But it is Still a Robot!

Neat stuff! Just finishing a section on NS in my Intro. Bio class and can now add "Robotic Selection" to the menu of evidences for selection.

Number five... is alive...

But the mutations weren't really random, at least not in some esoteric sense that I can't define. I'm sure the results were front loaded and smuggled in somehow by some really good intelligent programmer. We just need to see the original code to figure out how they did it. I mean, nothing new can ever really evolve by random changes, right? I mean, if that could occur in robots then it could also occur in nature and that would mean that evolution is true and that is against my religion. SO now you can't teach this in science class without violating my religiosity, right?

For those who'd like to chew on philosophical questions:

Do these robots exhibit free will?
How is it different/similar to human/animal free will?

(My knowledge on philosophy is fuzzy, so I can't answer these questions coherently.)

Monimonika said: For those who'd like to chew on philosophical questions: Do these robots exhibit free will? How is it different/similar to human/animal free will? (My knowledge on philosophy is fuzzy, so I can't answer these questions coherently.)

Floreano has been doing a lot of work on genetic algorithms and robotics. Nolfi is another name in the field that's worth looking into, since he goes a step further (he gets rid of representation inside his robot's 'brains' - they accomplish complex behaviour without actually 'thinking', so to speak).

The two worked together to write one of the best books on the subject, which may interest some readers here. (Full disclosure: My thesis work heavily cites Nolfi.)

These robots consist of parts that resemble intricate machines. And we know all machines have a machinist!

Remove a motor driver, and the whole actuator system becomes non-functional by definition. There's no way these machines can simply evolve by random mutation!

The chances of a tornado blowing through a junkyard and assembling one of these robots really, really teeny! Therefore, they must have been designed! Therefore, WE must have been designed!

I've just discovered the Theory of Intelligent Roboticists!

There is no such thing as free will, thus any appeal to that concept will automatically fail.

The creator is not always going to be greater than the created, especially if the created can improve itself. My parents created me, but I would not say they are superior to me.

The process of Darwinian selection is then imitated by selectively choosing the genomes of robots with highest fitness to produce a new generation of robots.

The title should have been "But it is Still of the Robot KIND!"

dlactin said: This is not 'natural selection'; it is 'artificial selection'.

Monimonika said: For those who'd like to chew on philosophical questions: Do these robots exhibit free will? How is it different/similar to human/animal free will? (My knowledge on philosophy is fuzzy, so I can't answer these questions coherently.)

Dave Lovell said:

dlactin said: This is not 'natural selection'; it is 'artificial selection'.

Would you like to explain the difference?

dlactin said: but until researchers test a system which considers only survival, reproduction and competition for limiting resources, and does not require the intervention of a human ... er ... designer, 'evolution by natural selection' has not been tested.

Hmmm... there's a difference between 'goals' and 'improving fitness'.

A fairly recent paper (I'll try to remember the reference if anyone needs it or doesn't know it already) subjected enzymes with a poor PCR enzyme to a fitness problem. The scientist reduced the availability of some raw materials (it's really much more complex than this, but I don't want to be accused of misrepresentation here).

Over 400 or so generations (about 72 hours), the enzymes had a number of mutations that improved their ability to extract the raw material. It was a 92 fold increase.

Now the purpose of the experiment was do develop an enzyme that was more effective at producing hydrogen gas. That was the 'goal' of the scientist. However, that goal was never set on the enzymes. They were subjected a 'fitness' problem in that only certain enzymes were allowed to reproduce (i.e. those with an increase in hydrogen production).

It may be artificial selection (which BTW is exactly the same as natural selection, just with something other than nature choosing what 'fitness' means), but it is still undirected evolution in that there is no specific goal, just a general improvement in the 'fitness' of the organism.

BTW: This same experiment showed how Behe's irreducable structures can develop via evolution. The most efficient enzymes had a set of four mutations that resulted in the huge increase in hydrogen production. However, three of the mutations taken seperately resulted in decreases in production. Only when all four mutation were present did the highest hydrogen production occur.

Monimonika said: Do these robots exhibit free will? How is it different/similar to human/animal free will?

Lyin wrote:

"When are people going to drop the willful suspension of disbelief which Hero of Alexandria and Leonardo Da Vinci were able to exploit and trick people (like DS) into thinking they were seeing independent thought/will/action?"

I never said there was any independent thought/will/action. There are random changes acted on by selection that produce can adaptations over time. That is called evolution. It doesn't matter that the changes are not really mutations in the biological sense. It doesn't matter that the selection is artificial and not "natural" in the biological sense. This is clear evidence BY ANALOGY that the basic processes of random variation and selection have the ability to produce novel features. When are you going to drop the willful disbelief and admit that all of the evidence is consistent with evolution? When are going to admit that the evidence is clear that evolution actually occurred regardless of your preconceptions? When are you going to stop trying to exploit and trick people into denying the evidence?

Look dude, this is just microevolution. Everybody believes in that. What is your problem? Do you deny that random mutations occur? Do you deny that there is selection in nature? Do you deny that adaptations can occur without the intervention of an intelligent agent? If you deny these obvious realities should anyone care what you think?

Whenever anybody says "category error", you can be sure the rest of the message is not worth reading.

SWT said: If I've understood the paper correctly, the difference is that in the robot study, the robots were evolving toward set goals ... No such predetermined goals exist in the biosphere as a whole.

SWT said:

Dave Lovell said:

dlactin said: This is not 'natural selection'; it is 'artificial selection'.

Would you like to explain the difference?

If I've understood the paper correctly, the difference is that in the robot study, the robots were evolving toward set goals (implicit in the fitness functions used to determine which robot genomes were passed on to the next generation). No such predetermined goals exist in the biosphere as a whole.

talkorigins.org: As astonishing and counterintuitive as it may seem to some, genetic algorithms have proven to be an enormously powerful and successful problem-solving strategy, dramatically demonstrating the power of evolutionary principles. Genetic algorithms have been used in a wide variety of fields to evolve solutions to problems as difficult as or more difficult than those faced by human designers. Moreover, the solutions they come up with are often more efficient, more elegant, or more complex than anything comparable a human engineer would produce. In some cases, genetic algorithms have come up with solutions that baffle the programmers who wrote the algorithms in the first place!

OgreMkV:

Please try to remember the reference. I would like to read the paper, but couldn't fin it on my own.

Science Avenger said: Your certainty is refuted by AI already in existence, some of which have produced results (like antenna design, someone help me and find the link) that were BETTER than anything the engineers could come up with on their own.

Why was my previous comment moved to the Bathroom Wall? (a first btw)

I moved a whole "thread" to the BW to prevent the comments from becoming very OT.

The Panda's Thumb tree challenge was a fascinating read and very informative of the intelligent design/evolution debate.

Why isn't that everywhere?

Matchstick said:

SWT said:

Dave Lovell said:

dlactin said: This is not 'natural selection'; it is 'artificial selection'.

Would you like to explain the difference?

If I've understood the paper correctly, the difference is that in the robot study, the robots were evolving toward set goals (implicit in the fitness functions used to determine which robot genomes were passed on to the next generation). No such predetermined goals exist in the biosphere as a whole.

Could you argue that there is a "predetermined" goal in the biosphere: that of getting your genes into the next generation ? What's not predetermined is the method of ensuring they get there.

It may be artificial selection (which BTW is exactly the same as natural selection, just with something other than nature choosing what ‘fitness’ means)

"Just a few hundred generations of selection are sufficient to allow robots to evolve collision-free movement, homing, sophisticated predator versus prey strategies, coadaptation of brains and bodies, cooperation, and even altruism. In all cases this occurred via selection in robots controlled by a simple neural network, which mutated RANDOMLY."

If lyin wishes to dispute the fact that the mutations were RANDOM then he can publish a rebuttal paper describing exactly how the mutations are not RANDOM. Without that he has no point to make and no leg to stand on.

Do you deny that random mutations occur?

Reed A. Cartwright said: I moved a whole "thread" to the BW to prevent the comments from becoming very OT.

Did they just demonstrate that the best way to design the most optimal designs is by employing evolutionary informatics?
You know, design evolutionary algorithms to search a particular fitness landscape?
Clever designers not?
Err not quite, that would not be an explanation because who designed the designers? Dawkins logic pawns all logic...

Science Avenger said:

Reed A. Cartwright said: I moved a whole "thread" to the BW to prevent the comments from becoming very OT.

A comment about other robot experiments with AI on a thread about robot experiments with AI is off topic? I'm confused.

harold said: I even go one step further and say that artificial selection is a type of natural selection, since humans are unequivocally part of nature.

Robot: "Danger, Will Robinson!"

harold said: DS -

Do you deny that random mutations occur?

As you probably recall from another thread, that particular commenter did indeed deny that random mutations occur.

Well once again we find ourselves debating the validity of an entire process based on an overly narrow definition of a word.

In dlactin's case, I think he was suggesting that the referenced experiment involved humans selecting each successive generation. I don't think that was the case. Humans made the program that figured out which of the robots was considered most fit. Humans defined the fitness landscape.

All I can say of that is.. so what? You can define the fitness landscape in real life by picking where you're looking. The definition of "fit" will vary greatly depending upon whether you're looking at, say, a thermal vent at the bottom of the ocean or a tropical rainforest. Narrow your view sufficiently and you end up with a very similar single objective fitness landscape. If you're dealing with a pool of industrial waste resulting from nylon manufacture then fitness is pretty much defined by the ability to digest those byproducts and gain energy from them. And thus we get the "nylon bugs".

The thing that's artificial in these programs is the fitness landscape. But does that actually matter? For the process to be evolution is it required that the entire landscape has, itself, evolved through the same processes? I think the answer is of course not, otherwise mass extinction events become defined as non evolutionary because the trigger, be it an eruption or a meteor impact, may not in itself evolutionary.

As to this argument of the predetermined goal.. How does that differ from real life? Is it predetermined when a bird in a certain niche evolves wings better suited to soaring on thermals? But it becomes predetermined if humans use the same process to evolve an aircraft wing with superior supersonic flight properties?

Intentionally or not, this is a variation on the classic ID conceit of "haha, you touched it, you're intelligent, therefore the entire thing is the result of intelligent design, so there".

Talkorigins has a nifty article with references to a bunch of different real world applications of genetic algorithms. It's kind of fun, I mean I knew that evolution was a powerful process but I had no idea that it had been used to both write a program to play checkers and to optimize the manufacturing process for a John Deere plant.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/genalg/genalg.html

Nomad said: Well once again we find ourselves debating the validity of an entire process based on an overly narrow definition of a word.

[Snip ...] As to this argument of the predetermined goal.. How does that differ from real life? Is it predetermined when a bird in a certain niche evolves wings better suited to soaring on thermals? But it becomes predetermined if humans use the same process to evolve an aircraft wing with superior supersonic flight properties?

Intentionally or not, this is a variation on the classic ID conceit of "haha, you touched it, you're intelligent, therefore the entire thing is the result of intelligent design, so there".

SWT said: What I am challenging is the assertion that evolution has a "goal;" I argue that evolution in the natural world is no more goal-directed than is gravity.

The birds, as a population, eat, fly, reproduce, etc. -- they do not have a goal of evolving better wings.

Dave Lovell said: The goal is survival

Has anybody made that assertion? “Evolution” does not have a goal, but every successful living organism must have, i.e. to live long enough to produce copies (actually slightly imperfect copies) of itself.

Wait, did you guys read the article? Take a look at the predator/prey robots. The most fit predators were the ones that touched the prey robot quickly. The most fit prey were the ones that avoided the predators for the longest time.

In what way is that different from a cheetah and a Thomson's gazelle? Or a lion and a zebra?

The robots evolved a variety of strategies for getting to the prey or avoiding the predator. And I say evolved here because the behavior was entirely based on the 'genome' that constructed the neural network the robots used.

Let me just add that the 'goal' of reproduction is a built in component of evolution. Organisms that don't have the 'goal' of reproducing... well... didn't and are no longer with us.

Organisms that don’t have the ‘goal’ of reproducing… well… didn’t and are no longer with us.

It is only me or you too are having the strange fear that robots will evolve for be our overlords?

The bad thing about evolution is that you can discover you aren't the fittest species... and other species come to get your place.

harold said: To say that "successful organisms" have a "goal" of surviving and reproducing is also wrong, except, again, if semantic torture of common words is to be engaged in.

eric said: I feel somewhat responsible for this long thread of violent agreement, as I used the word 'goal' in the first response to dlactin. So I'll try and rephrase my point to him: like Ogre, Olorin, and Nomad, I don't think the use of some artificial selection invalidates the robot experiment's value in demonstrating that adaptation and new complex behaviors can evolve.

Joao Carlos -

It's only you.

I’m an organism, and I have the goals of surviving and reproducing.

Actually harold, my comments were more directed to SWT.

I agree that goal is a very ppor word, however, we really don't have another one to use.

Success in evolution is passing genes to the next generation. That's it.

As far as humans go, there are other factors to consider than just grabbing the appropriate mate and making babies. Society and culture have created a slightly different requirement for fitness than the bare minimum required for survival. Anyway... ramble over.

Kevin B said: does it [lusting after a beautiful purse] confer any evolutionary advantage?

I've seen at least one movie, or perhaps episode of a TV show, I can't remember which, with the subject of "GA evolves to the point that it threatens humanity". The basic plot was that they had designed a GA to evolve an AI system, but they went with the literal GA style where the simulation has various AI routines fighting against each other or against other threats as little creatures in the computer. So instead of evolving the ability to do something or another better, it evolved a will to survive and a killer instinct.

I have no idea what happened, I stopped watching after I saw the little CG robot characters fighting against each other as an explanation of how GAs work. I mean.. in a sense you could argue that that was a half decent depiction of the basic idea of GAs, but I just know that because of that show thousands of people are now convinced that any GA can evolve the ability to take over the world. I'm just waiting for some governmental inquiry on GA research.

Re: "goal of evolution": none. I found this fact easier to grok when I stopped regarding evolution as a 'process'. Instead, think of it as a 'consequence'.

djlactin said: Re: "goal of evolution": none. I found this fact easier to grok when I stopped regarding evolution as a 'process'. Instead, think of it as a 'consequence'.

So your thinking it that evolution is the consequence of reproduction and the possibility of mutation, crossing over, ect.

I can see that.

Nomad and Joao Carlos -

Although robots and computers developing human social behaviors and dominating us has made for some classic science fiction, I have a good reason for not worrying about it at all, which I did not express before.

The definition of the word "intelligence" is problematic, but I'm going to use it in a common way here.

The human brain and human behavior are products of evolution. Most of our behavior is driven by instinctive motivations and emotional reactions that long predate the evolution of what we call "intelligence". (The reason that instinctive behaviors evolved, and their presence in many species, is obvious; conscious emotions are more mysterious but are clear motivators of human behavior.)

We have also evolved problem-solving, plan-forming, decision-making "intelligence", but we mainly use it in the service of pre-existing instinctive drives and emotional reactions (curiosity being one such instinctive and/or emotional drive).

These biological urges are a product of the life environment on earth. They did not "emerge from intelligence"; intelligence emerged later in a nervous system that already supported instincts and emotions.

Intelligence may modify some of these pre-existing motivators, but it didn't invent or create them.

Why would a robot or computer designed for "intelligence" want to "dominate", or paint a picture, or most ludicrously yet commonly in fiction, "fall in love", or even do anything independently? It wouldn't. They have no motivations, and no reason to have any. Our motivations come from our evolution as part of life.

Obviously, humans could create robots that mimic human emotions, in fact, we already do. We could create robots that have some means of reproducing themselves. But any "motivation" to do so would have to be programmed in by humans.

It's not impossible, but I think it's pretty unlikely that it would happen by accident.

Dear harold,

Accidents happens. We are an evolution's accident.

So your thinking it that evolution is the consequence of reproduction and the possibility of mutation, crossing over, ect. I can see that.

Henry J -

And of course, even "success" is a human value judgment.

I like to say "inherited variation and differential reproductive rates".

Accidents happens. We are an evolution’s accident.

I like to say “inherited variation and differential reproductive rates”.

Harold - are you suggesting that "intelligence" (however defined) is an emergent property of evolution? If so, I would argue that many populations of organisms were/are/will be capable of becoming intelligent. Bacteria, for instance, produce organized behavior in crowded-growth cultures; the appear to communicate to their sisters on a molecular level.
If humans and bacteria can produce intelligence, then so can robots.

Henry J said:

Accidents happens. We are an evolution’s accident.

I dunno. I think of "accident" as meaning an unintended or unwanted result of an action by somebody so that it interferes with that somebody's goals. If evolution itself doesn't have goals, then it doesn't have accidents as such, either. Henry

Harold - are you suggesting that “intelligence” (however defined) is an emergent property of evolution?

If so, I would argue that many populations of organisms were/are/will be capable of becoming intelligent. Bacteria, for instance, produce organized behavior in crowded-growth cultures; the appear to communicate to their sisters on a molecular level.

If humans and bacteria can produce intelligence, then so can robots.

harold said: The human brain and human behavior are products of evolution. Most of our behavior is driven by instinctive motivations and emotional reactions that long predate the evolution of what we call "intelligence". We have also evolved problem-solving, plan-forming, decision-making "intelligence", but we mainly use it in the service of pre-existing instinctive drives and emotional reactions (curiosity being one such instinctive and/or emotional drive).

These biological urges are a product of the life environment on earth. They did not "emerge from intelligence"; intelligence emerged later in a nervous system that already supported instincts and emotions. Intelligence may modify some of these pre-existing motivators, but it didn't invent or create them. Why would a robot or computer designed for "intelligence" want to "dominate", or paint a picture, or most ludicrously yet commonly in fiction, "fall in love", or even do anything independently? It wouldn't. They have no motivations, and no reason to have any. Our motivations come from our evolution as part of life.

… isn’t it possible that “intelligence” requires the scaffolding of something like emotional drives?

Perhaps building a truly “intelligent” robotic system will require giving it the equivalent of emotional drives. Furthermore, these drives might, by definition, be detachable from one context and attached to other contexts motivations etc. by the system itself in unanticipated ways. This might even be part of the definition of intelligence, even the sine qua non of intelligence. In which case, any truly intelligent system would by definition be capable of exactly what you deny. I don’t think we know enough about “intelligence” to rule out such possibilities a priori.

Is curiosity an emotion?

I'm just wondering if there actually is any intelligence without some kind of motivation.

The tendency/ability to absorb, analyze, and synthesize information and ideas needs some kind of... impetus, doesn't it?

You say that robots don't have emotions, so they won't want to take over the world. Yet, at the same time, you say that the "use" of evolution is to achieve the "goal" of passing on one's genes. If a robot was given the "goal" of sustaining itself and procreating, and was given the means to do so, would it not look to the outside as taking over the world?

Consider the Star Gate Replicators. With just the goal and ability to self replicate, robots could easily seem to be taking over the world, even without the use of emotions.

You say that robots don’t have emotions, so they won’t want to take over the world.

Yet, at the same time, you say that the “use” of evolution is to achieve the “goal” of passing on one’s genes.

If a robot was given the “goal” of sustaining itself and procreating, and was given the means to do so, would it not look to the outside as taking over the world?

Consider the Star Gate Replicators. With just the goal and ability to self replicate, robots could easily seem to be taking over the world, even without the use of emotions.

scary stuff

The existence of evolutionary programming, in my own mind, is a huge blow to the intelligent design advocates.

It shows the power of evolutionary theory that scientists have been talking about all along while "intelligent design algorithms" seem to be curiously absent. I wonder why?

If I could think of such an algorithm I think it would go something like this:

#include "nonsense.h"

int main(){

pray();

return NOTHING;

}

dlactin writes:

[From the paper:

The process of Darwinian selection is then imitated by selectively choosing the genomes of robots with highest fitness to produce a new generation of robots.

This is not ‘natural selection’; it is ‘artificial selection’. The results are truly astonishing, but until researchers test a system which considers only survival, reproduction and competition for limiting resources, and does not require the intervention of a human … er … designer, ‘evolution by natural selection’ has not been tested.]

I don't think that human intervention was used. The article mentions:

[The fitness f of each robot (i.e., the performance in the task assigned to them) is measured in the experimental setting using real robots or physics-based simulators.

The performance of each robot was evaluated with a fitness function describing the ability of the robot to efficiently move in the maze.]

The fitness function seems to have been based on things like distance the robot kept from the wall and number of collisions.

And it looks like the robots were competing for survival - robots that hit the walls were probably thrown out of the competition - or died in robot terms.

I wish the article had gone into how fitness functions were calculated, it would have answered questions like these.

dlactin wrote: "(Preamble: I am a trained biologist, I absolutely accept evolution as fact, and I scorn “ID”.) Just a caveat here. From the paper: ... The process of Darwinian selection is then imitated by selectively choosing the genomes of robots with highest fitness to produce a new generation of robots. This is not ‘natural selection’; it is ‘artificial selection’. The results are truly astonishing, but until researchers ... "

I like your comment, but it's a shame you felt the need to add that preamble, as if you knew you'd be the recipient of ad hominem attacks for appearing like you're "on the wrong side of the debate."

Raven writes: "While the IDists/creationists are attacking science, science is busy making a better world."

Lets toss off your anger, Raven, and recognize that science is huge, but these people attack only a few areas of science, those areas of science that contribute relatively little to making a better world. And they try to make a better world in their own way.

Harold writes: "Evolution creates these behaviors and instincts without any need for conscious goal-setting. Actually, that is exactly what this robot experiment successfully modeled."

A question for the group (I'm not criticizing anything Harold wrote): In this robot experiment, if a robot obtained a beneficial behavior and instinct, did it automatically retain it? If so, why? After all, if an animal obtains a new beneficial behavior or instinct, its animal children do not automatically obtain those same behaviors and instincts as their parent, especially if the parent is unable to teach them to the child.

If the behavior/instinct was obtained due to changes in the heritable traits, it would be passed to any descendants of that individual. Behaviors acquired by learning wouldn't be tested in this type of experiment.

Henry J said: If the behavior/instinct was obtained due to changes in the heritable traits, it would be passed to any descendants of that individual. Behaviors acquired by learning wouldn't be tested in this type of experiment.

Brenda said: Raven writes: "While the IDists/creationists are attacking science, science is busy making a better world." Lets toss off your anger, Raven, and recognize that science is huge, but these people attack only a few areas of science, those areas of science that contribute relatively little to making a better world. And they try to make a better world in their own way.

SWT writes: "First, I have not seen anything from the creationists (including ID) that doesn’t involve abandoning the scientific method and methodological naturalism."

The ol' "I have not seen" argument. Feh.

"When you take that step, you’re attacking the foundations of all scientific disciplines, not just some narrow corner of biology."

I disagree. Scientists whose work surrounds electricity, for instance, can feel confident that a creationist is not attacking his work's foundation. Same with many other fields of science, including many fields in biology. It's only in a couple of fields, such as evolution and I guess cosmology, where they launch their attack.

"Second, Dobshansky noted that “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” IANAB, but my understanding of biology is strong enough that I can recognize the truth of this statement."

Dobshansky noted it, but it's more of a slogan than anything substantial.

"Are you really willing to say that biology contributes relatively little to making a better world?"

Would you like me to put ridiculous words into your mouth, too?

" What has any variant of creationism provided that in any way makes the world a better place? Has creationism produced anything to help us feed the hungry, heal the sick, house the homeless, clothe the naked, or comfort the afflicted?"

I understood the original attack to be on people who were creationists, not on people-as-creationists.

Brenda said: I disagree. Scientists whose work surrounds electricity, for instance, can feel confident that a creationist is not attacking his work's foundation. Same with many other fields of science, including many fields in biology. It's only in a couple of fields, such as evolution and I guess cosmology, where they launch their attack.

A question for the group (I’m not criticizing anything Harold wrote): In this robot experiment, if a robot obtained a beneficial behavior and instinct, did it automatically retain it? If so, why?

After all, if an animal obtains a new beneficial behavior or instinct, its animal children do not automatically obtain those same behaviors and instincts as their parent, especially if the parent is unable to teach them to the child.

I disagree. Scientists whose work surrounds electricity, for instance, can feel confident that a creationist is not attacking his work’s foundation. Same with many other fields of science, including many fields in biology. It’s only in a couple of fields, such as evolution and I guess cosmology, where they launch their attack.

Brenda said: SWT writes: "First, I have not seen anything from the creationists (including ID) that doesn’t involve abandoning the scientific method and methodological naturalism." The ol' "I have not seen" argument. Feh.

Brenda wrote:

"A question for the group (I’m not criticizing anything Harold wrote): In this robot experiment, if a robot obtained a beneficial behavior and instinct, did it automatically retain it? If so, why?"

The answer is no, the experiment was designed to be as realistic as possible. The genomes underwent recombination and mutation when they reproduced.

If you think that creationists do not attack all of science you are dead wrong. They are committed to oppose what they see as competition from materialism, that includes all of science. If they get their way with evolution, how long do you think it will be before they replace all of science with a priest hood of their own choosing? It has happened before, it may happen again.

Now, do you have any examples of any creationists doing any real science about creationism? This does not include lip service or posturing, I mean real research about creationism. Do they have their own geologic column? Do they have their own experiments to test for miracles? Have they shown that mutations are directed? Are they studying the genetics of development? Have they published any results in the peer reviewed literature?

Brenda said: A question for the group (I'm not criticizing anything Harold wrote): In this robot experiment, if a robot obtained a beneficial behavior and instinct, did it automatically retain it? If so, why?

Brenda said: I disagree. Scientists whose work surrounds electricity, for instance, can feel confident that a creationist is not attacking his work's foundation. Same with many other fields of science, including many fields in biology. It's only in a couple of fields, such as evolution and I guess cosmology, where they launch their attack.

Brenda said: I disagree. Scientists whose work surrounds electricity, for instance, can feel confident that a creationist is not attacking his work's foundation. Same with many other fields of science, including many fields in biology. It's only in a couple of fields, such as evolution and I guess cosmology, where they launch their attack.

Brenda wrote:

"The ol’ “I have not seen” argument. Feh."

Right. The only difference here Brenda is that when a creationist says they have not seen the evidence, what they invariable mean is that they have not bothered to look. They don't publish in the peer reviewed literature and from what we can tell, they don't read it either. Some even refuse to read it, even when provided with references they demand! Speaking of which, if you had bothered to read the paper in question, you wouldn't have had to ask that it be explained to you.

In contrast, many of us have been carefully watching the creationists and IDists for many years now. If they are doing any real research we haven't seen it. Now pay close attention Brenda, this is a prime characteristic of pseudoscience. The promise of top notch research in top secret labs is always held forth but never forthcoming. The whole point of research is letting others know your results. Creationists don't have any. The last twenty years have produced only two articles, one of which was published under dubious circumstances and retracted and one theoretical paper which has been proven to be dead wrong. So the "I hsve not seen" argument is completely appropriate here. Still waiting for your counter example.

Brenda said: ...science is huge, but these people attack only a few areas of science, those areas of science that contribute relatively little to making a better world. “Are you really willing to say that biology contributes relatively little to making a better world?” Would you like me to put ridiculous words into your mouth, too?

eric said:

Brenda said: I disagree. Scientists whose work surrounds electricity, for instance, can feel confident that a creationist is not attacking his work's foundation. Same with many other fields of science, including many fields in biology. It's only in a couple of fields, such as evolution and I guess cosmology, where they launch their attack.

ID objects to the exact same mainstream scientific theories and observations that biblical literalists object to on religious grounds. Why do you think that is? Coincidence?

Brenda being totally wrong: Raven writes: “While the IDists/creationists are attacking science, science is busy making a better world.” Lets toss off your anger, Raven, and recognize that science is huge, but these people attack only a few areas of science, those areas of science that contribute relatively little to making a better world. And they try to make a better world in their own way.

Brenda being ignorant and stupid: those areas of science that contribute relatively little to making a better world. And they try to make a better world in their own way.

Brenda said: I disagree. Scientists whose work surrounds electricity, for instance, can feel confident that a creationist is not attacking his work's foundation.

DS writes: "If you think that creationists do not attack all of science you are dead wrong. They are committed to oppose what they see as competition from materialism, that includes all of science. If they get their way with evolution, how long do you think it will be before they replace all of science with a priest hood of their own choosing? It has happened before, it may happen again."

I guess I'm not as paranoid as you are.

Dan said: Byers is saying that observations, reasoning, evidence, and so forth are irrelevant. This strikes at the very heart of research into electricity.

Raven writes: "I’ve explained a little how evolutionary biology is critical to medicine and agriculture."

You've adequately demonstrated how it contributes to some extent, but you didn't demonstrate how it is critical. And you are ridiculously mistaken by calling me a Xian fundie.

"Explain how a theocracy, a new Dark Age, and mass murder on a tremendous scale makes the world a better place."

Stupid requests are not granted.

Brenda said: Stupid requests are not granted.

Brenda Utthead whined: I guess I’m not as paranoid as you are. Stupid requests are not granted.

Brenda evading the question: “Explain how a theocracy, a new Dark Age, and mass murder on a tremendous scale makes the world a better place.” Stupid requests are not granted.

Brenda confused or what? Raven writes: “I’ve explained a little how evolutionary biology is critical to medicine and agriculture.” You’ve adequately demonstrated how it contributes to some extent, but you didn’t demonstrate how it is critical.

And you are ridiculously mistaken by calling me a Xian fundie.

Brenda said: You've adequately demonstrated how it [evolution] contributes [to medicine] to some extent, but you didn't demonstrate how it is critical.

Mike Elzinga said:

Brenda said: Stupid requests are not granted.

So, do you agree then that the “requests” (demands) of ID/creationists to push their junk in the public school science curriculum should not be granted?

True, Raven then went on to say it [the TOE] was critical, giving you an opening to move your goalposts, but you were the one who moved them.

Brenda wrote:

"I guess I’m not as paranoid as you are."

Possibly. But then again, you don't seem to be well enough informed to remember Dover.

Still waiting for one example of one creationist who is doing any real science Brenda. Am I just being paranoid or are you just being dishonest?

I guess I'm not as paranoid as you are.

Have you considered maybe you are just ignorant of the attempts by those suffering from the creationism delusion to modify teaching standards all across the world?

Have you ever read about the Wedge Document, for example?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy

Maybe you would be a little more "paranoid", if you started paying more attention?

...btw, to attack the foundations of evolutionary biology, creationists have to attack much more than just things like natural selection, they have to basically deny much of the rest of biology too, along with:

Geology
Physics
Chemistry
History

because all of these things lend parallel and independent support for the Theory of Evolution.

so you see, creationists indeed must basically undermine not only biology, but the very basics of science itself in order to get their way.

...and, in fact, this is exactly what we have seen, e.g., when they tried to rewrite the very definition of science itself in Kansas!

So you are quite mistaken in thinking their focus is narrow and unimportant.

Brenda said: And you are ridiculously mistaken by calling me a Xian fundie.

Brenda -

I will add a couple of comments here.

1. Although I generally agree very strongly with civility, it is not uncivil to use fairly strong language when dealing with very misguided and harmful ideas.

What you call "paranoid" would be the logical consequence of allowing science to be denied and eroded in the name of dogma and ideology.

2. A major focus of your comments, THE major focus, is the idea that creationism is comparatively harmless. It isn't.

First of all, even if someone were trying to shove their own narrow sectarian dogma into history or geography or spelling class as the "official truth", that would still be a violation of the rights of all students and families. Actually, even including the ones who adhere to that particular sectarian dogma, because if they can do that today, someone else might be able to shove a different sectarian dogma tomorrow. And that is transparently harmful.

Second of all, this country is already falling badly behind in terms of math and science education, and already has to go to foreign countries to hire engineers and scientists.

Having a bunch of propagandists constantly filling the sphere of public dialogue with dishonest denials of science is very harmful.

Since they have a strong legal right to express themselves, the way to deal with it is by meeting their false claims with honest, strong and rigorous rebuttal.

Mike Elzinga -

In the spirit of nitpicking to promote nerdly esprit de corps, I must point out that transcendental meditation (which I do not practice, personally) is not really pseudoscientific, at least not in the sense that the other egregious violators you mention are.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendental_meditation

It is associated with exaggerated terms that give that impression, for example "yogic flying" (which is actually a rather difficult but entirely non-magical technique of jumping straight into the air from the seated "lotus" position.)

There is much that is eccentric to be found in association with TM http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hagelin.

However, as far as outright denial of existing strong scientific theories, or peddling of products that are uequivocally worthless or harmful, they don't deserve to be associated with a rogue's gallery that includes ID.

harold said: In the spirit of nitpicking to promote nerdly esprit de corps, I must point out that transcendental meditation (which I do not practice, personally) is not really pseudoscientific, at least not in the sense that the other egregious violators you mention are.

Brenda said:

Raven said: "I’ve explained a little how evolutionary biology is critical to medicine and agriculture."

You've adequately demonstrated how it contributes to some extent, but you didn't demonstrate how it is critical. And you are ridiculously mistaken by calling me a Xian fundie.

"Explain how a theocracy, a new Dark Age, and mass murder on a tremendous scale makes the world a better place."

Stupid requests are not granted.

So Brenda, when proven to be absolutely wrong about everything she claimed, refuses to admit that she is wrong, then is reduced to one liners attempting to ridicule those who showed her to be wrong. What she hasn't done is provide any evidence for any of her claims. Man, for someone who claims not to be a fundy cultist, she sure has the routine down.

Of course it doesn't really matter whether Brenda thinks that creationists represent any real threat or not. We have the constitution to protect us and a government that will enforce it. At least for now.

For now.

But the DI has one thing right. It will take a while, but they can use popular pressure to eventually get a Supreme Court that will admit something that they can use to get creationism into the schools. Get enough people to think either that the jury's still out or that Darwinian evolution is the same as atheism, and they'll get that popular pressure. They're generating it now.

Brenda's an example of how insidious they can be. She's sharpening her claws here - creationists are good, upright people, they want to help mankind, they only doubt "Darwinism", they have no quarrel with science generally, they think they have evidence of their own, scientists are all very well, but "Darwinists" are a bunch of atheists who are incapable of civil address, all that malarkey. It's a two-pronged misrepresentation of both sides.

Active creationists - as opposed to the silently ignorant - are religious fanatics engaged in nothing less than the dismantlement of the Enlightenment itself. They would destroy all of science in their pursuit of their dogma, for all of science confirms and establishes the facts of the Theory of Evolution. They will use any and all lies, shifts, misrepresentation and evasion in this pursuit.

And they're good at it. Science has to do better, in its own defence. Presenting the facts is good, but more than that is required. A little passion helps, too - a passionate rejection of the lies, for instance.

Which is what we see here.

Dave Luckett said: And they're good at it. Science has to do better, in its own defence. Presenting the facts is good, but more than that is required. A little passion helps, too - a passionate rejection of the lies, for instance. Which is what we see here.

"Raven is not mistaken, ridiculously or otherwise. If you insist on downplaying the grave importance of the science that explains how agriculturists create new breeds of livestock and crops, as well as explains the mechanics of how poison-resistant agricultural pests and pathogens arise, you’re just as bad as the people who think that teaching science to children offends God."

You guys must really hate Jerry Coyne.

He said:

"improvement in crop plants and animals occurred long before we knew anything about evolution, and came about by people following the genetic principle of 'like begets like.'" ... "evolution hasn't yielded many practical or commercial benefits (concerning fighting antibiotic resistant superbugs). Yes, bacteria evolve drug resistance and, yes, we must take countermeasures, but beyond that there is not much to say."

I understand that Coyne has regretted saying this. He has found more cases where the theory of evolution has contributed to these things. But read on...

Of all the sciences, I'd put biology near the top of the list of those that contribute to the betterment of society. If it's just improving our society's knowledge, I give that some importance, too. And I do credit some aspects of evolution in improving our health and agriculture and livestock and whatnot. If I say "a lot," that would be misleading, but if I say "a little," that would be misleading, too. That's why I wrote "relatively little."

RWard writes: "If, indeed, you understand that evolutionary theory is necessary to making sense of life science..."

Well, I hold by Wilkins more than Dobzhansky. A.S. Wilkins editor of the journal BioEssays wrote: "While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky's dictum that 'nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution,' most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas. Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superfluous one."

Again, (and I hope to explain my "contradiction") the theory of evolution has helped us understand a lot in biology. But relative to the mass of knowledge biology has to offer, it ain't that much.

Creationists as creationists do not contribute much (but I won't say "anything")to scientific knowledge. But Creationists as human beings contribute in their own way. I said this before, but I think many of you forgot or didn't see it or didn't want to believe it.

To Raven, who asked "Explain how a theocracy, a new Dark Age, and mass murder on a tremendous scale makes the world a better place.” I take back my "stupid request" retort and humbly ask, "why the hyperbole"?

Brenda, what on earth makes you think that one cannot condemn ignorance and unreason because (some) creationists "contribute in their own way"? Whatever they might contribute as people, as creationists they are ignorant and irrational, and ignorance and irrationality are to be condemned.

Raven's is the extreme case, but not unreasonable. Some creationists want nothing less than to destroy the Enlightenment itself. The DI dissembles that, but they are at least doing everything in their power to establish religion and to create a theocracy in the US. Not even they realise the implications, but they are horrifying. The use of State power to mandate a religion, to cripple free enquiry and to shackle science are among them; and that certainly would constitute a new dark age.

Brenda said: And you are ridiculously mistaken by calling me a Xian fundie.

Brenda said: Again, (and I hope to explain my "contradiction") the theory of evolution has helped us understand a lot in biology. But relative to the mass of knowledge biology has to offer, it ain't that much.

Dave Luckett asks: "Brenda, what on earth makes you think that one cannot condemn ignorance and unreason because (some) creationists “contribute in their own way”? "

What on earth makes you think that I think that?

Dan asks: "In what units are you measuring “the mass of knowledge”? I take it you’re not using kilograms!"

With percentages, units are irrelevant.

Brenda said: Well, I hold by Wilkins more than Dobzhansky. A.S. Wilkins editor of the journal BioEssays wrote: "While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky's dictum that 'nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution,' most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas. Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superfluous one."

Creationists as creationists do not contribute much (but I won't say "anything")to scientific knowledge. But Creationists as human beings contribute in their own way. I said this before, but I think many of you forgot or didn't see it or didn't want to believe it.

Oh, and a couple of questions for Brenda;

1) How old do you think the universe is?

2) How old do you think the Earth is?

3) How long has there been life on Earth?

4) What do you think is the best scientific explanation for the current diversity of life on Earth?

Brenda wrote:

"Again, (and I hope to explain my “contradiction”) the theory of evolution has helped us understand a lot in biology. But relative to the mass of knowledge biology has to offer, it ain’t that much.

Creationists as creationists do not contribute much (but I won’t say “anything”)to scientific knowledge. But Creationists as human beings contribute in their own way. I said this before, but I think many of you forgot or didn’t see it or didn’t want to believe it."

So now you admit that evolution is important to biology and biology is important to science. Great, now we are getting somewhere. You will not say that creationists contribute nothing to science, but you still refuse to give any example of anything they have actually accomplished. Sorry, not buying that. Here is the important point, why on earth would you let these people get away with denigrating real science if they contribute nothing? They have not earned the right to criticize, misrepresent, lie and confuse - which is all they do. They can contribute anything they want to as human beings, but they don't have to condemn science to do so. Indeed, their actions are, in most cases, so reprehensible that they have given up any pretense to moral superiority.

Wake up and smell the crap. You are defending ignorameses and charlatans who seek to degrade your lifestyle and shorten your lifespan. They desire nothing more than to keep you in ignorance and subservient to their whims in order to stroke their own inflated egos. If you need to defend anyone, defend the real scientists who have provided you with so much that you have come to depend on. No one is threatening you religious beliefs. No one is claiming that scientists are morally superior. No one is condoning immoral behavior but you.

In case you din't know, in Dover creationists aided the locals in breaking the law and violating the constitution. They deprived hundreds of school children of the science education they had paid for by stating that evolution was not true. They cost the tax payers millions of dollars in legal fees which could have been used for science education. The committed perjury on the witness stand and got caught at it. These are the people you are trying to defend. Why would you want to do that?

Brenda, do you have any additional questions about the robot paper? As far as i can tell you asked one which was answered in the second paragraph of the paper. Beyond that you appear to just be recycling your past comments about: how unimportant evolution is to science; how uncivil we are, and; how you are not a creationist.

SWT,

You are correct. Modern evolutionary theory is used extensive for crop breeding, hybridization and genetic engineering. For example, population genetics is used to predict spread of genetically engineered genes into other species by introgressive hybridization. THis helps to determine what proportion of engineered crops can planted and their proximity to feral populations. None of this wold be possible without modern biology or evolutionary theory. Brenda hasn't got a clue where the food she eats comes from. She is apparently perfectly willing to let innocent people die of starvation in order to promote her own brand of ignorance in some misguided attempt at moral engineering. The same old story of "keep em ignorant and keep em controlled" routine all over again.

So, Brenda, can you tell us some of the contributions to agriculture and medicine in the last century creationists have made using Creationism, via extrapolating from a literal interpretation of the Bible?

Dave Luckett asks: "Brenda, what on earth makes you think that one cannot condemn ignorance and unreason because (some) creationists “contribute in their own way”?

What on earth makes you think that I think that?

Creationists as creationists do not contribute much (but I won’t say “anything”)to scientific knowledge. But Creationists as human beings contribute in their own way. I said this before, but I think many of you forgot or didn’t see it or didn’t want to believe it.

Brenda said: Creationists as creationists do not contribute much (but I won't say "anything")to scientific knowledge. But Creationists as human beings contribute in their own way. I said this before, but I think many of you forgot or didn't see it or didn't want to believe it.

Dan said:

Brenda said: Again, (and I hope to explain my "contradiction") the theory of evolution has helped us understand a lot in biology. But relative to the mass of knowledge biology has to offer, it ain't that much.

So, it's "a lot" but it "ain't that much". In what units are you measuring "the mass of knowledge"? I take it you're not using kilograms!

Brenda said: Dan asks: "In what units are you measuring “the mass of knowledge”? I take it you’re not using kilograms!" With percentages, units are irrelevant.

Dan wrote:

"A percentage is a ratio. The items in the numerator and denominator of the ratio do have units. So what is the denominator, the “mass of knowledge biology has to offer”? And what is the numerator, the “mass of what evolution has helped us understand in biology”?"

Perhaps the units should be papers published in the peer reviewed literature. Let's see now, in the last forty years that would be at least two million for evolution and about two for creationism (being generous here). So that would make the ratio about one to one million so that would be in percent about 0.0001%. There, glad we cleared that up. Of course I already stated why those two papers don't count, so that saves a little math.

Now why would you want to defend the immoral behavior of an entire group who has supposedly spent millions of dollars on "research" and produced absolutely nothing?

DS said: SWT; You are correct. Modern evolutionary theory is used extensive for crop breeding, hybridization and genetic engineering.

Brenda -

I have some very direct questions for you.

I notice that you engage in two annoying things - cherry picking (responding only to tiny snippets) and playing peek-a-boo (refusing to state your own position and coyly denying any position ascribed to you).

Obviously, these habits make full communication more difficult. Cherry picking may be excusable when there is a lot to respond to.

But here's my direct question - what is your position? That is to say, what is your general educational background, your view on including ID/creationism in public schools, your view on ID/creationism in terms of its general accuracy (and your reason for holding that view)? Your religion is your own business, but some people like to explain how their religion fits in with their general position.

It's up to you, but it's helpful to know where people are coming from.

DS said: Brenda wrote: But Creationists as human beings contribute in their own way.

Steveroni wrote:

"Where did Monsanto find the Roundup-resistant gene? In a population of bacteria which had evolved to thrive in a waste pool at one of the Roundup plants."

Yet another example of unintentional unintelligent design.

Brenda again: To Raven, who asked “Explain how a theocracy, a new Dark Age, and mass murder on a tremendous scale makes the world a better place.” I take back my “stupid request” retort and humbly ask, “why the hyperbole”?

Preacher: Bible Mandates Execution Of Rebellious Children (Forum ...William O. Einwechter's article, "Stoning Disobedient Children," appeared in the January issue of Chalcedon Report, a monthly journal published by the ...

wikipedia: Ahmanson has funded the magazine Chalcedon Report, the magazine of the Chalcedon Foundation.

We will find you, we will try you, and we will execute you. I mean every word of it. [Randall Terry, founder of Operation Rescue, at the Aug 8, 1995 U.S. Taxpayers Alliance Banquet in Washington DC, talking about doctors who perform abortions and volunteer escorts My note. Terry’s sympathizers have, in fact, murdered more than a few health care workers. “Pastor Jerry Gibson spoke at Doug Whites New Day Covenant Church in Boulder. He said that every true Christian should be ready and willing to take up arms to kill the enemies of Christian society. bcseweb.org Rushdooney: Our list may not be perfect but it seems to cover those “crimes” against the family that are inferred by Rushdoony’s statement to Moyers. The real frightening side of it is the interpretation of heresy, apostasy and idolatry. Rushdoony’s position seems to suggest that he would have anyone killed who disagreed with his religious opinions. That represents all but a tiny minority of people. Add to that death penalties for what is quite legal, blasphemy, not getting on with parents and working on a Sunday means that it the fantasy ideal world of Rushdoony and his pals, there will be an awful lot of mass murderers and amongst a tiny population. We have done figures for the UK which suggest that around 99% of the population would end up dead and the remainder would have each, on average, killed 500 fellow citizens. Chalcedon foundation bsceweb.org. Stoning disobedient children to death.Contempt for Parental Authority: Those who consider death as a horrible punishment here must realise that in such a case as ….cut for length Rev. William Einwechter, “Modern Issues in Biblical Perspective: Stoning Disobedient Children”, The Chalcedon Report, January 1999

Brenda | February 2, 2010 2:08 AM Again, (and I hope to explain my “contradiction”) the theory of evolution has helped us understand a lot in biology. But relative to the mass of knowledge biology has to offer, it ain’t that much.

SWT challenges: "So I ask again: what has any variant of creationism provided that in any way makes the world a better place? Has creationism produced anything to help us feed the hungry, heal the sick, house the homeless, clothe the naked, or comfort the afflicted?"

Go back and read my posts. You will see how misguided this challenge is. (Same goes for you, Stanton.)

DS says: "So now you admit that evolution is important to biology and biology is important to science."

No, I don't "admit" it. I believed it all along! It's the DEGREE of its importance that we differ on. Read my posts the way I wrote them, not the way you want to see them.

Eric asks: "Brenda, do you have any additional questions about the robot paper?"

Man did I get sidetracked! No other questions on that paper for now.

DS wrote: "Wake up and smell the crap. You are defending ignorameses and charlatans who seek to degrade your lifestyle and shorten your lifespan. "

Instead of looking at it as if I was defending them, look at it as me critiquing a poorly expressed slam on them.

Raven wrote: "Explain how a theocracy, a new Dark Age, and mass murder on a tremendous scale makes the world a better place.”

I called this request stupid because I thought that Raven believed that I Want These Things. If he's willing to believe that about me, I don't want to talk to him. However, he does say another thing: "The goal of the xian Dominionists is to set up a theocracy with Biblical law."

Listen, the percentage of Christians who want to go back to Old Testament Law is so miniscule, that your fear borders on paranoia. You can't even get them to give up bacon! Am I defending them? No, I'm criticizing your attack on them.

D-Dave writes: "Brenda, this makes no sense. Modern biology is the study of evolution. Evolution is biology. Think about that for a moment. "

I thought about it, and it sounds like propaganda. I think YOU ought to think about it. Modern biology is NOT the study of evolution, but it sometimes/often INCLUDES the study of evolution. The improvements in crop breeding and medicine owes NEXT TO NOTHING to molecule-to-man evolution. It definitely owes some to small-change evolution. The evolution in question is mostly about mutations. But mutations is not equal to evolution; it's a SUBSET of evolution -- a subset that most creationists believe in anyway. Or did you forget that?

Brenda said: SWT challenges: "So I ask again: what has any variant of creationism provided that in any way makes the world a better place? Has creationism produced anything to help us feed the hungry, heal the sick, house the homeless, clothe the naked, or comfort the afflicted?" Go back and read my posts. You will see how misguided this challenge is.

"Dan wrote:

“A percentage is a ratio. The items in the numerator and denominator of the ratio do have units. So what is the denominator, the “mass of knowledge biology has to offer”? And what is the numerator, the “mass of what evolution has helped us understand in biology”?”

DS replied: "Perhaps the units should be papers published in the peer reviewed literature. Let’s see now, in the last forty years that would be at least two million for evolution and about two for creationism (being generous here). So that would make the ratio about one to one million so that would be in percent about 0.0001%. There, glad we cleared that up. Of course I already stated why those two papers don’t count, so that saves a little math."

Wonderful! You show that evolutionists do tons more for science than creationists. Whoopdedoo. I never argued against that point, because I already agree with it, and also because that WASN'T the point. The point is what goes in the numerator and what goes in the denominator. Let's just call them "knowledge units." The numerator, I contend, will be a whole lot less than the denominator. D-Dave seems to think the ratio is one. Gee whiz!

Stevaroni wrote: "And yet, a casual reader might note that you pointedly did not actually answer the question. "

Bull. I never said that CreationISM "helps us feed the hungry, heal the sick, house the homeless, clothe the naked, or comfort the afflicted?” I said that CreationISTS sometimes do. The original slam was about CreationISTS. Should I assume that you'll never make the distinction?

Important point to remember when the Theocracy arrives: the True Sabbath is SATURDAY. Working on Sunday is fine. Worshipping on Sunday is not.

When the "myth" of church/state separation is finally overthrown, to universal rejoicing, perhaps the Saturn-day/Sun-day question will be a local option. That would be fun.

Brenda wrote:

"Instead of looking at it as if I was defending them, look at it as me critiquing a poorly expressed slam on them."

"Wonderful! You show that evolutionists do tons more for science than creationists. Whoopdedoo."

So Brenda, you have no reason whatsoever for defending these people. They contribute absolutely nothing and real scientists do. Therefore you conclude that it is OK to dismiss their dishonesty, give them a free pass and brow beat scientists for being mean. You have no point to make here, we're done.

By the way, this thread is about the robot paper. If you have no further comments regarding the topic of this thread please go away.

"Oh, and a couple of questions for Brenda;

1) How old do you think the universe is?

2) How old do you think the Earth is?

3) How long has there been life on Earth?

4) What do you think is the best scientific explanation for the current diversity of life on Earth?

My answers:

1. 5 minutes old (Thank you Bertrand Russell)
2. about 4:59.
3. about 4:58.
4. hatred of others.

Naturally, my worldview is the same worldview that DS thinks I'm from. I am "apparently perfectly willing to let innocent people die of starvation in order to promote her own brand of ignorance in some misguided attempt at moral engineering."

Wow, right on the nose!

Just felt like having some fun!

Brenda said: Instead of looking at it as if I was defending them, look at it as me critiquing a poorly expressed slam on them.

Listen, the percentage of Christians who want to go back to Old Testament Law is so miniscule, that your fear borders on paranoia. You can’t even get them to give up bacon! Am I defending them? No, I’m criticizing your attack on them.

Brenda said: Stevaroni wrote: "And yet, a casual reader might note that you pointedly did not actually answer the question. " Bull. I never said that CreationISM "helps us feed the hungry, heal the sick, house the homeless, clothe the naked, or comfort the afflicted?” I said that CreationISTS sometimes do. The original slam was about CreationISTS. Should I assume that you'll never make the distinction?

Brenda: Listen, the percentage of Christians who want to go back to Old Testament Law is so miniscule, that your fear borders on paranoia. You can’t even get them to give up bacon! Am I defending them? No, I’m criticizing your attack on them.

Brenda wrote:

"Naturally, my worldview is the same worldview that DS thinks I’m from. I am “apparently perfectly willing to let innocent people die of starvation in order to promote her own brand of ignorance in some misguided attempt at moral engineering.”

Wow, right on the nose!"

Well then, that explains everything. Thanks for the clarification.

DS said:

Brenda wrote: "Naturally, my worldview is the same worldview that DS thinks I’m from. I am “apparently perfectly willing to let innocent people die of starvation in order to promote her own brand of ignorance in some misguided attempt at moral engineering.”

Wow, right on the nose!" Well then, that explains everything. Thanks for the clarification.

DS wrote: "Therefore you conclude that it is OK to dismiss their dishonesty, give them a free pass and brow beat scientists for being mean. "

Wrong again. Man, you're on a roll!!

Mike E writes: "Many of what you seem to think are poorly expressed slams are comments derived from the frustrations of dealing with 40+ years of persistent stealth activities on the part of ID/creationists. And these activities come in waves after simmering in ID/creationist churches for a period of time until ID/creationists sense a political opportunity."

Oh, so they come from frustrations. OK, then.

"Are you denying that any of this has happened since the 1960s and 70s?"

Nope.

"Why do you think there are pressures on various state legislatures and schools boards to introduce ID/creationist pseudo-science into classrooms around the country?"

To bring back child-stoning?

"But there is a very high probability you have key physics and chemistry fundamentals wrong directly or indirectly because of ID/creationist propaganda."

Nope. It's very low. My science classes were thankfully absent of creationist propaganda.

"Much of what is wrong with science education in the public schools can be traced directly to people’s fears of offending sectarian beliefs over many decades."

It's NOT traced to people's fears of offending those who want to bring back child-stoning. I said NOTHING about ID's efforts to sneak stuff into schools.

Stanton writes: "Then how come you insist that criticism against Creationists and Creationism be forbidden for the sake of “civilty,”"

Are you nuts? Stop pulling crazy ideas out of your ass.

" and that you insist on downplaying the contributions made by Evolutionary Biology?"

There's a difference between "downplaying" and trying to peg an accurate "percentage". I was only trying to do the latter.

Brenda -

I asked you a direct question. It seems as if you selectively failed to answer it.

Evolution (and phylogenetic trees) are to evolution what the periodic table of elements is to chemistry: a way of understanding the interrelatedness of the basic types. Without it, each type is a study on its own, with no grasp of how or why it shares (or doesn't) attributes with the other types.

Ergo, where would studies in agriculture, medicine, and ecology be without that means of understanding.

Henry

Is phylogenic the same as phylogenetic? I've seen it spelled both ways, but the spell checker here only admits the longer form.

Brenda said: "Oh, and a couple of questions for Brenda; 1) How old do you think the universe is? 2) How old do you think the Earth is? 3) How long has there been life on Earth? 4) What do you think is the best scientific explanation for the current diversity of life on Earth? My answers: 1. 5 minutes old (Thank you Bertrand Russell) 2. about 4:59. 3. about 4:58. 4. hatred of others. Naturally, my worldview is the same worldview that DS thinks I'm from. I am "apparently perfectly willing to let innocent people die of starvation in order to promote her own brand of ignorance in some misguided attempt at moral engineering." Wow, right on the nose! Just felt like having some fun!

harold said: Brenda - I asked you a direct question. It seems as if you selectively failed to answer it.

Brenda said: The original slam was about CreationISTS. Should I assume that you'll never make the distinction?

The improvements in crop breeding and medicine owes NEXT TO NOTHING to molecule-to-man evolution.

Uh, I'm a man, and I've personally evolved from (a relatively few) molecules in just over 60 years. I'm still made of just molecules, as far as I can tell. Maybe I have a few stray unbound atoms. I constantly take in molecules in various combinations, use a little chemistry to rearrange them, and send most of them back out.

Yeah, I know, you're talking about all of life evolving from nonliving molecules. So how is that so different from my (and your) personal evolution from molecules?

Mike Elzinga -

Yes, the game playing is odd.

Possibly the objective is just to annoy people, cause them to be "uncivil", and then do some concern trolling about the "incivility".

A couple of other underlying motivations for secretiveness that I have seen on the internet - adherence to some ideology that is guaranteed to provoke offense (but with sufficient ambivalence to hide it), or failed attempt to set up some sort of "trick" that will "force" others to "concede". The latter often leads to flustered blather when the canned "challenge" doesn't provoke the hoped-for response.

If Brenda is reading this, I certainly hope, though, that she'll just answer my direct question, not take snippets of this and make juvenile comments about them.

Reed,

If Brenda is done discussing the robot paper, I suggest that you remove all of her further comments to the bathroom wall. They have degraded into nothing more than denial of the obvious.

Stanton writes: "That Brenda is nothing more than an inane, yet hypocritical concern troll who couldn’t be bothered to actually learn about science, let alone learn what actual civilty is?"

Who said anything about my wanting to increase civility, hemorrhoid-breath? I did say something something about wanting to increase truth, however.

Harold writes: "I asked you a direct question. It seems as if you selectively failed to answer it."

Selectively chose, is more like it. If you can't argue with arguments and instead can only argue against people with labels, you've got problems.

"Molecules-to-man, eh? I think you’ve just blown your protective camouflage."

I admit to borrowing some creationist's term. It's more concise than many other descriptions. I don't have that hangup.

Both the simulation and real robot experiments led to the generation of, and cycling through, a set of different pursuit and evasion strategies...

Brenda said: Harold writes: "I asked you a direct question. It seems as if you selectively failed to answer it." Selectively chose, is more like it. If you can't argue with arguments and instead can only argue against people with labels, you've got problems.

Just Bob said: Uh, I'm a man, and I've personally evolved from (a relatively few) molecules in just over 60 years. I'm still made of just molecules, as far as I can tell.

@Brenda

As much fun as reading these comments has been, you would do yourself a favour by actually responding to arguments presented.

For example:

I left myself wide open to attack when I stated that all modern biology is evolution. I put emphases in and everything. I implied 100% overlap with the subtlety of a flying brick. This was a chance for you to get onto the debating scoreboard so that the end result isn't a shut-out.

I know you didn't pass the opportunity to strike because of politeness, "canine anus sniffer," so try again. I left myself waaaay open. I'm sure you can do better than a piffling "Gee whiz". State a single instance of modern biology that isn't directly dependent on evolution. In so doing, something resembling common ground might even be established, and both parties might even stand to learn something from the fallout.

and in all likelihood leaves a lot of smoking carbon)

Henry J said:

and in all likelihood leaves a lot of smoking carbon)

Let's not get graphite-ical, here.

harold said: If Brenda is reading this, I certainly hope, though, that she'll just answer my direct question, not take snippets of this and make juvenile comments about them.

Brenda Tucker | July 27, 2007 2:01 PM | Edit Mr. Thomas, You are not completely without outside interests yourself. You toot yourself as a journalist and yet you are also President of New Mexicans for Science and Reason. It sounds like you are not without bias in your work. In any event, I would hope to direct you to a new theory of evolution written about on my webpage at http://www.homestead.com/theosophy/ascension.html In this theory, which I have tried to publicize for 12 years, I explain about a new concept for which as of yet there is no word. I chose a word: girasas so that I could speak about another evolutionary kingdom, higher than the human. I also reference two modern organizations that exhibit well-meaning, though incomplete, presentations of life experience by individuals who tried to produce a product worthy of their brothers and sisters. While I doubt I would agree with Kevin Jackson and his wife, I would like to position myself as an example of the way the news media treats newcomers with change in mind. Can you tell me why in these past 12 years no one has bothered to print my story? Brenda Tucker

raven said:

...I would hope to direct you to a new theory of evolution written about on my webpage at http://www.homestead.com/theosophy/ascension.html ...

An old post from PT. I would guess that Brenda is the same one. She is an advocate of an old philosophy and feels persecuted much of the time. At any rate, I'm not going to try to make sense out of it any more.

Mike Time to get back on the topic of the thread and look at more interesting discussions.

raven said: An old post from PT. I would guess that Brenda is the same one. She is an advocate of an old philosophy and feels persecuted much of the time. At any rate, I'm not going to try to make sense out of it any more.

Brenda said: "Dan wrote: “A percentage is a ratio. The items in the numerator and denominator of the ratio do have units. So what is the denominator, the “mass of knowledge biology has to offer”? And what is the numerator, the “mass of what evolution has helped us understand in biology”?” ... The point is what goes in the numerator and what goes in the denominator. Let's just call them "knowledge units." The numerator, I contend, will be a whole lot less than the denominator.

Harold writes: “I asked you a direct question. It seems as if you selectively failed to answer it.” Selectively chose, is more like it. If you can’t argue with arguments and instead can only argue against people with labels, you’ve got problems.

“Molecules-to-man, eh? I think you’ve just blown your protective camouflage.” I admit to borrowing some creationist’s term. It’s more concise than many other descriptions. I don’t have that hangup.

Brenda lied: I did say something something about wanting to increase truth, however.

Harold writes: "Molecules-to-man, eh? I think you’ve just blown your protective camouflage." I admit to borrowing some creationist's term. It's more concise than many other descriptions. I don't have that hangup.

couple of other underlying motivations for secretiveness that I have seen on the internet - adherence to some ideology that is guaranteed to provoke offense (but with sufficient ambivalence to hide it)...

Brenda's playing head games. She thinks she's winning, which, for Brenda, is the same thing as actually winning.

What she's actually doing is demonstrating why any reasonable person grows vexed, then exasperated, with creationist talking points. Brenda has two, hidden within a series of sly insinuations. The rest of her discourse consists of baits, provocations and taunts.

The two talking points are:

One, what good is the Theory of Evolution?

This: it explains the diversity of life on Earth. It is part of human knowledge, fitting seamlessly into our understanding of life itself. That's what good it is. It has applications to research, of course, and out of that research comes all manner of useful things, but it's a theory, and its purpose is to explain.

Or is Brenda dismissive of the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake? Of science generally? Religious fanatics of all stripes generally are.

And two, criticism of creationists and creationism is (by implication) misplaced or too harsh, because they do good in other fields.

This is an obvious non-sequitur. To be a creationist is to be ignorant and irrational, which is bad enough, but some go further, into fraud and hypocrisy on the one hand and fanaticism - often expressed politically - on the other.

They must be exposed for what they are, in vigorous terms. It simply does not matter that they may be benign or virtuous in other ways. To state that they may be is to utter an irrelevance. Creationists, acting as creationists, are malevolent. There is no excuse for not saying so, loud and clear, and their supposed virtues, if any, do not change that fact.

But Brenda, as her last post demonstrates, is not concerned with facts, and actively conceals her own views. To that extent, she's only playing games. But, as eric remarked, "molecules to man" reveals a little of her sources. "Protective coloration", is a good description of her dissembling them. Her cover's blown now, though.

Brenda wrote:

"I chose a word: girasas so that I could speak about another evolutionary kingdom, higher than the human."

Then she asked:

"Can you tell me why in these past 12 years no one has bothered to print my story?"

Maybe it was because you used made up nonsense words and butchered real words by trying to redefine their meaning. Just to be clear, there is no such thing as the "human kingdom". The term betrays an ignorance so profound as to suggest an inability to deal with reality. What a shock. And even if the term did make any sense, there is nothing "higher" about anything else compared to humans.

No wonder Brenda takes the side of the crackpot. She needs the company. News flash for you Brenda, if you want your ideas published, all you need is evidence. You got none. You got to learn the name of the game before you can play.

DS said: Brenda wrote: "I chose a word: girasas so that I could speak about another evolutionary kingdom, higher than the human." Then she asked: "Can you tell me why in these past 12 years no one has bothered to print my story?" Maybe it was because you used made up nonsense words and butchered real words by trying to redefine their meaning. Just to be clear, there is no such thing as the "human kingdom". The term betrays an ignorance so profound as to suggest an inability to deal with reality. What a shock. And even if the term did make any sense, there is nothing "higher" about anything else compared to humans. No wonder Brenda takes the side of the crackpot. She needs the company. News flash for you Brenda, if you want your ideas published, all you need is evidence. You got none. You got to learn the name of the game before you can play.

*cough*

girasas

*cough*

Squido

*cough*

Topix

*cough*

Priceless Comments Are Priceless

*snicker*

Also, Robots

Brenda said: Who said anything about my wanting to increase civility, hemorrhoid-breath?

Mike Elzinga writes: "He/she misses the point of the robot adaptive behavior and now has the thread derailed off onto civility concerns."

Wrong on both counts, Mike. I asked my question about the robot adaptive behavior and received an answer that satisfied me. What do you claim I miss? And what the crap do I care about civility? I gave up on that since my last thread.

Stanton writes: "“Molecules-to-man” is not concise, nor is it even accurate."

I would've done a lot better saying "simple cell to man" or something like that. Forget the molecule stuff. Harold, in his self-important soliloquy, was right. But it IS concise.

Also, I'm not Brenda Tucker. There's not one line from her site that I agree with.

Brenda said: Wrong on both counts, Mike.

When I defended my dissertation for my doctorate in baraminology, we learned that the Lord created the human kind, the monkey kind, the virus kind, and the robot kind.

Mike, that was the second closest thing to an admittance of a mistake I've seen in this thread! Congrats!
Frankly, I'd love to get back "on the rails." OK, Robot Evolution, where were we...? Ahh, how about sharing some neat videos about behavior evolution in robots?
Forgive me if someone else already shared this link:
http://www.physorg.com/news184228204.html

Brenda wrote:

"OK, Robot Evolution, where were we…?"

You were just about to admit that you were wrong about the behavior being passed on unchanged. Then you were going to have to admit that the simulation accurately models random mutation and natural selection in nature. Then you were going to admit that this is powerful evidence for the creative power of evolution. Then you were going to admit that no creationist has ever done anything remotely like this. Then you were going to admit that the lying weasels that you have been defending are intellectually challenged and morally bankrupt. When you have admitted these things then maybe we can start to have a real conversation, until then, piss off.

Dave Luckett said: [The TOE] explains the diversity of life on Earth. It is part of human knowledge, fitting seamlessly into our understanding of life itself. That's what good it is. It has applications to research, of course, and out of that research comes all manner of useful things, but it's a theory, and its purpose is to explain.

Getting back to the implications of this robot exercise; it is interesting that the consequences of different evolutionary process can be studied with systems such as these. Even processes we don’t normally see in evolution can be studied; such as Lamarckian evolution.

Passing on acquired characteristics may not apply to physical organisms, but it does apply to things like knowledge and learning during the lifetime of an organism. As organisms mature and learn, their behaviors usually become more compliant and adaptable, hence increasing the probability of survival of the organism.

In fact, not learning, or becoming locked in ritualistic, repetitive responses to the surrounding environment, is evidence of mental illness and arrested development.

With robots, it becomes conceivable that evolution can take on an entirely different meaning that is almost totally Lamarckian. If, in principle, a robot could live forever, such a robot becomes in effect an offspring of itself in successive learning cycles. If such a robot could not only learn and adapt its behaviors but also make repairs on itself, why not start replacing its own parts with modified parts that perform better using the experiences in earlier learning cycles? Thus, over time, the robot begins to look nothing like its original “phenotype.”

Then the question about the need to generate offspring that are separate but slightly modified versions of itself comes up. What would be the advantage?

In the case of living organisms on this planet, random “modifications” are manifested in subsequent generations, and those that fit more snugly into the current environment tend to reproduce variations of themselves. Thus an organism adapts to environmental changes by way of successive generations of offspring even though the parent dies in each generation.

With creatures or robots that live forever, which type of self replication with modifications would win out in a competition? Would it be robots that can purposefully modify themselves optimally as they go, or would it be robots that could generate large numbers of randomly varied replicas of themselves from which the current local environment selects? Nature has chosen the latter because inheritable modifications to the parent are not possible given the stuff from which they are made.

DS writes, with my comments in brackets:

You were just about to admit that you were wrong about the behavior being passed on unchanged. [When did I make this claim?] Then you were going to have to admit that the simulation accurately models random mutation and natural selection in nature. [It probably does, but I'm not an expert in these matters. Are you?] Then you were going to admit that this is powerful evidence for the creative power of evolution. [Looks like it, but again, I'm no expert.] Then you were going to admit that no creationist has ever done anything remotely like this. [That sounds right.] Then you were going to admit that the lying weasels that you have been defending are intellectually challenged and morally bankrupt. [Unlike you, I don't lump them all together as one group. I don't defend the ones you're talking about.] When you have admitted these things then maybe we can start to have a real conversation, until then, piss off. [And a fine day to you, too.]

Brenda Tucker asks: In this theory, which I have tried to publicize for 12 years, I explain about a new concept for which as of yet there is no word. I chose a word: girasas so that I could speak about another evolutionary kingdom, higher than the human. Can you tell me why in these past 12 years no one has bothered to print my story?

So Brenda never had any real intention of discussing anything in the paper. She asked exactly one question that was answered in the first two paragraphs, so she obviously never even read the paper. She displays exactly the same behavior as the creationists she tries to defend. She never gave one example of any science done by any creationist either and chances are good that she could not provide even one example of an honest creationist. Why is she posting on this thread if she has no knowledge or interest in the topic? Who knows, we certainly can't tell from her posts. She has been very careful to tell us what she does not believe but nothing of what she does believe. Who cares?

Mike Elzinga said: If, in principle, a robot could live forever, such a robot becomes in effect an offspring of itself... Then the question about the need to generate offspring that are separate but slightly modified versions of itself comes up. What would be the advantage?

eric said: Interesting. So, what you are saying is that if we build immortal robots, there's no reason to expect them to evolve an urge to reproduce because they'd essentially be creating their own competitors rather than their own genetic replacements.

Wouldn't the "motivation" or "goal" (whatever that might mean) of the robot be the deciding factor?

If it's Prime Directive were to preserve it's own existence (Asimov's Third Law), then it surely would modify itself (as R. Daneel Olivaw did).

On the other hand, if they had a stronger "motivation" to ensure the continuation of the robot "species", then if their positronic brains were any good at all, they would certainly produce varied offspring, hoping to anticipate possible changes in environment. Darwinian evolution is more likely to keep at least some of your "species" in the game.

So a machine which is specifically designed to evolve through mutation and selection evolves through mutation and selection? Extraordinary stuff.

Mind you, since the machine had to be designed and created by an intelligent agent, this may not have proved quite what you think it has...

;)

What it proves is that if reproduction with variation is combined with selection for survival and reproduction on the basis of efficiency in performing any given task, the reproducing organism will, over generations, spontaneously develop new traits that add to its efficiency in performing that task. This process is called "evolution".

Living things reproduce with variation, and they are selected for survival and reproduction by their environment. They will therefore develop new traits that add to their efficiency in surviving and reproducing.

That is, living things evolve, and they evolve for exactly the same reason that a hole will pass things smaller than it is, and block things that are larger. That is, the physical facts mandate it.

Stevaroni, I don't think Brenda Tucker, whoever she is, is participating in this particular thread.

DS, it is not true (I'm starting to sound like a broken record when I say "it is not true") that I "never had any real intention of discussing anything in the paper." I asked a question, got a good answer, then got sidetracked by the mob. I even submitted a physorg link with videos for discussion. I see you SELECTIVELY FAILED to comment on it. (Heh, I'm just parodying Harold here. No offense to you, DS.)

Your request for my submitting an example of a creationist who did good science or who is honest is irrelevant, since that wasn't on my agenda. It was on your agenda. (I suppose I could reach back eons and pick out Newton, Pasteur, Maxwell, Linneaus, Boyle, Pascal, etc, but I'm just going to get a silly retort about how they don't count because they all came before Darwin. "Just how great they could have been if they had only known...blah blah" So I won't bother (Heh, I already did.))

Brenda wrote:

"DS, it is not true (I’m starting to sound like a broken record when I say “it is not true”) that I “never had any real intention of discussing anything in the paper.” I asked a question, got a good answer, then got sidetracked by the mob. I even submitted a physorg link with videos for discussion. I see you SELECTIVELY FAILED to comment on it. (Heh, I’m just parodying Harold here. No offense to you, DS.)"

Bullshit. You continue to post off topic nonsense here, avoiding any real discussion of science. You never even addressed the implications of the one question you asked. Now either demonstrate that you have read the paper and start discussing it or leave. That wasn't too impolite for your delicate sensibilities now was it?

Brenda said: Your request for my submitting an example of a creationist who did good science or who is honest is irrelevant, since that wasn't on my agenda. It was on your agenda.

dave said: So a machine which is specifically designed to evolve through mutation and selection evolves through mutation and selection? Extraordinary stuff. Mind you, since the machine had to be designed and created by an intelligent agent, this may not have proved quite what you think it has... ;)

I would like to postulate that creationists as a whole and creationism per say, has done one thing for science. It has made Science work harder and keep itself moving forward. It has made science do its job and check its work. Get it right. The scientific method, allowed to work, is self correcting after all. Creationists will find the errors in our work and glaringly, gleefully point them out, and back to the table for science. The harsher the environment, the hardier the organisms that inhabit it. Creationism keeps science strong. Thanks! (and now I will continue to read and enjoy the banter of the posts)

JKS said: I would like to postulate that creationists as a whole and creationism per say, has done one thing for science. It has made Science work harder and keep itself moving forward. It has made science do its job and check its work. Get it right. The scientific method, allowed to work, is self correcting after all. Creationists will find the errors in our work and glaringly, gleefully point them out, and back to the table for science. The harsher the environment, the hardier the organisms that inhabit it. Creationism keeps science strong. Thanks! (and now I will continue to read and enjoy the banter of the posts)

JKS said: I would like to postulate that creationists as a whole and creationism per say, has done one thing for science. It has made Science work harder...

It has made science do its job and check its work. Get it right. The scientific method, allowed to work, is self correcting after all.

The harsher the environment, the hardier the organisms that inhabit it. Creationism keeps science strong.

At the risk of being accused of quotemining (which is the typical reaction by someone who can't handle the quote) here goes:

"It is also worth pondering why there has been general and unquestioned acceptance of Kettlewell's work. Perhaps such powerful stories discourage close scrutiny. Moreover, in evolutionary biology there is little payoff in repeating other people's experiments, and, unlike molecular biology, our field is not self-correcting because few studies depend on the accuracy of earlier ones. Finally, teachers such as myself often neglect original papers in favour of shorter textbook summaries, which bleach the blemishes from complicated experiments." (Coyne J.A., "Not black and white," review of Majerus M.E.N., "Melanism: Evolution in Action," Oxford University Press, 1998, in Nature Vol. 396, No. 6706, 5 November 1998, pp.35-36, p.36).

JKS's post above is about the kind of defense of creationists that I originally intended. Creationists probably do largely fail to follow the scientific method in biology (and probably cosmology), but probably not so much in other fields of science.

JKS said: Creationists will find the errors in our work and glaringly, gleefully point them out, and back to the table for science.

Brenda said: JKS's post above is about the kind of defense of creationists that I originally intended. Creationists probably do largely fail to follow the scientific method in biology (and probably cosmology), but probably not so much in other fields of science.

Brenda said: At the risk of being accused of quotemining (which is the typical reaction by someone who can't handle the quote) here goes: "It is also worth pondering why there has been general and unquestioned acceptance of Kettlewell's work...."

Brenda the creationist: At the risk of being accused of quotemining (which is the typical reaction by someone who can’t handle the quote) here goes:

Tom Willis head of Mid American Creation Science Society: Clearly then, "evolutionists should not be allowed to roam free in the land." All that remains for us to discuss is "What should be done with evolutionists?" For the purposes of this essay, I will ignore the minor issue of Western-style jurisprudence and merely mention possible solutions to the "evolutionism problem," leaving the legal details to others: Labor camps. Their fellow believers were high on these. But, my position would be that most of them have lived their lives at, or near the public trough. So, after their own beliefs, their life should continue only as long as they can support themselves in the camps.

noanswersingenesis: Gary Potter, a Weyrich partner and head of Catholics for Political Action, states his theocratic goals with chilling clarity: "When the Christian majority takes over the country, there will be no Satanic churches, no more free distribution of pornography, no more abortion on demand, and no more talk of rights for homosexuals. After the Christian majority takes control, pluralism will be seen as immoral and evil and the state will not permit anybody the right to practice evil." (cited in Conway and Siegelman, 1984, p. 115-116) Gary North, of the Institute for Christian Economics, echoes that true Christians should "get busy in constructing a Bible-based social, political and religious order which finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God." (cited in Bill Moyers, "God and Politics, PBS, 1987)

Pat Robertson: "They have kept us in submission because they have talked about separation of church and state. There is no such thing in the constitution. It is a lie of the left, and we're not going to take it anymore."

David Utidjian said:

JKS said: I would like to postulate that creationists as a whole and creationism per say, has done one thing for science. It has made Science work harder and keep itself moving forward. It has made science do its job and check its work. Get it right. The scientific method, allowed to work, is self correcting after all. Creationists will find the errors in our work and glaringly, gleefully point them out, and back to the table for science. The harsher the environment, the hardier the organisms that inhabit it. Creationism keeps science strong. Thanks! (and now I will continue to read and enjoy the banter of the posts)

Name one single error that creationists have found that required science to correct. I am not saying there has never been such an error but I will contend that, if there was one no creationist corrected it. -DU-

So once again Brenda completely ignores the topic of the thread. Once again she demonstrates that she has no intention of ever reading the paper. Once again she leaps to the defense of dishonest creationists. Well Brenda, here is a news flash for you, Kettlewell was right. The blatant and desperate attempt by creationist to paint him as some kind of fraud have backfired. Why don't you stop trying to defend those who you have admitted are dishonest and add nothing whatsoever to science? Why don't you try defending those who actually do the research and publish it? Science would get along just fine without creationists. Society would not get along just fine without science. You should choose your fights more wisely.

It must be that time in the semester at sectarian “colleges” where students have to turn in their ten posts confronting “The Enemy.”

The new game seems to be to pick old threads and start a snark war. This is almost sure to allow them to get in their quota without ever having to learn anything.

I guess we are done with the robot thing here.

DS said: So once again Brenda completely ignores the topic of the thread. Once again she demonstrates that she has no intention of ever reading the paper.

Stanton writes: "You don’t care to realize that a creationist’s adherence to a literal interpretation automatically prevents them from using the scientific method in all fields of science."

All? I doubt it, but we can discuss it.

"Or, are you ignorant of the pseudoscience called “Flood Geology”?"

I know about it, and I'm no fan of it.

eric writes: "appears this article (the Coyne quote) gets trotted out by creationists quite a bit. "

Frankly I'm surprised it hasn't shown up on many biologists' blogs, pointing out perceived flaws with it.

Raven writes: "Oh. We can play too."
I would've guessed that tu quoque arguments are beneath you. Frankly, I'd rather hang out with Jerry Coyne than Tom Willis (unless we were walking along the top of a very tall cliff together.)

DS writes: "You should choose your fights more wisely."

And here you are, fighting with little ol' me. I'm sure you're thinking how wise you were.

Mike Elzinga writes: "He/she defends a virulent pseudo-science "

Never did. You must be, like 0 for 5 in your claims about me. If scientists jumped to conclusions in their work as fast as you jump to them about me, science is in deep shit.

Didn't anyone like the robot-evolution videos at http://www.physorg.com/news184228204.html ?

Brenda: Frankly, I’d rather hang out with Jerry Coyne than Tom Willis

Wikipedia Jerry Coyne: Coyne is a critic of creationism[2] including intelligent design, which he calls "the latest pseudoscientific incarnation of religious creationism, cleverly crafted by a new group of enthusiasts to circumvent recent legal restrictions."[3]

Brenda said: If scientists jumped to conclusions in their work as fast as you jump to them about me, science is in deep shit.

Brenda wrote:

"And here you are, fighting with little ol’ me. I’m sure you’re thinking how wise you were."

Completely wrong again. No one is fighting with you. I am begging you to discuss the paper or go away. You refuse to discuss the paper. Every post you make confirms this. Just go away. No one wants to fight with you. No one cares about you. We are here to discuss science, you aren't. Don't try to deny it, just do it or leave. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

Brenda said: Never did. You must be, like 0 for 5 in your claims about me. If scientists jumped to conclusions in their work as fast as you jump to them about me, science is in deep shit.

Brenda said: At the risk of being accused of quotemining (which is the typical reaction by someone who can't handle the quote) here goes: "It is also worth pondering why there has been general and unquestioned acceptance of Kettlewell's work. Perhaps such powerful stories discourage close scrutiny. Moreover, in evolutionary biology there is little payoff in repeating other people's experiments, and, unlike molecular biology, our field is not self-correcting because few studies depend on the accuracy of earlier ones. Finally, teachers such as myself often neglect original papers in favour of shorter textbook summaries, which bleach the blemishes from complicated experiments." (Coyne J.A., "Not black and white," review of Majerus M.E.N., "Melanism: Evolution in Action," Oxford University Press, 1998, in Nature Vol. 396, No. 6706, 5 November 1998, pp.35-36, p.36). JKS's post above is about the kind of defense of creationists that I originally intended. Creationists probably do largely fail to follow the scientific method in biology (and probably cosmology), but probably not so much in other fields of science.

Wow. This thread could end up with thousands of comments. I just hope Brenda is taking breaks to drink water and use the bathroom.

mplavcan said: The stated quote comes from Coyne's book review in Nature of Majerus' book on Peppered moths. (snip) Apart from that, you failed to note that the book is in fact a careful examination of Kettlewell's experiments (the very thing that you are trying to use Coyne to say that does not happen) (snip) Immediately before the quote, you failed to note that Coyne says...

stevaroni said: No, Brenda's not a duplicitous creationist - she just quotemines like one.

Mike Elzinga said:

Brenda said: Never did. You must be, like 0 for 5 in your claims about me. If scientists jumped to conclusions in their work as fast as you jump to them about me, science is in deep shit.

But you didn’t deny that it was your intent to derail the thread and draw attention to yourself. Scientists do in fact speculate and test. And you are being profiled. You may like to think it is 0 for 5, but every probe of your evasive and coy peek-a-boo tactics reveals a little more. You aren’t looking to good. You want people to jump to conclusions about you; it’s a gotcha game you play. That "psychological" tactic is a highly significant part of the profile. You still haven’t convinced anyone here that you have any capability of distinguishing between science and pseudo-science.

harold said: Wow. This thread could end up with thousands of comments. I just hope Brenda is taking breaks to drink water and use the bathroom.

Coyne wrote:

“It is also worth pondering why there has been general and unquestioned acceptance of Kettlewell’s work. Perhaps such powerful stories discourage close scrutiny. Moreover, in evolutionary biology there is little payoff in repeating other people’s experiments, and, unlike molecular biology, our field is not self-correcting because few studies depend on the accuracy of earlier ones. Finally, teachers such as myself often neglect original papers in favour of shorter textbook summaries, which bleach the blemishes from complicated experiments.” (Coyne J.A., “Not black and white,” review of Majerus M.E.N., “Melanism: Evolution in Action,” Oxford University Press, 1998, in Nature Vol. 396, No. 6706, 5 November 1998, pp.35-36, p.36).

Bull semen. Everything written here is absolutely wrong. There is never any "unquestioned acceptance" of anything in science, certainly not Kettlewell's work. His research started an whole new system for the study of natural selection that has come to include genetic analysis and continues to produce fruitful results. Also, almost every study done in any field of biology depends critically on all of the work that has come before. That is why every paper published has at least one complete page of references, sometimes more. Just how far would we get if our work did not rely on the results from Darwin, Mendel, Sanger, Watson and Crick, Morgan, Fisher, Wright, etc.? I for one am not a teacher that depends only on textbooks. I often go to the primary literature and sometimes teach from it without a textbook. I know that Coyne is no creationist. I strongly suspect that these word have been taken out of context. But, as long as we are not discussing the actual robot paper we might as well set the record straight.

Mike wrote:

"Might I suggest the Bathroom Wall?"

I did suggest it, about two days ago. Brenda has still to demonstrate that she has even read the paper. I say ignore it until it shrivels and dies.

Mike Elzinga said: If this is not an ID/creationist, it certainly looks like one.

Stevaroni, you forgot part of the game:

science: "look, each ball costs me money. I don't have an infinite supply. So you get one more, then i'm giving the rest to more deserving children. Here you go."

creationist: [sells ball. uses funds to give out bibles, then shows empty hands] "Waah! Science is so mean, they never give us the ball!”

scientist: "okay, no more balls for you."

creationist (to public): "see? science doesn't give us the ball. How are we supposed to run with it if science never even gives it to us?"

phantomreader42 said:

Brenda said: Your request for my submitting an example of a creationist who did good science or who is honest is irrelevant, since that wasn't on my agenda. It was on your agenda.

So, Brenda, when in your second post in this thread you whined at SWT for saying "I have not seen anything from the creationists (including ID) that doesn’t involve abandoning the scientific method and methodological naturalism", you were not saying that creationists had anything to contribute besides attacks on science, you were not actually suggesting that SWT was in any way incorrect, you were just bullshitting, as usual.

If I am not mistaken this is where Brenda first entered this particular thread.

So now the thread goes off onto arguing about who said what and when. Indeed this continues in the grand tradition of exegesis, hermeneutics, etymology, and an infinite regress of word-gaming.

If this is what people want to do, why not take it to the Bathroom Wall?

Robin said: Further, she's right - she did ask a legit question on topic, but got caught up in responding to folks' attack on her supposed creationist POV. I just read every comment from the beginning, and it is plainly apparent to me that a whole bunch of folks had a knee-jerk reaction to the perception of creationism support and then parsed Brenda's words based on such expectations. That's my impression at any rate based on responses at any rate.

Mike E. said "...science education in this country is worse off because of ID/creationists."

And he's absolutely right. I saw it firsthand for over 30 years: creationism taught in "christian academies" and even, God help us, daycares; YECs teaching YECism in public high school science classes (even in a science-oriented magnet school!); evolution sidelined, watered-down, barely touched on (and then apologetically) even by real science teachers for fear of irate fundie parents.

Mike Elzinga -

Since you are still there, here is my memory of the various themes that Brenda brought up -

1) It started with a reasonable lay persons' question about the actual topic.

2) Then there was the claim that science supporters are too uncivil to creationists. Level of civility is a subjective judgment, but in my view, science supporters are at least as civil as creationists, rigorous criticism of ridiculous or harmful ideas is civil, and of course, life evolves, regardless of how civil we are about it.

3) Then there was a claim that even if the theory of evolution is valid, it isn't "important" for "most" of science. Again, there is an element of subjectivity in determining how "important" something is, but the theory of evolution is the central theory in biomedical science, including medicine and agriculture. As a physician, I always found that the theory of evolution helped me to understand topics like antibiotic resistance, malignancy, immune-evading strategies of pathogens, peculiarities of human anatomy, and so on.

4) After that it devolved into a very long game of peek-a-boo, with Brenda acting coy, refusing to answer direct questions, telling people who offered reasonable surmises of her position that they were wrong, and so on, which I eventually dropped out of. I happened to glance back at this thread late today, just because I checked this site, and not much else was going on.

That's my memory of it.

harold said: Mike Elzinga - Since you are still there, here is my memory of the various themes that Brenda brought up -

Raven asks: "Well, Brenda who do you hate? Scientists and MDs. Creationists."

What a peculiar question. I kind of like Coyne. I like his honesty. I don't hate anyone, unless they promote things like that Tom Willis guy promotes. I also don't lump all scientists as honest and all creationists as dishonest. I happen to have a neighborhood friend who is a creationist (not biblical, though) who is doing phenomenal research in AIDS research. I'm sure he's following the scientific method. I'm also sure that the theory of evolution has almost nothing to do with his work (contrary to what some naive poster in this thread insists), except maybe a little bit about mutation rates.

Mike writes: "But you didn’t deny that it was your intent to derail the thread and draw attention to yourself."

Yes I did (0 for 6 now?) . I said that the mob derailed me. Not my intent. In your science endeavors, do you go back and read the relevant literature? I should sure hope so, even though you don't like to go back and read what I wrote.

"You still haven’t convinced anyone here that you have any capability of distinguishing between science and pseudo-science."

Was there a meeting where everyone assigned you to write that? I must've missed it. But you're probably right. After all, even when I pointed out that many creationists engage in pseudoscience, most of you just ignored me.
(But if I'd charge even one scientist with engaging in pseudoscience -- all hell would probably break loose.)

"You want people to jump to conclusions about you; it’s a gotcha game you play."

It didn't start out that way, but now that I see how funny it's getting, it's kind of hard to stop!

mplavcan writes: "In spite of Coyne’s assertion, experiments in evolutionary biology are often repeated, albeit this depends on the nature of the study, and your exact definition of replicability."

I'll take Coyne's opinion over yours, if you don't mind. I think you blinding believe that the sentence I "failed" to quote changes the meaning of what Coyne wrote.

Stanton writes: "Brenda has also failed to convince anyone that she isn’t a hypocritical, anti-science troll, either."

You must've been to the same meeting Mike went to.

DS writes: "Bull semen. Everything written here is absolutely wrong. There is never any “unquestioned acceptance” of anything in science, certainly not Kettlewell’s work."

For the longest time, there was.

DS writes: "No one is fighting with you."

Someone accused me of choosing a fight. I didn't take it literally. I hoped that you would understand "fighting" in the same way.

" I am begging you to discuss the paper or go away. You refuse to discuss the paper. Every post you make confirms this."

Not true. (broken record with you, DS) Someone asked me a couple of generic questions about the paper, and I answered them. Briefly, but I answered them. No one asked me specific questions about the paper.

Mike writes: "the minute someone asks for details about why ID/creationism should be defended (or, at least, criticized politely and gently), the evasiveness starts."

No one ever asked me why ID/creationism should be defended. It shouldn't. For the umpteenth time, I defended some creationISTs, like my friend above. Sorry for the yelling, but GET THAT STRAIGHT, MORONS! (Ooh, I called some science folks morons. Thus, I'm anti-science. Man, I love your logic. Robin sees it correctly, thank you Robin! Most of my post was written before I saw your post.)

For everyone's benefit, especially mine, I'll bow out now and let others get the last word. Sayonara.

Mike Elzinga said: If I am not mistaken this is where Brenda first entered this particular thread.

So now the thread goes off onto arguing about who said what and when. Indeed this continues in the grand tradition of exegesis, hermeneutics, etymology, and an infinite regress of word-gaming.

If this is what people want to do, why not take it to the Bathroom Wall?

Brenda wrote:

"I kind of like Coyne. I like his honesty."

That's really funny since I showed (and you quoted) that everything he wrote was absolutely and completely false:

"DS writes: “Bull semen. Everything written here is absolutely wrong. There is never any “unquestioned acceptance” of anything in science, certainly not Kettlewell’s work.”

Then she says:

"For the longest time, there was. DS writes: “No one is fighting with you.”

There was what? Unquestioned acceptance?. Bullshit. You are a lying MORON.

Another thousand word post without any evidence of having read the paper. You don't want a fight, don't pick one. You have accused all scientists of being dishonest, contrary to your protestations, so you have lied again.

You have said that you won't post anything else here. If you do you will once again be shown to be a liar.

SWT said:

Robin said: Further, she's right - she did ask a legit question on topic, but got caught up in responding to folks' attack on her supposed creationist POV. I just read every comment from the beginning, and it is plainly apparent to me that a whole bunch of folks had a knee-jerk reaction to the perception of creationism support and then parsed Brenda's words based on such expectations. That's my impression at any rate based on responses at any rate.

I would have more sympathy for this interpretation of Brenda's behavior if she had answered directly when asked what her position was -- at least two of us asked her about that in a direct, unambiguous manner.

PS

If anyone is studying AIDS without considering evolution he is fighting a losing battle. The only chance we ever have of stopping AIDS is to understand how it evolves. This work will depend critically on evolutionary theory and the thousands of experiments that have already been performed. Anyone who dismisses evolutionary biology as irrelevant will simply be condemning millions of people to death. That appears to be what Brenda is promoting here.

I said it before, I'll say it again. Brenda came up with two classic creationist talking points ("Evolution is not important" and "criticism of creationists as creationists is harsh because they're virtuous in some ways"). She also used and continues to use a classic DI activist's tactic: never say what you actually believe, because that means you have to defend it. Instead, attack what the "evolutionists" believe.

But all right. I'll ask, and I'll ask politely:

Brenda, what is your point? I understand you think we're rude, and I get that you don't think evolution is important. On that we're going to have to differ. But do you or do you not accept that all life is commonly descended, and that it first appeared on earth about 3.5 billion years ago? Do you or do you not agree that this process proceeded, and proceeds, entirely by natural means as mandated by the laws of physics, or do you think there is or has been intelligent intervention in it, originally, from time to time, or continuously? Do you or do you not accept that the above review article on experiments applying Darwinian evolution to robots provides evidence for the effectiveness of Darwinian evolution?

Brenda said: mplavcan writes: "In spite of Coyne’s assertion, experiments in evolutionary biology are often repeated, albeit this depends on the nature of the study, and your exact definition of replicability." I'll take Coyne's opinion over yours, if you don't mind. I think you blinding believe that the sentence I "failed" to quote changes the meaning of what Coyne wrote.

Eric – I had considered just leaving your comment, as I feel that I understand your knee jerk response to a perceived creationist. Robin’s comments to/about Brenda have revitalized me to go ahead and clarify. I am a casual reader of Panda not a religious reader(pun intended). I have found many jewels of wisdom by all (many) of the posters You included. So point by point I will reveal myself to you (no peek-a-boo as Brenda)

I have been teaching science for 30+ years and I agree 100% - creationists have made Teaching science harder – in all fields of science (I have or currently teach Bio, Chem, Physics, and Earth science). I get hits from all of the fields at some point or another. I use the vast concise rebuttals of TO continually.

Science is self correcting – Your response was slanted to the point that I was a creationist (I’m insulted but not indigent as I said above I understand) So to continue – I didn’t say we NEEDED creationists (yes we have peer review) I said they were there, and by just being there they have an effect – a nonpeer review if you will. – My point still in play.

Not understand? I did teach straight evolutionary bio for 26 years- no room for the “controversy”. It was meant as analogy Science didn’t ask for creationists, they are there in the environment they have caused a change in the Science work(not directed as good or bad just a change) Science HAS become more adept to responding to their criticisms - something it would not have done if they were not there- as the vent critters adapted to the high temp water something they would not have done otherwise – Just happened nobody’s (no scientists’ any way) plan. Resources part– YOU BET it takes away from what science could/should be doing. It is a waste.

Thanks, Eric, for being active in the fight but perhaps a millisecond slower on the reply to a new poster. My post was meant most as sarcasm. I teach in a rural conservative setting so I don’t have the luxury of the retorts and the smacdowns to a student like in a faceless blog, facts and tact are all I have. AND now a nod to the thread – I have down load the article for use as an example in my Biology classes as I get to go back to that next year!

mcplavcan wrote:

“In spite of Coyne’s assertion, experiments in evolutionary biology are often repeated, albeit this depends on the nature of the study, and your exact definition of replicability.”

Well we repeated Morgan's experiments with fruit files in genetics lab yesterday. It has been repeated literally millions of times over the last one hundred years. Repeatability is a hallmark of good science. Kettlewell's experiments have been repeated many times and have served as the basis for many more detailed studies. Anyone who claims that experiments are not repeated just doesn't understand how science works. Of course science is self correcting, who else is going to correct it, not creationist that's for sure.

Using false creationist claims and quote mines is going to get you labelled a creationist. Why shouldn't it?

JKS said: I have been teaching science for 30+ years and I agree 100% - creationists have made Teaching science harder – in all fields of science (I have or currently teach Bio, Chem, Physics, and Earth science). I get hits from all of the fields at some point or another. I use the vast concise rebuttals of TO continually.

Science HAS become more adept to responding to their criticisms - something it would not have done if they were not there- as the vent critters adapted to the high temp water something they would not have done otherwise – Just happened nobody’s (no scientists’ any way) plan.

I teach in a rural conservative setting so I don’t have the luxury of the retorts and the smacdowns to a student like in a faceless blog, facts and tact are all I have.

DS said: mcplavcan [sic] wrote: “In spite of Coyne’s assertion, experiments in evolutionary biology are often repeated, albeit this depends on the nature of the study, and your exact definition of replicability.” Well we repeated Morgan's experiments with fruit files in genetics lab yesterday. It has been repeated literally millions of times over the last one hundred years. Repeatability is a hallmark of good science. Kettlewell's experiments have been repeated many times and have served as the basis for many more detailed studies. Anyone who claims that experiments are not repeated just doesn't understand how science works. Of course science is self correcting, who else is going to correct it, not creationist that's for sure. Using false creationist claims and quote mines is going to get you labelled a creationist. Why shouldn't it?

Dave Luckett,
Read my damn posts and you'll see that
"I get that you don’t think evolution is important" and "Evolution is not important” " is a stupid lie.

Brenda wrote:

"Read my damn posts and you’ll see that “I get that you don’t think evolution is important” and “Evolution is not important” “ is a stupid lie."

Really? Even though you think that conclusions in evolution are accepted unquestioningly? Even though you think that experiments in evolution are never repeated? Even though you apparently think that evolution is not useful in fighting AIDS? Even though you have displayed every characteristics of a creationist troll? Even though you claimed you wanted to discuss the paper about robots but never read it? Even though you berated others for their uncivility and then claimed you didn't care about that? Even though you said you were done here and are now back yet again, still without having read the paper?

Brenda said: Dave Luckett, Read my damn posts and you'll see that "I get that you don’t think evolution is important" and "Evolution is not important” " is a stupid lie.

Brenda said: Raven writes: "While the IDists/creationists are attacking science, science is busy making a better world." Lets toss off your anger, Raven, and recognize that science is huge, but these people attack only a few areas of science, those areas of science that contribute relatively little to making a better world. And they try to make a better world in their own way.

I just spent a few minutes reviewing the article, and a question occurred to me ... have our friends at the DI weighed in on this? It appears to me that this would be a perfect example where one could apply the explanatory filter. Alas, I suspect this is just another missed opportunity for them.

That's it. That's a troll, of the "concern" variety. Perfect profile. Never state a position, always attack those of others, initially by insinuation and innuendo and implicitly, until they react, then accuse them of impoliteness. When brought face-to-face with your own assertions, do not defend them, only attack those who tax you with them. Lie about it.

Robin, it was an honourable attempt, and I honour you for it. But that's a troll, a good one, and a successful one in the currency of trolldom, but a troll nevertheless.

Dave Luckett said: That's it. That's a troll, of the "concern" variety. Perfect profile. Never state a position, always attack those of others, initially by insinuation and innuendo and implicitly, until they react, then accuse them of impoliteness. When brought face-to-face with your own assertions, do not defend them, only attack those who tax you with them. Lie about it.

JKS said: Not understand? I did teach straight evolutionary bio for 26 years- no room for the “controversy”. It was meant as analogy Science didn’t ask for creationists, they are there in the environment they have caused a change in the Science work(not directed as good or bad just a change)

Accepted. As I said I understood - reading the posts, the site gets hit with trolls often. Have to admit I enjoy the banter - unfortunately it also illustrates the confrontational problems that exist.

Like a blog over troll-ed waters...

AI that currently exists is narrow. It just happens to do its dedicated jobs better than a true intelligence, like consciousness does. But who's to say that a new consciousness can't be created that is better than these AIs?

All this just points to the fact that we are going to be gods, and there is a chance that we could have been created in a similar way by similar gods.

DS wrote: "If anyone is studying AIDS without considering evolution he is fighting a losing battle. The only chance we ever have of stopping AIDS is to understand how it evolves. This work will depend critically on evolutionary theory and the thousands of experiments that have already been performed. Anyone who dismisses evolutionary biology as irrelevant will simply be condemning millions of people to death. That appears to be what Brenda is promoting here."
and: "You have said that you won’t post anything else here. If you do you will once again be shown to be a liar."

You caught me. I'm a liar. Yup. Y'see, I just couldn't let your lie go unaddressed.

DS, instead of calling you an idiot, I'll just call you a fellow who lets his biases cause him to become blind.
In my last post, I said that my researcher friend DOES use a little evolutionary theory (a category of evolutionary theory that is mostly uncontroversial even among creationists) in his research. I even mentioned his use of "mutation rates." (Should I have used a bigger font, DS?) His cohorts analyze the statistics of population shifts and whatnot. Your fear/accusation that my friend might lead to the deaths of millions of people makes me think that you're just like Glenn Beck."

Oh, I missed this gem: "Course no one buys that this isn’t really Brenda Tucker either."

Since I'm sure you didn't ask anyone, I will have to conclude that you are no one. Would it help if I stated that Tucker's "7 races of man" theory is the second most craziest thing I've seen all week?

Hint hint about number one, DS.

Dave Luckett asks several questions, but I only feel like answering one of them.

Again.

"Do you or do you not accept that the above review article on experiments applying Darwinian evolution to robots provides evidence for the effectiveness of Darwinian evolution? "

I answered it here:

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2010/01/but-it-is-still.html#comment-205382

(For the record, I asked DS if he was an expert in the subject of the paper. I was concerned that he might be blindly believing what it says. I may have missed his answer.)

I am shocked -- shocked -- to find that gaming is going on in this thread ... three more posts from Brenda and still no explicit articulation of a position regarding the validity of modern evolutionary theory.

Like I said several times, SWT, it was never on my agenda to articulate my position. The "gaming" continues because people like you keep trying, even though your trying has no point.

Like I said several times, SWT, it was never on my agenda to actually read the paper or discuss it. The “gaming” continues because people like me keep trying, even though my trying has no point. I have admitted that everything that I once claimed was wrong. I even tried to claim that that was what I meant all along. I wonder why no one cares.

So, let's review shall we. Brenda thinks that evolution is not all that important but admits that it is. Brenda thinks that evolution isn't important for studying AIDS but admits that it is. Brenda thinks that everyone in evolutionary biology accepts everything unquestioningly but admits that they don't. Brenda has absolutely no point to make, but keeps arguing with everyone anyway, even though she promised to go away. And finally, Brenda absolutely refuses to actually read the paper and discuss it, even though she is obviously familiar with what Brenda Tucker writes.

If Brenda can demonstrate that she has read and understood the paper, then I might choose to reply to something she writes her in the future. If not she can argue with herself all she wants to. That seems to be her speciality. She might eventually get around to admitting what her real position is about something, but of course by then no one will care.

Brenda said: Like I said several times, SWT, it was never on my agenda to articulate my position.

DS, do you only think in binary? Is there such a thing as a middle ground to you? Your second paragraph above screams "no" to both of these.

Stanton, you're wrong. I don't think that you or DS are even interested in discussing the paper. Only one or two people here asked me a question about the paper, but it was so generic. It was basically a challenge as to whether I believe it validated evolution. Boring! I answered that question -- which sounded just like a litmus test kind of question. Don't you have anything better?

Oops, I meant to word that differently. I meant to charge you, DS, with thinking only in binary, with no middle ground.

Okay, then, cut to the chase, Brenda:

Why are you here?

fnxtr said: Okay, then, cut to the chase, Brenda: Why are you here?

Brenda wrote:

"DS, do you only think in binary? Is there such a thing as a middle ground to you? Your second paragraph above screams “no” to both of these."

Well then, I'm glad that's settled.

If Brenda is so thrilled with binary thinking, she should really like the robot paper. Too bad she will never read it. Why on earth would anyone want to ask her a question about a paper she hasn't read?

SWT writes: "Since Brenda has no interest in providing us with context for her remarks"

What does this mean? When I asked my original question, who needed a context? Did you need it in order to know whether you should answer politely or with swords unsheathed? Bible-following folks like to know whether the people asking them questions are atheists or believers or whatnot so that they can craft their answers most effectively. But this is science, where the truth is the truth. At least it's supposed to be.

Fnxtr writes: "cut to the chase...Why are you here?"

Sorry, but I'm not inclined to answer this more than two times. Please go back and look.

DS writes: "If Brenda is so thrilled with binary thinking...:

Poor, poor DS, he missed my subsequent post, where I'm disgusted with DS's binary thinking.

And DS, I read the fine paper. It's just that the first time I read it, I didn't read it carefully enough.

Another hundred words of claiming that she read the paper, claiming that she wanted to discuss the paper, claiming that she did discuss the paper, but not actually, you know, discussing the paper. How troll, er I mean droll.

In any event, sexual reproduction and recombination were mentioned in the second paragraph. Crossing over was shown in the first figure. If anyone did read this paper and had to ask if the genomes were passed on intact, they either do not understand anything about biology or really can't read very well. No wonder the troll doesn't want to answer any direct questions about her beliefs.

So now that she has admitted that the paper supports mainstream evolutionary biology and has admitted that it is a "fine paper", i guess we're done here.

Brenda said: SWT writes: "Since Brenda has no interest in providing us with context for her remarks" What does this mean? When I asked my original question, who needed a context? Did you need it in order to know whether you should answer politely or with swords unsheathed? Bible-following folks like to know whether the people asking them questions are atheists or believers or whatnot so that they can craft their answers most effectively. But this is science, where the truth is the truth. At least it's supposed to be.

DS, do you only think in binary? Is there such a thing as a middle ground to you? Your second paragraph above screams "no" to both of these.

Fallacy of the Middle Ground

you are a waste of time.

Thank you, Ichthyic, for the barely relevant link. Also, you quoted my pre-corrected post.