated climate change crap, and you couldn't just let it go. (How's this--after each upCHUNK, simply state "We're ignoring you--do this elsewhere.)

Then you had to start in on each other. Nobody outside the 2 or 3 involved wants to read through that shite. Why don't you do that stuff in emails and spare the rest of us?

And while I'm unloading...some folks are way too quick to jump to insults (however deserved they may be by creationist trolls). The lurkers would get the point if the response were more like, "You're wrong and here's why," or, "You've been corrected on this many times before," or, "You don't seem to understand." Yes, be patronizing.

That resonates way more with watchers than calling them liars, sacks of shit, ad nauseum. They may be those things, but I'll bet they leave sooner or clean up their acts if they're calmly corrected on their childish misunderstandings by adult figures. Nobody likes being made out to look dumb and childish, but when schoolyard insults start to fly, who looks immature?

John Kwok said: You're complaining about me when you're as bad as Phantom jackass in piling ridiculous shit on me? Do me a favor and just shut up. I think Phantom jackass has told me to drop dead, so am just returning the favor.... so he can help decrease the surplus population of delusional trolls posting here. On a more serious note you seem far more interested in commenting on me whenever you perceive some kind of "injustice" I have done, ignoring the ample instances where I have tried to educate delusional, intellectually-challenged creos posting (IMHO you and phantom jackass are often no better than the creos who "drive by" here in your equally ridiculous comments.):

Rilke's granddaughter said: So now you're telling someone to go kill himself? Kwok, get hold of yourself. This is insane.

John Kwok said: You are the male equivalent of what Dan Ackroyd called Jane Curtin on "Saturday Night Live"; an ignorant slut. Wish you much success in mastering the time-honored Japanese tradition of seppuku. Again, if you do do it, you will help decrease the surplus population of delusional internet trolls posting here at PT. On the other hand, maybe I might prefer instead a "trial by combat" between you and Dembski using whatever weapons you wish to use at your disposal. With any luck you would both lose:

phantomreader42 said: So, just to recap, John Wilkes Kwok loved the idea of a military coup in the United States based on fantasies about communist conspiracies to sap and impurify our precious bodily fluids, claims he has recanted that insanity but still defends it to this day, he accuses people who disagree with him of devil worship and calls upon god to murder them and torment their innocent children, while claiming to be a deist (but apparently not even knowing what deism means), he constantly repeats preprogrammed phrases that have no meaning to anyone else, is a pathological name-dropper who can't stand being referred to by an insulting nickname, and he says OTHER PEOPLE are delusional! Thank you, John, for demonstrating your mastery of creationist tactics. They're still as crazy and worthless when you use them. Go ahead, tell us all how much you'll love it when you get to watch me burning in hell, and your transition to the dark side will be complete.

John Wilkes Kwok said: Thanks for demonstrating that you are just as delusional as any of the usual creos dropping by here, whether it is Robert Byers or Sal Cordova or Larry Fafarman. I didn't answer anything about Dembski and his child because I've said enough (Again, if one is religious, then it is only fitting to think that Dembski has been "punished" by the Almighty for his bizarre behavior, which are far more consistent with a servant of Lucifer's than of Christ.). Wish you well in assuming room temperature soon. Do it and we'll decrease the surplus population of delusional nuts posting here at PT:

Just Bob said: Yeah, you guys--cut it out! The idea was good: straightforward questions and answers minus the contention, insults, and baiting (hey, it was MY idea). Then a troll showed up with unrelated climate change crap, and you couldn't just let it go. (How's this--after each upCHUNK, simply state "We're ignoring you--do this elsewhere.) Then you had to start in on each other. Nobody outside the 2 or 3 involved wants to read through that shite. Why don't you do that stuff in emails and spare the rest of us?

Rilke's Granddaughter said: ...Trolls are funny.

Stanton said:

Rilke's Granddaughter said: ...Trolls are funny.

If I wanted something unpleasant and unwholesome to be "funny," I'd set Tina Fey's business suit on fire, and call it a "Cajun-flavored power lunch."

Wheels said: ... while debating someone on another venue about the "climategate" thing, I was confronted by the writings of one Roy Spencer, who is (in addition to a AGW denier) an ID advocate. In addition to pointing out his lack of peer-reviewed work ... significantly challenging the consensus, I said he also has a problem understanding how science works because he thinks "evolutionism" is on equal scientific and philosophical footing as ID. ... I consider it a litmus test on scientific literacy for people who claim, like Spencer, to have read up on the relevant subjects. ... is it acceptable to bring up such things during the course of arguing about the consensus of climate change and the "deniers," or entirely inappropriate because he was speaking outside of his field?

Wheels said:

Wheels said: ... while debating someone on another venue about the "climategate" thing, I was confronted by the writings of one Roy Spencer, who is (in addition to a AGW denier) an ID advocate. In addition to pointing out his lack of peer-reviewed work ... significantly challenging the consensus, I said he also has a problem understanding how science works because he thinks "evolutionism" is on equal scientific and philosophical footing as ID. ... I consider it a litmus test on scientific literacy for people who claim, like Spencer, to have read up on the relevant subjects. ... is it acceptable to bring up such things during the course of arguing about the consensus of climate change and the "deniers," or entirely inappropriate because he was speaking outside of his field?

Little help?

Stanton said:

Rilke's Granddaughter said: ...Trolls are funny.

If I wanted something unpleasant and unwholesome to be "funny," I'd set Tina Fey's business suit on fire, and call it a "Cajun-flavored power lunch."

John Kwok said: Stanton, I agree with you here, but I don't think you should ignore RG's consistent pattern of ignoring whatever important contributions I may be making here for the sake of making me look as ridiculous as possible. But I understand that it goes with the terrority and have been advised by others, including several prominent creationist foes that this is what is to be expected when I post as frequently as I have done in the recent past. Given the hostility which RG has shown toward me, you would think that I was one of the delusional creos "driving by" for a visit

Stanton said: As far as I can tell, she and phantomreader are unforgiving of your internet hooliganisms. I would try to suggest Ms Granddaughter be more lenient toward you, as you are an eloquent eviscerator of anti-evolutionists, but, the last time I suggested something along the lines of that to her; well, my mother then had to drive me to the ER to have Ms Granddaughter's shoe surgically removed from my umbilicus.

John Kwok said: Stanton, I agree with you here, but I don't think you should ignore RG's consistent pattern of ignoring whatever important contributions I may be making here for the sake of making me look as ridiculous as possible. But I understand that it goes with the terrority and have been advised by others, including several prominent creationist foes that this is what is to be expected when I post as frequently as I have done in the recent past. Given the hostility which RG has shown toward me, you would think that I was one of the delusional creos "driving by" for a visit

Kwok, I was one who debated your political views, and accepted that you had varied them in response to fact and evidence, as a good scientist should.

But I have always found that the only useful answer to intemperance and personal insults from others is an icy, impersonal correctness. (Although I will admit that my reaction to outright lies that I can clearly document is to call the liar a liar.)

May I be so bold as to recommend this course to you?

Dave Luckett said: Kwok, I was one who debated your political views, and accepted that you had varied them in response to fact and evidence, as a good scientist should. But I have always found that the only useful answer to intemperance and personal insults from others is an icy, impersonal correctness. (Although I will admit that my reaction to outright lies that I can clearly document is to call the liar a liar.) May I be so bold as to recommend this course to you?

John Kwok said: Stanton, I agree with you here, but I don't think you should ignore RG's consistent pattern of ignoring whatever important contributions I may be making here for the sake of making me look as ridiculous as possible. But I understand that it goes with the terrority and have been advised by others, including several prominent creationist foes that this is what is to be expected when I post as frequently as I have done in the recent past. Given the hostility which RG has shown toward me, you would think that I was one of the delusional creos "driving by" for a visit:

Stanton said:

Rilke's Granddaughter said: ...Trolls are funny.

If I wanted something unpleasant and unwholesome to be "funny," I'd set Tina Fey's business suit on fire, and call it a "Cajun-flavored power lunch."

As for RG I do wish her well in assuming room temperature soon.

And what does the whole "assume room temperature thing" mean? It's pretty dopey. Can't you be creative? And use something understandable?

Stanton said: As far as I can tell, she and phantomreader are unforgiving of your internet hooliganisms. I would try to suggest Ms Granddaughter be more lenient toward you, as you are an eloquent eviscerator of anti-evolutionists, but, the last time I suggested something along the lines of that to her; well, my mother then had to drive me to the ER to have Ms Granddaughter's shoe surgically removed from my umbilicus.

John Kwok said: Stanton, I agree with you here, but I don't think you should ignore RG's consistent pattern of ignoring whatever important contributions I may be making here for the sake of making me look as ridiculous as possible. But I understand that it goes with the terrority and have been advised by others, including several prominent creationist foes that this is what is to be expected when I post as frequently as I have done in the recent past. Given the hostility which RG has shown toward me, you would think that I was one of the delusional creos "driving by" for a visit

Well, this experiment was pretty much a failure. I didn't end up having the time to babysit. I'm closing it.