Dover Penn ID trial - Page 7

Ed · 27th October 2005, 03:56 AM

Originally Posted by RandFan

But that is not his position as I understand it. The position is that if evolution were true science has a simple way to demonstrate it but they haven't. (I don't buy the expriment for the reasons you state)

?

Real science wouldn't for the same reasons that they don't jump thru hoops to disprove every crackpot paranormal theory that crops up: there is no evidence that such an inquery has merit.

The onus here is on the ID'ers.

hammegk · 27th October 2005, 05:09 AM

Originally Posted by Pastor Bentonit

Interesting. Do you also claim that life at some (or many) level(s) is designed, and tuned, to evolve irreducibly complex features?

Good question.

At least in the Anthropic Principal sense, what I see around me appears to strive for added complexity.

You see design & tuning and conclude time and chance are the reason, since no other factors are available to materialists.

Originally Posted by delphi_ote

a) Self coding Turing machines are a reality. Any type of finite state machine has configurations that produce a representation of the state machine itself (or other state machines, for that matter.)

If you are convinced you are a self-coding Turing machine, what else?

Quote:

b) Self coding Turing machines have nothing to do with this subject. The algorithm evolves solutions based on the problem (enviornment, landscape, etc.) it faces, just like life. If it was necessary to start with a solution before designing an evolutionary computation algorithm, obviously nobody would use them.

Damn shame the ugly word "design" is required for your belief to make any sense.

Quote:

c) Evolutionary computation algorithms exist that design Turing machines. There is a whole field called "Genetic Programming" dedicated to the subject.

Er, yes, all undesigned, huh?

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos · 27th October 2005, 05:56 AM

Originally Posted by Hammegk

The fact that it was designed, and tuned, to do just that. If not, I want one of those self-coding Turing machines.

Ev was indeed designed to see if information could evolve. But your glib response is too simplistic. The question is whether the model is reasonably realistic, or whether it contains an inadvertant backdoor to smuggle in the information. Having programmed the Java version, I do not believe there is a backdoor.

Each creature begins with a completely random chromosome. A portion is treated as a weight matrix (the gene), and the rest has binding sites scattered across it. The program computes the number of bits of information needed to encode the location of the binding sites (Rfrequency). The creatures are then subjected to cycles of mutation, evaluation, and selection. The selection pressure is that the gene should match only the binding sites. On each cycle, the information content is computed (Rsequence). The hypothesis was that Rsequence would start at 0, approach Rfrequency, and then hover around it. That is what happens, across a wide range of model parameters. When you turn off the selection pressure, Rsequence drops back to 0.

The premises of the program are simple enough that I think they are pertinent to real evolution. For example, I think Ev models the lac operon fairly well. Here is a paper on the information analysis of a real biological mechanism:

http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/pa...o/fisinfo.html

~~ Paul

delphi_ote · 27th October 2005, 06:19 AM

Originally Posted by hammegk

Er, yes, all undesigned, huh?

Yes.

drkitten · 27th October 2005, 06:44 AM

Originally Posted by RandFan

I don't see how you can prove the absence of a negative. Could you give me some examples of scientists proving that something wont happen?

Well, we've done a pretty good job over the past few centuries proving that nothing will fall UP. We've got a fairly good practical proof that no bats have feathers. Of course, I'm using "proof" loosely here, because what we have isn't a formal mathematical proof, merely demonstration piled upon demonstration until no one with the sense of a St. Christopher medallion would expect the contrary, and in fact, would suspect trickery and fraud if presented with contrary "evidence."

Scientists don't operate in the realm of mathematical proof -- they operate in the realm of evidence.

Regarding Behe's proposed experiment -- in a land of infinite time and funding, someone would probalby perform Behe's experiment just to shut him the hell up. In the real world -- well, I'm a practicing scientist myself. I have, at a guess, about 100,000 hours of research time over the course of my life, time in which I must establish my place in the history books, achieve financial security for myself and my loved ones in our retirement,... oh yes, and advance the course of human knowledge and leave the world a better place than I found it (and all the while still teaching my 10am intro sections). How many hours of my life would you like me to spend running Behe's experiment, when we've already established that it won't, in fact, tell us anything we don't already know? How much are you willing to compensate me for my lost time?

Pastor Bentonit · 27th October 2005, 08:09 AM

Originally Posted by hammegk

Good question.
At least in the Anthropic Principal sense, what I see around me appears to strive for added complexity.

All of it (meaning life)? And all the time? Also, how do you define the anthropic principle and more importantly, why use it here?

Quote:

You see design & tuning and conclude time and chance are the reason, since no other factors are available to materialists.

Straw man. Natural selection is anything but random! You might want to clarify.

Dragon · 27th October 2005, 09:08 AM

Originally Posted by hammegk

Good question.

At least in the Anthropic Principal sense, what I see around me appears to strive for added complexity.

... snip ...

Who is the Anthropic Principal? Some senior figure at your High School?

Oh, and appearances can, of course, be deceptive.
The current Theory of Evolution does not require any "striving for comlpexity" or any striving at all, just variability, the occasional mutation and differential survival. All of which we know to exist.
Didn't some 14th century friar say, "Plurality should not be assumed without necessity"?

c4ts · 27th October 2005, 02:40 PM

Originally Posted by Dragon

Who is the Anthropic Principal? Some senior figure at your High School?

Oh, and appearances can, of course, be deceptive.
The current Theory of Evolution does not require any "striving for comlpexity" or any striving at all, just variability, the occasional mutation and differential survival. All of which we know to exist.
Didn't some 14th century friar say, "Plurality should not be assumed without necessity"?

I think he was a monk. Anyway, by the end it didn't matter because he was excommunicated for calling the Pope a heretic...

petre · 27th October 2005, 04:00 PM

For some odd reason, I woke up last night and suddenly had this thought:

ID claims that there is some intelligent entity (or entities, assuming singular for this paragraph) that was responsible. ID refuses to make any specific claims about this entity beyond that it was intelligent (they're trying to keep it simple to avoid looking like theism I imagine).

My question is, why does it even have to be an intelligent entity? Maybe there is a whole dimension of invisible astral enzimes that tend to mutate DNA strands to produce new, advantageous structures. Perhaps this dimension occasionally collides with our own plane of existance, and results in such events.

So I hereby proclaim that if evolution is not correct, then I believe it is some unintelligent entity or entities that actually caused the creation of certain forms of life. I refuse to make any further claims about this unintelligent entity beyond simply that I believe it is unintelligent. This new UD (Unintelligent Design) theory is every bit as valid as ID.

petre · 27th October 2005, 04:16 PM

And for a seperate point, a seperate post.

Instead of looking at the probability of a single unlikely advantageous mutation that appears to have actually occurred, why don't we examine the probability of all of the unlikely advantageous mutations that DIDN'T occur? At each point in evolution, there were probably hundreds, thousands, perhaps a near infinate number of directions it could have gone depending on what happened by chance. Looking over the vast history of evolution and looking for unlikely steps to prove an intelligence must have intervened, is a bit like looking back over old Powerball drawings for an unlikely combination (say "53, 43, 33, 23, 13, P:3") and then claiming that's proof of the same kind of intervention. The latter case is actually more believable, since some entities with intelligence are known actually exist and be directly involved in the generation.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos · 27th October 2005, 04:27 PM

Invisible astral enzymes, the explanation for UD.

I'm really liking this.

~~ Paul

petre · 27th October 2005, 04:32 PM

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Invisible astral enzymes, the explanation for UD.

I'm really liking this.

~~ Paul

Shhhh...they're really Flying Spaghetti Enzymes, but I'm trying not to give away my secret theistic agenda, since teaching about FSE's would be against the constitution.

ohms · 27th October 2005, 05:27 PM

You need to get the word 'Quantum' in there to make it truly believable

The transcripts have been very interesting and suprisingly amusing too. I'm looking forward to the next batch going up.

H'ethetheth · 28th October 2005, 02:46 AM

Originally Posted by petre

For some odd reason, I woke up last night and suddenly had this thought:

ID claims that there is some intelligent entity (or entities, assuming singular for this paragraph) that was responsible. ID refuses to make any specific claims about this entity beyond that it was intelligent (they're trying to keep it simple to avoid looking like theism I imagine).

My question is, why does it even have to be an intelligent entity? Maybe there is a whole dimension of invisible astral enzimes that tend to mutate DNA strands to produce new, advantageous structures. Perhaps this dimension occasionally collides with our own plane of existance, and results in such events.

So I hereby proclaim that if evolution is not correct, then I believe it is some unintelligent entity or entities that actually caused the creation of certain forms of life. I refuse to make any further claims about this unintelligent entity beyond simply that I believe it is unintelligent. This new UD (Unintelligent Design) theory is every bit as valid as ID.

I had a very similar thought a few days ago. I was thinking more along the lines of Douglas Adams' improbability drive. These irreducibly complex things don't have to happen by chance if they can simply happen by improbability.
What if there were (what indeed, mr. Worf) fluctuations or possibly even reversals of the improbability field

. What if these fluctuations aren't as rare as some of us usually think they are?
Evidence of improbability is of course all around us. For example, what are the odds that you'd turn up at exactly the point in the universe where you are right now? And let's not forget that flagellum, people! That is the kind of structure I call "undeniaby improbable".
I was going to write a highschool textbook about it and of course critically review this book, and get rich. But I felt I had to intervene on this. You're on the right track, but not quite at the right station.

Hail Adams, the visionary.

P.S: I won't speculate about the properties of the improbability field, because IF theory simply isn't that kind of theory.
P.P.S: Maybe we should make a compendium of theories that are both equally valid and equally silly as ID.

Mojo · 28th October 2005, 03:10 AM

Another gem from Behe's cross-examination that I don't think has been posted yet:

Quote:

Q Back to my original question. What is the mechanism that intelligent design proposes?

A And I wonder, could -- am I permitted to know what I replied to your question the first time?

CFLarsen · 28th October 2005, 03:28 AM

Originally Posted by Mojo

Another gem from Behe's cross-examination that I don't think has been posted yet:

STOP! STOP!! YOU'RE KILLING ME!!

Moose · 28th October 2005, 05:08 AM

Originally Posted by Mojo

Another gem from Behe's cross-examination that I don't think has been posted yet:

Behe is the defense's star witness, isn't he?

. o O ( They're screwed. )

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos · 28th October 2005, 05:26 AM

Would it have been okay if Rothschild had responded:

Q. Nothing of any substance that I could see.

~~ Paul

Dr Adequate · 28th October 2005, 05:27 AM

There's only one Michael Behe
ONE Michael Behe
ONE Michael BEH ... E
There's only one Michael Behe
ONE Michael Behe...

Mojo · 28th October 2005, 06:47 AM

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Would it have been okay if Rothschild had responded:

Q. Nothing of any substance that I could see.

Near enough!

Quote:

Q I don't think I got a reply, so I'm asking you...

Flo · 28th October 2005, 06:55 AM

I read some of the transcript and it reminded me of the saying:

"If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with b******t"

headscratcher4 · 28th October 2005, 07:00 AM

More fun from Penn. From the AP wire on the trial:

Ex-School Trustee 'Misspoke' on Evolution

A former school board member who denied saying creationism should be taught alongside evolution in high school biology classes changed his story Thursday after being confronted in court with TV news footage of him making such comments.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051028/...tkBHNlYwM3MTg-

Damn those cameras! Instruments of Satan!

Mojo · 28th October 2005, 07:12 AM

Originally Posted by headscratcher4

A former school board member who denied saying creationism should be taught alongside evolution in high school biology classes changed his story Thursday after being confronted in court with TV news footage of him making such comments.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051028/...tkBHNlYwM3MTg-

Damn those cameras! Instruments of Satan!

Quote:

I had it in my mind to make sure not to talk about creationism.

It's all a bit like Basil Fawlty trying not to mention the war.

Upchurch · 28th October 2005, 07:19 AM

Slight tangent:

Intelligent design loser in moot court

Quote:

In a mock courtroom case that revolved around the concept of intelligent design, a fictitious junior high school teacher likely would have lost his bid to teach the controversial theory.

Quote:

The case, which is similar to actual court cases, including one federal trial being held in Pennsylvania, involved an eighth-grade teacher who taught intelligent design despite a school district policy prohibiting the concept.

However....

Quote:

But Judge Carr stressed that their decision was not an indication on how they would rule if an actual case involving intelligent design or creationism versus evolution came before any of them.

Which makes it sound like their decision was based more on the quality of the presentation rather than the quality of the facts presented.

For what it's worth.

drkitten · 28th October 2005, 07:27 AM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

Which makes it sound like their decision was based more on the quality of the presentation rather than the quality of the facts presented.

Well, that's always the case in any legal proceeding.

For example, my reading of the transcript suggest that Behe crashed and burned on the witness stand (and the rest of the experts are bailing out precisely for that reason). My opinion might be tempered slightly if I had seen the actual testimony, but most likely, if I had seen Behe hemming and hawing and adjusting his collar and stammering as he got backed further and further into a corner, it would only have been strengthened.

But let's give credit where credit is due. Behe has successfully testified before in other cases without going down in flames. Rothschild is demonstrably brilliant at cross-examination. Given the same witness, the same environment, the same depositions, and the same facts, I don't think I could have done the same job. If the ACLU had been dumb enough to retain me, I would have lost the case for them....

headscratcher4 · 28th October 2005, 07:31 AM

Originally Posted by Mojo

It's all a bit like Basil Fawlty trying not to mention the war.

Which, of course, points up one of the great and interesting facets of this whole thing...the willingness of the other side (i.e. the creationists) to lie and dissemble to make their case. Beginning witht he premise that it is acceptable science (so acceptable that the football game between the sides would be like the University of Michigan playing the University of Alaska, Nome in U.of M. stadium). Then they have to hide the real agenda...which is to re-introduce religion into the science curriculum via the science of "ID" which is just a cleaned up version of creationism. I guess what I am trying to get to is that it is politics and poltical strategy (a'la the civil rights movemtn) not scientific discovery or research that is driving this cart...

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos · 28th October 2005, 07:34 AM

Jump ship! Jump ship! This is so much fun I'm getting the heebie-jeebies.

Is that cruel of me?

~~ Paul

delphi_ote · 28th October 2005, 08:11 AM

But it's worse than just "not science." These are supposedly "Christians..."

Quote:

Do not make false statements to one another; because you have put away the old man with all his doings... Colossians 3:9

Quote:

But if you have bitter jealousy and selfish ambition in your heart, don't boast and don't lie against the truth." James 3:14

Quote:

I have not written to you because you don't know the truth, but because you know it, and because no lie is of the truth." 1 John 2:21

And most importantly...

Quote:

DO NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS

(Which was apparently literally written in stone at one point...)

Why is it they never seem to read their own book? Why do their fellow Christians never condemn them for this behavior? They seem to be willing to flush all of the teachings of their religion just to make sure nobody contradicts a fairy tale.

Mojo · 28th October 2005, 08:38 AM

Originally Posted by delphi_ote

But it's worse than just "not science." These are supposedly "Christians..."

Why is it they never seem to read their own book?

I was wondering about this. I know that there was a 1631 edition of the Bible that accidentally had the word "not" omitted from the seventh commandment, so I've just checked the Authorised Version (AKA King James Bible) to make sure it's there in the ninth commandment. It is. Maybe they just don't consider non-creationists to be their "neighbours."

Incidentally, why did these clowns decide that a seventeenth century English translation was inerrant?

Dr Adequate · 28th October 2005, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Former Dover Area School board member Bill Buckingham struggled to clarify Thursday how he raised $850 at his church for copies of the textbook "Of Pandas and People" even though earlier he gave a deposition saying he didn't know how the books were donated to the high school.

I love this guy.

Dr Adequate · 28th October 2005, 08:42 AM

Originally Posted by Mojo

Incidentally, why did these clowns decide that a seventeenth century English translation was inerrant?

And why didn't the seventeenth century translators notice that they were inerrant and mention it?

Mojo · 28th October 2005, 08:43 AM

From another column by Mike Argento:

Quote:

It was like he had a Homer Simpson moment. He was thinking "Don't say creationism. Don't say creationism. Don't say creationism." And then he opens his yap and says "creationism."

D'oh!

Dr Adequate · 28th October 2005, 08:45 AM

So where are the transcripts?

I guess the people at talkorigins are laughing too hard to type.

hammegk · 28th October 2005, 09:19 AM

Originally Posted by delphi_ote

But it's worse than just "not science." These are supposedly "Christians..."

Perhaps. Which suitable studies that test your hypothesis do you find most convincing?

Originally Posted by H'ethetheth

Evidence of improbability is of course all around us. For example, what are the odds that you'd turn up at exactly the point in the universe where you are right now? And let's not forget that flagellum, people! That is the kind of structure I call "undeniaby improbable".

Originally Posted by petri

My question is, why does it even have to be an intelligent entity? Maybe there is a whole dimension of invisible astral enzimes that tend to mutate DNA strands to produce new, advantageous structures. Perhaps this dimension occasionally collides with our own plane of existance, and results in such events.

I find out-of-the-box thinking more interesting than regurgitation of liturgy.

Originally Posted by Dragon

Who is the Anthropic Principal? Some senior figure at your High School?

Quote:

Oh, and appearances can, of course, be deceptive.

Agreed, yet appearance via perception is all we have to work with sfaik.

Quote:

The current Theory of Evolution does not require any "striving for complexity" or any striving at all,

No, it doesn't.

Originally Posted by Pastor B.

Natural selection is anything but random! You might want to clarify.

Timing of specific environment & timing of rna-dna available for mutation is not random?

Or does environment specify and direct mutation? LOL.

And for the pedants, yes it should have been "principle" not "principal".

Dr Adequate · 28th October 2005, 09:24 AM

Hey, hammy, you've gatecrashed this party.

I can tell you don't belong here because the invite said "huge smug grins to be worn", and you're the only person here not wearing one.

Bronze Dog · 28th October 2005, 09:26 AM

Originally Posted by hammegk

Timing of specific environment & timing of rna-dna available for mutation is not random?

Or does environment specify and direct mutation? LOL.

Once again, I get the feeling that hammy doesn't know what random means.

drkitten · 28th October 2005, 09:31 AM

Originally Posted by BronzeDog

Once again, I get the feeling that hammy doesn't know what random means.

Why should "random" be unique in this regard?

hammegk · 28th October 2005, 09:37 AM

Originally Posted by BronzeDog

Once again, I get the feeling that hammy doesn't know what random means.

Do you, in the sense you've actually contemplated the implications of the word?

Originally Posted by dkitten

Why should "random" be unique in this regard?

Oh! You made a funny!

Bronze Dog · 28th October 2005, 09:44 AM

Originally Posted by hammegk

Do you, in the sense you've actually contemplated the implications of the word?

Implications... such as?

Mojo · 28th October 2005, 09:49 AM

Originally Posted by hammegk

Quote:

Originally posted by Pastor Bentonit
Natural selection is anything but random! You might want to clarify.

Timing of specific environment & timing of rna-dna available for mutation is not random?

Or does environment specify and direct mutation?

Sorry, Hammy, but another of your strawmen is showing. That's not what the Pastor said. Mutation and natural selection are not the same process. Mutation is random; the process of natural selection which acts on the results of those mutations is driven by environmental pressures.

27th October 2005, 03:56 AM	#241
Ed Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 8,658	Originally Posted by RandFan But that is not his position as I understand it. The position is that if evolution were true science has a simple way to demonstrate it but they haven't. (I don't buy the expriment for the reasons you state) ? Real science wouldn't for the same reasons that they don't jump thru hoops to disprove every crackpot paranormal theory that crops up: there is no evidence that such an inquery has merit. The onus here is on the ID'ers.
Ed Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 8,658

27th October 2005, 05:09 AM	#242
hammegk Banned Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 8,413	Originally Posted by Pastor Bentonit Interesting. Do you also claim that life at some (or many) level(s) is designed, and tuned, to evolve irreducibly complex features? Good question. At least in the Anthropic Principal sense, what I see around me appears to strive for added complexity. You see design & tuning and conclude time and chance are the reason, since no other factors are available to materialists. Originally Posted by delphi_ote a) Self coding Turing machines are a reality. Any type of finite state machine has configurations that produce a representation of the state machine itself (or other state machines, for that matter.) If you are convinced you are a self-coding Turing machine, what else? Quote: b) Self coding Turing machines have nothing to do with this subject. The algorithm evolves solutions based on the problem (enviornment, landscape, etc.) it faces, just like life. If it was necessary to start with a solution before designing an evolutionary computation algorithm, obviously nobody would use them. Damn shame the ugly word "design" is required for your belief to make any sense. Quote: c) Evolutionary computation algorithms exist that design Turing machines. There is a whole field called "Genetic Programming" dedicated to the subject. Er, yes, all undesigned, huh?
hammegk Banned Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 8,413

27th October 2005, 05:56 AM	#243
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Nap, interrupted. Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 19,137	Originally Posted by Hammegk The fact that it was designed, and tuned, to do just that. If not, I want one of those self-coding Turing machines. Ev was indeed designed to see if information could evolve. But your glib response is too simplistic. The question is whether the model is reasonably realistic, or whether it contains an inadvertant backdoor to smuggle in the information. Having programmed the Java version, I do not believe there is a backdoor. Each creature begins with a completely random chromosome. A portion is treated as a weight matrix (the gene), and the rest has binding sites scattered across it. The program computes the number of bits of information needed to encode the location of the binding sites (Rfrequency). The creatures are then subjected to cycles of mutation, evaluation, and selection. The selection pressure is that the gene should match only the binding sites. On each cycle, the information content is computed (Rsequence). The hypothesis was that Rsequence would start at 0, approach Rfrequency, and then hover around it. That is what happens, across a wide range of model parameters. When you turn off the selection pressure, Rsequence drops back to 0. The premises of the program are simple enough that I think they are pertinent to real evolution. For example, I think Ev models the lac operon fairly well. Here is a paper on the information analysis of a real biological mechanism: http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/pa...o/fisinfo.html ~~ Paul
	__________________ Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. ---Susan Ertz RIP Mr. Skinny, Tim

27th October 2005, 06:19 AM	#244
delphi_ote Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 5,994	Originally Posted by hammegk Er, yes, all undesigned, huh? Yes.
delphi_ote Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 5,994

27th October 2005, 08:09 AM	#246
Pastor Bentonit Thinker Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 130	Originally Posted by hammegk Good question. At least in the Anthropic Principal sense, what I see around me appears to strive for added complexity. All of it (meaning life)? And all the time? Also, how do you define the anthropic principle and more importantly, why use it here? Quote: You see design & tuning and conclude time and chance are the reason, since no other factors are available to materialists. Straw man. Natural selection is anything but random! You might want to clarify.
Pastor Bentonit Thinker Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 130	__________________ "Where there´s a will, there´s a lawyer" - Kinky Friedman "We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture" - Pastor Ray Mummert, Dover, PA “We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further” - Richard Dawkins "Very funny, Scotty. Now beam down my clothes." "Scientist" is a profession. Science is a method. "Scientism" is neither a political ideology, nor a religion.

27th October 2005, 06:44 AM	#245
drkitten Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 21,629	Originally Posted by RandFan I don't see how you can prove the absence of a negative. Could you give me some examples of scientists proving that something wont happen? Well, we've done a pretty good job over the past few centuries proving that nothing will fall UP. We've got a fairly good practical proof that no bats have feathers. Of course, I'm using "proof" loosely here, because what we have isn't a formal mathematical proof, merely demonstration piled upon demonstration until no one with the sense of a St. Christopher medallion would expect the contrary, and in fact, would suspect trickery and fraud if presented with contrary "evidence." Scientists don't operate in the realm of mathematical proof -- they operate in the realm of evidence. Regarding Behe's proposed experiment -- in a land of infinite time and funding, someone would probalby perform Behe's experiment just to shut him the hell up. In the real world -- well, I'm a practicing scientist myself. I have, at a guess, about 100,000 hours of research time over the course of my life, time in which I must establish my place in the history books, achieve financial security for myself and my loved ones in our retirement,... oh yes, and advance the course of human knowledge and leave the world a better place than I found it (and all the while still teaching my 10am intro sections). How many hours of my life would you like me to spend running Behe's experiment, when we've already established that it won't, in fact, tell us anything we don't already know? How much are you willing to compensate me for my lost time?

27th October 2005, 09:08 AM	#247
Dragon Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 1,639	Originally Posted by hammegk Good question. At least in the Anthropic Principal sense, what I see around me appears to strive for added complexity. ... snip ... Who is the Anthropic Principal? Some senior figure at your High School? Oh, and appearances can, of course, be deceptive. The current Theory of Evolution does not require any "striving for comlpexity" or any striving at all, just variability, the occasional mutation and differential survival. All of which we know to exist. Didn't some 14th century friar say, "Plurality should not be assumed without necessity"?
Dragon Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 1,639

27th October 2005, 02:40 PM	#248
c4ts Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 8,420	Originally Posted by Dragon Who is the Anthropic Principal? Some senior figure at your High School? Oh, and appearances can, of course, be deceptive. The current Theory of Evolution does not require any "striving for comlpexity" or any striving at all, just variability, the occasional mutation and differential survival. All of which we know to exist. Didn't some 14th century friar say, "Plurality should not be assumed without necessity"? I think he was a monk. Anyway, by the end it didn't matter because he was excommunicated for calling the Pope a heretic...
c4ts Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 8,420

27th October 2005, 04:00 PM	#249
petre Muse Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 887	For some odd reason, I woke up last night and suddenly had this thought: ID claims that there is some intelligent entity (or entities, assuming singular for this paragraph) that was responsible. ID refuses to make any specific claims about this entity beyond that it was intelligent (they're trying to keep it simple to avoid looking like theism I imagine). My question is, why does it even have to be an intelligent entity? Maybe there is a whole dimension of invisible astral enzimes that tend to mutate DNA strands to produce new, advantageous structures. Perhaps this dimension occasionally collides with our own plane of existance, and results in such events. So I hereby proclaim that if evolution is not correct, then I believe it is some unintelligent entity or entities that actually caused the creation of certain forms of life. I refuse to make any further claims about this unintelligent entity beyond simply that I believe it is unintelligent. This new UD (Unintelligent Design) theory is every bit as valid as ID.
petre Muse Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 887

27th October 2005, 04:16 PM	#250
petre Muse Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 887	And for a seperate point, a seperate post. Instead of looking at the probability of a single unlikely advantageous mutation that appears to have actually occurred, why don't we examine the probability of all of the unlikely advantageous mutations that DIDN'T occur? At each point in evolution, there were probably hundreds, thousands, perhaps a near infinate number of directions it could have gone depending on what happened by chance. Looking over the vast history of evolution and looking for unlikely steps to prove an intelligence must have intervened, is a bit like looking back over old Powerball drawings for an unlikely combination (say "53, 43, 33, 23, 13, P:3") and then claiming that's proof of the same kind of intervention. The latter case is actually more believable, since some entities with intelligence are known actually exist and be directly involved in the generation.
petre Muse Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 887

27th October 2005, 04:27 PM	#251
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Nap, interrupted. Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 19,137	Invisible astral enzymes, the explanation for UD. I'm really liking this. ~~ Paul
	__________________ Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. ---Susan Ertz RIP Mr. Skinny, Tim

27th October 2005, 04:32 PM	#252
petre Muse Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 887	Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Invisible astral enzymes, the explanation for UD. I'm really liking this. ~~ Paul Shhhh...they're really Flying Spaghetti Enzymes, but I'm trying not to give away my secret theistic agenda, since teaching about FSE's would be against the constitution.
petre Muse Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 887

27th October 2005, 05:27 PM	#253
ohms Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 1,608	You need to get the word 'Quantum' in there to make it truly believable The transcripts have been very interesting and suprisingly amusing too. I'm looking forward to the next batch going up.
ohms Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 1,608	__________________ Long time lurker

28th October 2005, 02:46 AM	#254
H'ethetheth fishy rocket scientist Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: among the machines Posts: 2,682	Originally Posted by petre For some odd reason, I woke up last night and suddenly had this thought: ID claims that there is some intelligent entity (or entities, assuming singular for this paragraph) that was responsible. ID refuses to make any specific claims about this entity beyond that it was intelligent (they're trying to keep it simple to avoid looking like theism I imagine). My question is, why does it even have to be an intelligent entity? Maybe there is a whole dimension of invisible astral enzimes that tend to mutate DNA strands to produce new, advantageous structures. Perhaps this dimension occasionally collides with our own plane of existance, and results in such events. So I hereby proclaim that if evolution is not correct, then I believe it is some unintelligent entity or entities that actually caused the creation of certain forms of life. I refuse to make any further claims about this unintelligent entity beyond simply that I believe it is unintelligent. This new UD (Unintelligent Design) theory is every bit as valid as ID. I had a very similar thought a few days ago. I was thinking more along the lines of Douglas Adams' improbability drive. These irreducibly complex things don't have to happen by chance if they can simply happen by improbability. What if there were (what indeed, mr. Worf) fluctuations or possibly even reversals of the improbability field . What if these fluctuations aren't as rare as some of us usually think they are? Evidence of improbability is of course all around us. For example, what are the odds that you'd turn up at exactly the point in the universe where you are right now? And let's not forget that flagellum, people! That is the kind of structure I call "undeniaby improbable". I was going to write a highschool textbook about it and of course critically review this book, and get rich. But I felt I had to intervene on this. You're on the right track, but not quite at the right station. Hail Adams, the visionary. P.S: I won't speculate about the properties of the improbability field, because IF theory simply isn't that kind of theory. P.P.S: Maybe we should make a compendium of theories that are both equally valid and equally silly as ID.

28th October 2005, 03:10 AM	#255
Mojo Mostly harmless Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Nor Flanden Posts: 38,545	Another gem from Behe's cross-examination that I don't think has been posted yet: Quote: Q Back to my original question. What is the mechanism that intelligent design proposes? A And I wonder, could -- am I permitted to know what I replied to your question the first time?
	__________________ "You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

28th October 2005, 03:28 AM	#256
CFLarsen Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 42,371	Originally Posted by Mojo Another gem from Behe's cross-examination that I don't think has been posted yet: STOP! STOP!! YOU'RE KILLING ME!!

28th October 2005, 05:08 AM	#257
Moose Self-Propelled Road Hazard Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 418	Originally Posted by Mojo Another gem from Behe's cross-examination that I don't think has been posted yet: Behe is the defense's star witness, isn't he? . o O ( They're screwed. )

28th October 2005, 05:26 AM	#258
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Nap, interrupted. Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 19,137	Would it have been okay if Rothschild had responded: Q. Nothing of any substance that I could see. ~~ Paul
	__________________ Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. ---Susan Ertz RIP Mr. Skinny, Tim

28th October 2005, 05:27 AM	#259
Dr Adequate Banned Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 17,766	There's only one Michael Behe ONE Michael Behe ONE Michael BEH ... E There's only one Michael Behe ONE Michael Behe...
Dr Adequate Banned Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 17,766

28th October 2005, 06:47 AM	#260
Mojo Mostly harmless Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Nor Flanden Posts: 38,545	Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Would it have been okay if Rothschild had responded: Q. Nothing of any substance that I could see. Near enough! Quote: Q I don't think I got a reply, so I'm asking you...
	__________________ "You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

28th October 2005, 06:55 AM	#261
Flo Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Loire, France Posts: 3,212	I read some of the transcript and it reminded me of the saying: "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with b******t"

28th October 2005, 07:00 AM	#262
headscratcher4 Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 7,776	More fun from Penn. From the AP wire on the trial: Ex-School Trustee 'Misspoke' on Evolution A former school board member who denied saying creationism should be taught alongside evolution in high school biology classes changed his story Thursday after being confronted in court with TV news footage of him making such comments. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051028/...tkBHNlYwM3MTg- Damn those cameras! Instruments of Satan!
	__________________ Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals ... except the weasel. -- Homer Simpson

28th October 2005, 07:12 AM	#263
Mojo Mostly harmless Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Nor Flanden Posts: 38,545	Originally Posted by headscratcher4 A former school board member who denied saying creationism should be taught alongside evolution in high school biology classes changed his story Thursday after being confronted in court with TV news footage of him making such comments. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051028/...tkBHNlYwM3MTg- Damn those cameras! Instruments of Satan! Quote: I had it in my mind to make sure not to talk about creationism. It's all a bit like Basil Fawlty trying not to mention the war.
	__________________ "You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

28th October 2005, 07:19 AM	#264
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 34,263	Slight tangent: Intelligent design loser in moot court Quote: In a mock courtroom case that revolved around the concept of intelligent design, a fictitious junior high school teacher likely would have lost his bid to teach the controversial theory. Quote: The case, which is similar to actual court cases, including one federal trial being held in Pennsylvania, involved an eighth-grade teacher who taught intelligent design despite a school district policy prohibiting the concept. However.... Quote: But Judge Carr stressed that their decision was not an indication on how they would rule if an actual case involving intelligent design or creationism versus evolution came before any of them. Which makes it sound like their decision was based more on the quality of the presentation rather than the quality of the facts presented. For what it's worth.
	__________________ "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes. "It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.

28th October 2005, 07:27 AM	#265
drkitten Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 21,629	Originally Posted by Upchurch Which makes it sound like their decision was based more on the quality of the presentation rather than the quality of the facts presented. Well, that's always the case in any legal proceeding. For example, my reading of the transcript suggest that Behe crashed and burned on the witness stand (and the rest of the experts are bailing out precisely for that reason). My opinion might be tempered slightly if I had seen the actual testimony, but most likely, if I had seen Behe hemming and hawing and adjusting his collar and stammering as he got backed further and further into a corner, it would only have been strengthened. But let's give credit where credit is due. Behe has successfully testified before in other cases without going down in flames. Rothschild is demonstrably brilliant at cross-examination. Given the same witness, the same environment, the same depositions, and the same facts, I don't think I could have done the same job. If the ACLU had been dumb enough to retain me, I would have lost the case for them....

28th October 2005, 07:31 AM	#266
headscratcher4 Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 7,776	Originally Posted by Mojo It's all a bit like Basil Fawlty trying not to mention the war. Which, of course, points up one of the great and interesting facets of this whole thing...the willingness of the other side (i.e. the creationists) to lie and dissemble to make their case. Beginning witht he premise that it is acceptable science (so acceptable that the football game between the sides would be like the University of Michigan playing the University of Alaska, Nome in U.of M. stadium). Then they have to hide the real agenda...which is to re-introduce religion into the science curriculum via the science of "ID" which is just a cleaned up version of creationism. I guess what I am trying to get to is that it is politics and poltical strategy (a'la the civil rights movemtn) not scientific discovery or research that is driving this cart...
	__________________ Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals ... except the weasel. -- Homer Simpson

28th October 2005, 07:34 AM	#267
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Nap, interrupted. Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 19,137	Jump ship! Jump ship! This is so much fun I'm getting the heebie-jeebies. Is that cruel of me? ~~ Paul
	__________________ Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. ---Susan Ertz RIP Mr. Skinny, Tim

28th October 2005, 08:11 AM	#268
delphi_ote Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 5,994	But it's worse than just "not science." These are supposedly "Christians..." Quote: Do not make false statements to one another; because you have put away the old man with all his doings... Colossians 3:9 Quote: But if you have bitter jealousy and selfish ambition in your heart, don't boast and don't lie against the truth." James 3:14 Quote: I have not written to you because you don't know the truth, but because you know it, and because no lie is of the truth." 1 John 2:21 And most importantly... Quote: DO NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS (Which was apparently literally written in stone at one point...) Why is it they never seem to read their own book? Why do their fellow Christians never condemn them for this behavior? They seem to be willing to flush all of the teachings of their religion just to make sure nobody contradicts a fairy tale.
delphi_ote Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 5,994

28th October 2005, 08:38 AM	#269
Mojo Mostly harmless Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Nor Flanden Posts: 38,545	Originally Posted by delphi_ote But it's worse than just "not science." These are supposedly "Christians..." Why is it they never seem to read their own book? I was wondering about this. I know that there was a 1631 edition of the Bible that accidentally had the word "not" omitted from the seventh commandment, so I've just checked the Authorised Version (AKA King James Bible) to make sure it's there in the ninth commandment. It is. Maybe they just don't consider non-creationists to be their "neighbours." Incidentally, why did these clowns decide that a seventeenth century English translation was inerrant?
	__________________ "You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

28th October 2005, 08:39 AM	#270
Dr Adequate Banned Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 17,766	Quote: Former Dover Area School board member Bill Buckingham struggled to clarify Thursday how he raised $850 at his church for copies of the textbook "Of Pandas and People" even though earlier he gave a deposition saying he didn't know how the books were donated to the high school. I love this guy.
Dr Adequate Banned Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 17,766

28th October 2005, 08:42 AM	#271
Dr Adequate Banned Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 17,766	Originally Posted by Mojo Incidentally, why did these clowns decide that a seventeenth century English translation was inerrant? And why didn't the seventeenth century translators notice that they were inerrant and mention it?
Dr Adequate Banned Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 17,766

28th October 2005, 08:43 AM	#272
Mojo Mostly harmless Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Nor Flanden Posts: 38,545	From another column by Mike Argento: Quote: It was like he had a Homer Simpson moment. He was thinking "Don't say creationism. Don't say creationism. Don't say creationism." And then he opens his yap and says "creationism." D'oh!
	__________________ "You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

28th October 2005, 08:45 AM	#273
Dr Adequate Banned Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 17,766	So where are the transcripts? I guess the people at talkorigins are laughing too hard to type.
Dr Adequate Banned Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 17,766

28th October 2005, 09:19 AM	#274
hammegk Banned Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 8,413	Originally Posted by delphi_ote But it's worse than just "not science." These are supposedly "Christians..." Perhaps. Which suitable studies that test your hypothesis do you find most convincing? Originally Posted by H'ethetheth Evidence of improbability is of course all around us. For example, what are the odds that you'd turn up at exactly the point in the universe where you are right now? And let's not forget that flagellum, people! That is the kind of structure I call "undeniaby improbable". Originally Posted by petri My question is, why does it even have to be an intelligent entity? Maybe there is a whole dimension of invisible astral enzimes that tend to mutate DNA strands to produce new, advantageous structures. Perhaps this dimension occasionally collides with our own plane of existance, and results in such events. I find out-of-the-box thinking more interesting than regurgitation of liturgy. Originally Posted by Dragon Who is the Anthropic Principal? Some senior figure at your High School? Quote: Oh, and appearances can, of course, be deceptive. Agreed, yet appearance via perception is all we have to work with sfaik. Quote: The current Theory of Evolution does not require any "striving for complexity" or any striving at all, No, it doesn't. Originally Posted by Pastor B. Natural selection is anything but random! You might want to clarify. Timing of specific environment & timing of rna-dna available for mutation is not random? Or does environment specify and direct mutation? LOL. And for the pedants, yes it should have been "principle" not "principal".
hammegk Banned Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 8,413

28th October 2005, 09:24 AM	#275
Dr Adequate Banned Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 17,766	Hey, hammy, you've gatecrashed this party. I can tell you don't belong here because the invite said "huge smug grins to be worn", and you're the only person here not wearing one.
Dr Adequate Banned Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 17,766