Harshman, Felsenstein & Dembski
Seanpit
wrote:
>
> >The problem with arguments such as Felsenstein is that they only
> > consider fitness landscapes at very low levels of functional
> > complexity.
> Amazing. You hijack the thread in less than one sentence.
You, evidently, haven't read the Felsenstein article for
comprehension:
http://ncseweb.org/rncse/27/3-4/has-natural-selection-been-refuted-arguments-william-dembski
In the article Felsenstein writes:
"Suppose that the sequences are each 1000 bases long. There are 4
x 4 x 4 x … x 4 = 4^1000 possible sequences, which in alphabetic order
would go from AAAA...A to TTTT...T. Now imagine that our organism is
haploid, so that there is only one copy of the gene per individual,
and suppose that each of these sequences has a fitness. A very tiny
fraction of the sequences is functional, and almost all of the rest
have fitness zero.
Suppose that we want to find an organism of high fitness, and we
want to do so by looking at 10,000 different DNA sequences. The best
we can do, of course, is to take the highest one we find among these.
Now note that 4^1000 is about 10^602, a number far greater than the
number of elementary particles in the universe. It is not unreasonable
to guess that the fraction of DNA sequences that has a nonzero fitness
is tiny — let's be very generous and say 1 in 10^20."
Notice that Felsenstein does something similar to what I'm doing. He
is considering 1000-character sequence space of DNA (equivalent to
333aa sequence space for proteins). He then does something very very
interesting here. He assumes, without any basis whatsoever, that the
ratio of beneficial vs. non-beneficial sequences within that space is
extremely high - as high as 1 in 1e20. That ratio is only close to
being valid in sequence space of less than 100aa where the systems in
question are rather loosely specified. Felsenstein completely ignores
the concept of system specificity altogether. He doesn't consider
that 1000 fsaar systems are much much rarer than he has remotely
imagined in his essay - to the tune of 1 in 1e600.
http://www.detectingdesign.com/flagellum.html#Complexity
That, in a nutshell, is the fatal flaw with his entire argument in
this essay. He does not grasp the concept of "levels" of functional
complexity or consider the fact that as one increases the minimum size
or specificity requirements of a system, the ratio of potentially
beneficial vs. non-beneficial (or "targets vs. non-targets) in
sequence space decreases dramatically. Felsenstein doesn't even
consider this issue. He somehow treats all sizes of sequence space
exactly alike thinking that they all have essentially the same ratio
of targets vs. non-targets. They don't. Felsenstein argument is
therefore stuck at the very lowest levels of functional complexity.
John Harshman is just upset here because he doesn't seem to want any
series challenges being presented to Felsenstein's obviously
simplistic arguments and views of sequence space and functional
complexity. Neither Harshman or Felsenstein have the remotest idea
how to really deal with the problem of explaining how the mindless
mechanism of RM/NS can really solve the problem of increasing
functional biosystem complexity. Neither have come remotely close to
even trying to deal with the real problem at hand.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
gregwrld
> On Mar 28, 5:38 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > >The problem with arguments such as Felsenstein is that they only
> > > consider fitness landscapes at very low levels of functional
> > > complexity.
> > Amazing. You hijack the thread in less than one sentence.
>
> You, evidently, haven't read the Felsenstein article for
> comprehension:
>
Still bashing around in the dark
for god, eh Sean? That you don't
recognize your argument from
ignorance for what it is, says it
all...
gregwrld
wf3h
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > >The problem with arguments such as Felsenstein is that they only
> > > consider fitness landscapes at very low levels of functional
> > > complexity.
> > Amazing. You hijack the thread in less than one sentence.
>
> You, evidently, haven't read the Felsenstein article for
> comprehension:
well neither have you. because you
1. have no mechanism for creation
2 fail to apply your own statistical tests to your own 'theory'
3 fail to account for the fact creationism has always been wrong. for
2000 years every single prediction it's made has been wrong
so, compute away. it merely shows how desperate creationism has become
sean's argument is a waste of time and computing power. it is capable
of being dismissed out of hand, summarily because he himself can not
defend it
richardal...@googlemail.com
> On Mar 28, 5:38 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > >The problem with arguments such as Felsenstein is that they only
> > > consider fitness landscapes at very low levels of functional
> > > complexity.
> > Amazing. You hijack the thread in less than one sentence.
>
> You, evidently, haven't read the Felsenstein article for
> comprehension:
Sean, you never read anything for comprehension. You just try to
cherry-pick the bits that you think support your "theory", ignore the
bits that don't and deny that you have done so even when it is
perfectly clear that you have.
You have nothing to offer.
You rubbish here, it gets utterly trashed, you disappear for a while
then post the same, unchanged rubbish again.
We all know it's a load of bullshit.
I you had any confidence whatever in your pathetic and empty "theory",
you'd write it up as a scientific paper and submit it for publication.
Of course, *you* know that it's a load of bullshit, which is why you
hide behind facile excuses such as that you only post here "for fun",
or that it will be rejected because no editor of any academic journal
has the "candid mind" which would allow them to understand your
argument. You can fool the creationists whose adulation you crave.
It's perfectly clear that you post here to bolster your ego, not
because you care at all about science, or think that your "theory" has
any merit.
It's pathetic.
But still, as I keep telling you, I post here to expose the ignorance,
arrogance and dishonesty of creationists. Thank you for the
substantial contribution you've made to my cause.
RF
>
> http://ncseweb.org/rncse/27/3-4/has-natural-selection-been-refuted-ar...
![[M]adman's profile photo](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a/default-user=s40-c)
[M]adman
Standard evolutionist PAT answer #42:
"You cherry pick information and are arrogant, pathetic and dishonest".
wf3h
uh...no.
he failed to defend creationism. the errors of creationism are fatal
and creationism is fatal to civilizations that believe it.
creationism kills
Kent Paul Dolan
> Notice that Felsenstein does something similar to
> what I'm doing. He is considering 1000-character
> sequence space of DNA (equivalent to 333aa
> sequence space for proteins). He then does
> something very very interesting here.
Yes, he completely demolishes your idiocy point by
point without even the need to know of you. You
pretending that your innumeracy somehow trumps his
numeracy, or that he, who knows the science, is
making mistakes only scientific illiterate you are
competent to detect, is the stuff of bathroom humor.
xanthian.
Ye Old One
Well stop doing it then.
I know you are a very forgetful person, or at least you like to run
away and try to forget things. However, on the 29th September 2008 you
failed to deal with a number of items that were first listed by
Boikat.
So, to help you, here (again) are the mistakes Boikat (and now myself)
think you need to address:-
Claiming the actor Paul Newman was a creationist....
Claiming that "Dr." Kent Hovind has made lots of *scientific*
discoveries...
Claiming wars have been fought because some scientific finding
discredited some facet of some religion...
Claiming to have a "higher education" than most posters to this news
group....
Claiming to understand how geologists determine the age of any given
sample of rock...
Now, will you deal with them? Or do I need to keep reminding you?
--
Bob.
richardal...@googlemail.com
No, it's a perfectly acurate description of Sean Pitman's behaviour.
Why not read his posting history?
Why do *you* think that he hasn't even tried to publish his "theory"?
RF
Seanpit
> > "You cherry pick information and are arrogant, pathetic and dishonest".
>
> No, it's a perfectly acurate description of Sean Pitman'sbehaviour.
> Why not read his posting history?
>
> Why do *you* think that he hasn't even tried to publish his "theory"?
http://www.conservapedia.com/Smithsonian-Sternberg_affair
> RF
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Rusty Sites
> On Mar 28, 5:38 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>>> The problem with arguments such as Felsenstein is that they only
>>> consider fitness landscapes at very low levels of functional
>>> complexity.
>
Define functional complexity.
wf3h
> > > "You cherry pick information and are arrogant, pathetic and dishonest".
>
> > No, it's a perfectly acurate description of Sean Pitman'sbehaviour.
> > Why not read his posting history?
>
> > Why do *you* think that he hasn't even tried to publish his "theory"?
>
> http://www.conservapedia.com/Smithsonian-Sternberg_affair
>
sean, don't bother quoting conservapedia. it has the same accuracy as
the 'soviet encyclopedia' did during the time of the USSR. one need
only read its entry on 'atheism' to see it's a hack website written by
hack authors.
Seanpit
wf3h
from lewis carroll's 'alice in wonderland': " a word means exactly
what i want it to mean; nothing more and nothing less'
wf3h
>
> > No, it's a perfectly acurate description of Sean Pitman'sbehaviour.
> > Why not read his posting history?
>
> > Why do *you* think that he hasn't even tried to publish his "theory"?
>
> http://www.conservapedia.com/Smithsonian-Sternberg_affair
>
as a follow up...have you ever heard of mike behe, sean? ever talked
with the man?
i have. i graduated from lehigh's chemistry dept and have had a chance
to talk with behe about his creationist views.
the fact is, he's not been persecuted at all and was promoted to full
professor AFTER writing 'darwins black box'.
and the affair you cite? the 'office of special counsel' review?
the lawyer who reviewed the affair was a political appointee who was
also a creationist.
so your credibility just took it in the shorts for
1. citing a website that is a hack job
2. not being aware that there are high level counter examples to your
contention
3 not being aware that even your own reference, when examined more
closely, supports the contention that the creationist you are
defending was not persecuted for his beliefs
Seanpit
> On Mar 30, 11:12 am, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > "You cherry pick information and are arrogant, pathetic and dishonest".
>
> > > Why not read his posting history?
>
> > > Why do *you* think that he hasn't even tried to publish his "theory"?
>
> >http://www.conservapedia.com/Smithsonian-Sternberg_affair
>
> with the man?
>
> i have. i graduated from lehigh's chemistry dept and have had a chance
> to talk with behe about his creationist views.
Ah, but did you actually ask Behe about his success at getting his
ideas published in mainstream journals? Why do you think he had to
publish a book instead of publishing his ideas in mainstream science
journals? Hmmmm?
Seanpit
It's simple. A level of functional complexity is defined by the
minimum size and specificity requirements for a system to achieve a
particular type of function.
What about that is this definition is too difficult for you to
understand? ; )
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
TomS
<06525bf8-1c6d-439b...@i28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Seanpit
stated..."
>
>On Mar 30, 9:20=A0am, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>> On Mar 30, 11:12=A0am, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > "You cherry pick information and are arrogant, pathetic and dishone=
>st".
>>
>> > > No, it's a perfectly acurate description ofSeanPitman'sbehaviour.
>> > > Why not read his posting history?
>>
>> > > Why do *you* think that he hasn't even tried to publish his "theory"?
>>
>> >http://www.conservapedia.com/Smithsonian-Sternberg_affair
>>
>> as a follow up...have you ever heard of mike behe,sean? ever talked
>> with the man?
>>
>> i have. i graduated from lehigh's chemistry dept and have had a chance
>> to talk with behe about his creationist views.
>
>Ah, but did you actually ask Behe about his success at getting his
>ideas published in mainstream journals? Why do you think he had to
>publish a book instead of publishing his ideas in mainstream science
>journals? Hmmmm?
Boy, that's a tough question.
Why would Behe have trouble getting his ideas published in real
scientific journals?
I can't imagine why.
But, seriously now folks, does anybody know whether Behe has even
*tried*?
--
---Tom S.
"As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand."
attributed to Josh Billings
Ray Martinez
> "On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 10:34:33 -0700 (PDT), in article
> stated..."
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Mar 30, 9:20=A0am, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
> >> On Mar 30, 11:12=A0am, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > > "You cherry pick information and are arrogant, pathetic and dishone=
> >st".
>
> >> > > No, it's a perfectly acurate description ofSeanPitman'sbehaviour.
> >> > > Why not read his posting history?
>
> >> > > Why do *you* think that he hasn't even tried to publish his "theory"?
>
> >> >http://www.conservapedia.com/Smithsonian-Sternberg_affair
>
> >> as a follow up...have you ever heard of mike behe,sean? ever talked
> >> with the man?
>
> >> i have. i graduated from lehigh's chemistry dept and have had a chance
> >> to talk with behe about his creationist views.
>
> >Ah, but did you actually ask Behe about his success at getting his
> >ideas published in mainstream journals? Why do you think he had to
> >publish a book instead of publishing his ideas in mainstream science
> >journals? Hmmmm?
>
> [...snip...]
>
> Boy, that's a tough question.
>
> Why would Behe have trouble getting his ideas published in real
> scientific journals?
>
Why would any IDist want to publish in a pro-Atheism masturbation rag?
Ray
Ray Martinez
We do not know the exact reason why Sean posted *that* link to
Conservapedia as an answer to a specific question.
But I do completely agree with Bob on this one: like Wikipedia,
Conservapedia is NOT a legitimate source. Anyone with a computer can
contribute. Both sites exist to promote a particular bias.
Ray
Rusty Sites
I found this 11 year old post from somebody named Glenn Morton.
-----
I know
>that Yockey has written a long and expensive book, presumably on the
>probability of the information content of a protein being generated by
>known physical laws and chance. I have heard that he concludes that the
>probability is very low and the chance theory inadequate. Can someone
>give an accurate summary of his work and claims and how it affects the
>probability argument against the non-supernatural origin of life?
The usual argument against probability rests upon the assumption that
one and only 1 sequence will perform a given function. Thus for
cytochrome c with 100 amino acids or so, there are around 10^137
different sequences possible. Thus the usual anti-evoutionist claim is
that the odds against formation of a useful cytochrome is 10^-137.
Yockey calculates that there are 10^93 different functional permutations
which will perform the function of c. This is based upon a substitution
of hydrophilic for hydrophilic amino acid and hydrophobic for
hydrophobic. Thus he calculates the odds against the formation of a
useful cytochrome as 10^93/10^137 or 10^-44, which is a considerable
reduction in probability albeit it is still unlikely.
Yockey's assumption is that the only functional sequences are those in
which each cytochrome location is filled by its representative type of
amino acid. This is
location 1 - location 2- location 3---location 4-
hydrophobic- hydrophobic- hydrophilic-whatever
The question I asked Yockey personally was, if you define this pattern
of protein as one family of solutions to the cytochrome c functionality
whether another FAMILY, another pattern of hydrophobics hydrophilics etc
will perform the function. If there are 10^30 different families, then
you would further reduce the probability against finding a useful
functional molecule by chance to 10^-14. This is in the range of what is
found experimentally by making random biopolymers. (see Directed
Evolution, by Gerald Joyce, Scientific American Dec. 1993? (or 1992)
Yockey didn't answer.
-----
And neither do you. Yours and Yockey's arguments are really about the
odds of things turning out just the way they did rather than just
working somehow. The chances of dealing out a deck of cards in a
particular order is about 10^-66. You can say even before you deal them
that an event with a microscopically small probability will occur. Yet
the probability of dealing them out in some order is 1 (or very nearly
so if you insist on being pedantic). You are really arguing that the
chances of life turning out very close to the way it did is very small
and I think most knowledgeable people at least strongly suspect that is
the case. Your only candidates for cytochrome c functionality are
proteins which are very similar to cytochrome c. You just assume that
there aren't lots of other very different proteins that have the same
function. (I am sure there are examples of different proteins with the
same activity out there but I don't know of them.) You also fail to
consider the possibility that life could have evolved without cytochrome
c functionality at all.
wf3h
what's difficult to understand is why an MD is a creationist. it's
like a chemist trying to change lead into gold.
wf3h
> On Mar 30, 9:20 am, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 30, 11:12 am, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > "You cherry pick information and are arrogant, pathetic and dishonest".
>
> > > > No, it's a perfectly acurate description ofSeanPitman'sbehaviour.
> > > > Why not read his posting history?
>
> > > > Why do *you* think that he hasn't even tried to publish his "theory"?
>
> > >http://www.conservapedia.com/Smithsonian-Sternberg_affair
>
> > as a follow up...have you ever heard of mike behe,sean? ever talked
> > with the man?
>
> > i have. i graduated from lehigh's chemistry dept and have had a chance
> > to talk with behe about his creationist views.
>
> Ah, but did you actually ask Behe about his success at getting his
> ideas published in mainstream journals? Why do you think he had to
> publish a book instead of publishing his ideas in mainstream science
> journals? Hmmmm?
>
your statement was that creationists suffer when they publish their
ideas. it's perfectly evident, given behe's success, that such a
statement is wrong.
NOW you want to move the goalposts by saying that creationists are NOT
persecuted but can't get their ideas published in scientific journals.
and THAT is both different than your original claim AND correct. it's
correct because neither ID nor creationism (a redundancy) is science.
and if you want to move the goalposts, put on a striped jersey, blow
the whistle and throw a flag.
wf3h
> "On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 10:34:33 -0700 (PDT), in article
> stated..."
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Mar 30, 9:20=A0am, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
> >> On Mar 30, 11:12=A0am, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > > "You cherry pick information and are arrogant, pathetic and dishone=
> >st".
>
> >> > > No, it's a perfectly acurate description ofSeanPitman'sbehaviour.
> >> > > Why not read his posting history?
>
> >> > > Why do *you* think that he hasn't even tried to publish his "theory"?
>
> >> >http://www.conservapedia.com/Smithsonian-Sternberg_affair
>
> >> as a follow up...have you ever heard of mike behe,sean? ever talked
> >> with the man?
>
> >> i have. i graduated from lehigh's chemistry dept and have had a chance
> >> to talk with behe about his creationist views.
>
> >Ah, but did you actually ask Behe about his success at getting his
> >ideas published in mainstream journals? Why do you think he had to
> >publish a book instead of publishing his ideas in mainstream science
> >journals? Hmmmm?
>
> [...snip...]
>
> Boy, that's a tough question.
>
> Why would Behe have trouble getting his ideas published in real
> scientific journals?
>
> I can't imagine why.
>
> But, seriously now folks, does anybody know whether Behe has even
> *tried*?
>
so wouldn't publish his articles. when i asked him how he could
possibly know this was true, he thought about it a moment and
retracted his statement. so it seems even he recognizes there's a
reason he's not getting published and it has little to do with bias.
Rusty Sites
> On Mar 30, 9:22 am, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>> On Mar 30, 12:14 pm, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mar 30, 9:08 am, Rusty Sites <SpameYou...@spamex.com> wrote:
>>>> Seanpit wrote:
>>>>> On Mar 28, 5:38 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> The problem with arguments such as Felsenstein is that they only
>>>>>>> consider fitness landscapes at very low levels of functional
>>>>>>> complexity.
>>>> Define functional complexity.
>>> http://www.detectingdesign.com/flagellum.html#Complexity
>> from lewis carroll's 'alice in wonderland': " a word means exactly
>> what i want it to mean; nothing more and nothing less'
>
> It's simple.
Then why didn't you just answer me instead of giving me a web page?
A level of functional complexity is defined by the
> minimum size and specificity requirements for a system to achieve a
> particular type of function.
Since neither you nor Yockey nor anybody else knows what the "minimum
size and specificity requirements" are or can even suggest how to
determine them, any talk about "levels of functional complexity" is pure
sophistry.
>
> What about that is this definition is too difficult for you to
> understand? ; )
The definition might be simple but you have no way to apply it. What
about that is too difficult for you to understand?
hersheyh
>
>
>
> > On Mar 30, 11:12 am, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > "You cherry pick information and are arrogant, pathetic and dishonest".
>
> > > > No, it's a perfectly acurate description ofSeanPitman'sbehaviour.
> > > > Why not read his posting history?
>
> > > > Why do *you* think that he hasn't even tried to publish his "theory"?
>
> > >http://www.conservapedia.com/Smithsonian-Sternberg_affair
>
> > as a follow up...have you ever heard of mike behe,sean? ever talked
> > with the man?
>
> > i have. i graduated from lehigh's chemistry dept and have had a chance
> > to talk with behe about his creationist views.
>
> Ah, but did you actually ask Behe about his success at getting his
> ideas published in mainstream journals?
There is *nothing* in Darwin's Black Box that represents original
research or even a scholarly review of the literature. What, exactly,
in DBB do you think would warrant being published in, say, the J. of
Biochem. (where Behe *has* published original research without any
apparent problem).
> Why do you think he had to
> publish a book instead of publishing his ideas in mainstream science
> journals? Hmmmm?
Because he decided to write a *popular* book rather than a *scholarly*
article with things like real evidence or real analysis. He did so
because he had nothing worthwhile to say other than "I, personally,
don't think evolution can produce this. That is my religious
viewpoint and don't try to say I'm wrong."
The reason you fail to publish is exactly the same: You have nothing
worthwhile to publish.
hersheyh
What I don't understand is what that word salad has to do with
*functional complexity*. You assert a single teleologically named
*function* (usually due to a series of subfunctional moieties, often
with independent utility) and then count up the aa's in the proteins
that do it. Gives you a size number, but has nothing to do with the
*complexity* of *function*. Nor does it prevent stepwise acquisition
of the named function in a non-teleologic process.
heekster
wrote:
That would be an alchemist.
Dana Tweedy
>>
>> Why would Behe have trouble getting his ideas published in real
>> scientific journals?
>>
>
> Why would any IDist want to publish in a pro-Atheism masturbation rag?
Ray, scientific journals are where scientists publish scientific papers, and
his how scientific knowledge is spread. The defining factor in a
scientist's career is not the degrees he or she has earned ,but what
articles he or she has published.
Science is not "pro atheism" and depsite your fantasies, scientists don't
spend their time like you do in your bathroom. IDists and other
creationists are so eager to publish in scientific journals, that they have
made up their own 'tame' journals, so that they can pretend to be
publishing.
The fact remains, creationists don't publish in legitimate scientific
journals because they know their work is not science.
DJT
richardal...@googlemail.com
> > > "You cherry pick information and are arrogant, pathetic and dishonest".
>
> > No, it's a perfectly acurate description of Sean Pitman'sbehaviour.
> > Why not read his posting history?
>
> > Why do *you* think that he hasn't even tried to publish his "theory"?
>
> http://www.conservapedia.com/Smithsonian-Sternberg_affair
That isn't your "theory", Sean, and it was published in a scientific
journal only by dishonestly evading normal editorial policies. This is
not because there is a cabal of "evolutionists" who control the
editorial policies of all academic journals, but because creationism
does not stand up to any sort of academic or scientific scrutiny.
*You* claim to have a theory which would overturn centuries of
research in evolutionary theory, yet you don't even try to get it
published. That's because you know perfectly well that it's a load of
bullshit. You can fool the ignorant and ill-educated creationists who
you want to impress, but you don't fool anyone with even a basic level
of knowledge of science.
RF
>
> > RF
>
> Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
Greg G.
> On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 13:11:51 -0700 (PDT), wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Mar 30, 1:37 pm, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Mar 30, 9:22 am, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
> >> > On Mar 30, 12:14 pm, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > On Mar 30, 9:08 am, Rusty Sites <SpameYou...@spamex.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > > Seanpit wrote:
> >> > > > > On Mar 28, 5:38 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> >> > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > >>> The problem with arguments such as Felsenstein is that they only
> >> > > > >>> consider fitness landscapes at very low levels of functional
> >> > > > >>> complexity.
>
> >> > > > Define functional complexity.
>
> >> > >http://www.detectingdesign.com/flagellum.html#Complexity
>
> >> > from lewis carroll's 'alice in wonderland': " a word means exactly
> >> > what i want it to mean; nothing more and nothing less'
>
> >> It's simple. A level of functional complexity is defined by the
> >> minimum size and specificity requirements for a system to achieve a
> >> particular type of function.
>
> >> What about that is this definition is too difficult for you to
> >> understand? ; )
>
> >what's difficult to understand is why an MD is a creationist. it's
> >like a chemist trying to change lead into gold.
>
> That would be an alchemist.
Does a coholic get more respect than an alcoholic?
John S. Wilkins
Nearly as much as a gebraist.
--
John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, University of Sydney
scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
Rolf
What particular bias would you say Mr. Anyone With A. Computer has?
Or maybe rather What particular basis was Wikipedia created for?
The basis of Conservapedia is OTOH obvious.
> Ray
Rolf
Watch your language, or are you just another dumbass and not a Christian?
Anyway, your deliberate pick of words betray your ugly bias.
Anyway, What wouldn't any IDist give to be able to say: Look, ID is science!
In a real science journal! Isn't that what it is?
> Ray
Seanpit
Ah, but it can be and has been applied. That's why I gave you the
website reference. The details of application are listed there.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
All specific types of functions have minimum size and specificity
requirements - all of them. These requirements are different for
different types of functional systems. Those with greater minimum
requirements are at higher levels of functional complexity. There
really isn't anything difficult about this definition of "functional
complexity".
Your problem is that because higher level systems are often comprised
of subsystems that can have or do have independent functionality you
think it is easy to simply stick these subsystems together to form the
larger system using the mechanism of RM/NS. That's your problem.
This little trick might seem easy to you in your dreamworld where you
can imagine the nessessary starting points and steps that could take
place. But, in real life, this is not so easy because of a little
problem known as probability. Your possibilities are not remotely
probable in the real world beyond the 1000 fsaar threshold level of
functional complexity. It has never been observed to happen and
statsitically it is extremely unlikely to happen.
Of course, you argue that such concepts "are not computable". While
your fairytales are not computable, my predictions are quite
computable. Your position is non-scientific by your own admission,
while mine is open to statistical analysis and potential falsification
- - making it scientific. You've got just-so stories, I"ve got actual
predictive value.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
wf3h
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Mar 30, 1:37 pm, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Mar 30, 9:22 am, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
> >> > On Mar 30, 12:14 pm, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > On Mar 30, 9:08 am, Rusty Sites <SpameYou...@spamex.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > > Seanpit wrote:
> >> > > > > On Mar 28, 5:38 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> >> > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > >>> The problem with arguments such as Felsenstein is that they only
> >> > > > >>> consider fitness landscapes at very low levels of functional
> >> > > > >>> complexity.
>
> >> > > > Define functional complexity.
>
> >> > >http://www.detectingdesign.com/flagellum.html#Complexity
>
> >> > from lewis carroll's 'alice in wonderland': " a word means exactly
> >> > what i want it to mean; nothing more and nothing less'
>
> >> It's simple. A level of functional complexity is defined by the
> >> minimum size and specificity requirements for a system to achieve a
> >> particular type of function.
>
> >> What about that is this definition is too difficult for you to
> >> understand? ; )
>
> >what's difficult to understand is why an MD is a creationist. it's
> >like a chemist trying to change lead into gold.
>
whoops...quite right
Seanpit
> On Mar 30, 1:34 pm, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 30, 9:20 am, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 30, 11:12 am, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > "You cherry pick information and are arrogant, pathetic and dishonest".
>
> > > > > No, it's a perfectly acurate description ofSeanPitman'sbehaviour.
> > > > > Why not read his posting history?
>
> > > > > Why do *you* think that he hasn't even tried to publish his "theory"?
>
> > > >http://www.conservapedia.com/Smithsonian-Sternberg_affair
>
> > > as a follow up...have you ever heard of mike behe,sean? ever talked
> > > with the man?
>
> > > i have. i graduated from lehigh's chemistry dept and have had a chance
> > > to talk with behe about his creationist views.
>
> > Ah, but did you actually ask Behe about his success at getting his
> > ideas published in mainstream journals? Why do you think he had to
> > publish a book instead of publishing his ideas in mainstream science
> > journals? Hmmmm?
>
> actually i did. but your question is a non sequitur.
> your statement was that creationists suffer when they publish their
> ideas. it's perfectly evident, given behe's success, that such a
> statement is wrong.
No. I didn't say that creationists suffer when they publish. I said
that creationists aren't allowed to publish their ideas in mainstream
science journals. There is an active suppression of anything
fundamentally counter to the Darwinian doctrine within mainstream
circles.
> NOW you want to move the goalposts by saying that creationists are NOT
> persecuted but can't get their ideas published in scientific journals.
That's what I've been saying all along. It isn't that big a deal if
someone doesn't like you or your ideas - as long as they are willing
to publish them.
> and THAT is both different than your original claim AND correct. it's
> correct because neither ID nor creationism (a redundancy) is science.
That is certainly your opinion and the opinion of most mainstream
scientists. However, it isn't actually true. It is just a subjective
opinion that just so happens to be the majority view at the present
time.
> and if you want to move the goalposts, put on a striped jersey, blow
> the whistle and throw a flag.
I'm just saying that it is pointless to try to counter, in a
fundamental manner, the Darwinian dogma within mainstream science
journals because such papers, no matter how well evidenced and well
argued will not get published without a huge backlash against the
publisher - to the extent that the publisher will be austrasized by
his/her peers and probably be asked to leave his/her position as cheif
editor.
This isn't a dispassionate topic here. Darwinian thinking is defended
with great passion and vigor by the scientific community at large. It
is like a group of hardened sectarian church-going fundamentalists who
get all froathy around the mouth when their holy untouchable doctrines
of Darwinism are remotely challenged or even seriously questioned in
mainstream literature. This really isn't a scientific mentality if
you ask me. It is religious-style dogma - not science.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
>
> > > i have. i graduated from lehigh's chemistry dept and have had a chance
> > > to talk with behe about his creationist views.
>
> > Ah, but did you actually ask Behe about his success at getting his
> > ideas published in mainstream journals?
>
> There is *nothing* in Darwin's Black Box that represents original
> research or even a scholarly review of the literature. What, exactly,
> in DBB do you think would warrant being published in, say, the J. of
> Biochem. (where Behe *has* published original research without any
> apparent problem).
>
> > Why do you think he had to
> > publish a book instead of publishing his ideas in mainstream science
> > journals? Hmmmm?
>
> Because he decided to write a *popular* book rather than a *scholarly*
> article with things like real evidence or real analysis. He did so
> because he had nothing worthwhile to say other than "I, personally,
> don't think evolution can produce this. That is my religious
> viewpoint and don't try to say I'm wrong."
>
> The reason you fail to publish is exactly the same: You have nothing
> worthwhile to publish.
Several of Behe's articles dealing with the problems of evolutionary
theory have been quite scholarly and his books have also made very
nice scholarly points that deserve to at least be published and
considered within mainstream scientitific journals. If his ideas are
so obviously off base, why not let them be published so that they can
be openly discussed and reviewed by other scientists within the medium
of peer reviewed journals?
Also, this isn't some religious issue for Behe - despite your
suggestion to the contrary. Behe was trained as an evolutionist and
had no problems with evolutionary ideas or philosophical naturalism.
He became convinced of the problems with Darwinian-style evolution
outside of any religious motivation.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
Have you seen the movie Expelled yet? It just so happens that this
particular story is factually true. Check it out for yourself - using
whatever reference you want.
> Ray
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
<richardalanforr...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 30, 4:12 pm, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > "You cherry pick information and are arrogant, pathetic and dishonest".
>
> > > No, it's a perfectly acurate description of Sean Pitman'sbehaviour.
> > > Why not read his posting history?
>
> > > Why do *you* think that he hasn't even tried to publish his "theory"?
>
> >http://www.conservapedia.com/Smithsonian-Sternberg_affair
>
> That isn't your "theory", Sean, and it was published in a scientific
> journal only by dishonestly evading normal editorial policies. This is
> not because there is a cabal of "evolutionists" who control the
> editorial policies of all academic journals, but because creationism
> does not stand up to any sort of academic or scientific scrutiny.
Again, this is a subjective opinion. All kinds of hypotheses get
published and then torn apart within the medium of scientific
journals. Why not at least publish stuff that at least attempts to
question or challenge the fundamentals of Darwinian thinking? The
reason why thoughtful papers along these lines are not published is
because there most certainly is a very strong bias against these ideas
that goes beyond scientific investigation. These biases are more
doctrinal in nature - backed by a religious-style passion and
motivation.
> *You* claim to have a theory which would overturn centuries of
> research in evolutionary theory, yet you don't even try to get it
> published. That's because you know perfectly well that it's a load of
> bullshit. You can fool the ignorant and ill-educated creationists who
> you want to impress, but you don't fool anyone with even a basic level
> of knowledge of science.
There wouldn't be a snowflake's chance in Hell that anything I
submitted in fundamental disagreement with Darwinian or naturalistic
thinking, no matter how well thought out and backed by the best
available data, would get publihed.
> RF
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
wf3h
> On Mar 30, 1:14 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
>
> >
> > actually i did. but your question is a non sequitur.
> > your statement was that creationists suffer when they publish their
> > ideas. it's perfectly evident, given behe's success, that such a
> > statement is wrong.
>
> No. I didn't say that creationists suffer when they publish. I said
> that creationists aren't allowed to publish their ideas in mainstream
> science journals. There is an active suppression of anything
> fundamentally counter to the Darwinian doctrine within mainstream
> circles.
that is NOT what you said. you cited the faux example of the idiot at
the smithsonian who was supposedly persecuted for his beliefs. futher,
you cited a reference from 'conservapedia' that detailed a report from
the office of special counsel saying, in fact, he HAD been persecuted.
this was a whitewash job and you know it. it's shoddy thinking, but
it's very typical of the creationist crowd which thinks of itself as a
standard bearer when it's actually a group of lunatics with pitchforks
and torches.
>
> > NOW you want to move the goalposts by saying that creationists are NOT
> > persecuted but can't get their ideas published in scientific journals.
>
> That's what I've been saying all along. It isn't that big a deal if
> someone doesn't like you or your ideas - as long as they are willing
> to publish them.
why should science journals publish superstition? what's next? the 'j.
of chemical physics' publishing ouija board research?
>
> > and THAT is both different than your original claim AND correct. it's
> > correct because neither ID nor creationism (a redundancy) is science.
>
> That is certainly your opinion and the opinion of most mainstream
> scientists. However, it isn't actually true. It is just a subjective
> opinion that just so happens to be the majority view at the present
> time.
and it's been the opinion for 150 years. it's stronger in the science
community than it's ever been. facts have a way of capturing the
science community, it seems.
>
> > and if you want to move the goalposts, put on a striped jersey, blow
> > the whistle and throw a flag.
>
> I'm just saying that it is pointless to try to counter, in a
> fundamental manner, the Darwinian dogma within mainstream science
blah blah blah.
proof that its' dogma? the 7th day adventist church says it. you'll
forgive me if i dont follow the delusions of a religion that's little
different than those practiced in the caves of the swat area of
pakistan.
> journals because such papers, no matter how well evidenced and well
> argued will not get published without a huge backlash against the
> publisher - to the extent that the publisher will be austrasized by
> his/her peers and probably be asked to leave his/her position as cheif
> editor.
more paranoia. then why hasnt this happened with book publishers? if
scientists have this much power we'd be able to do destroy a book
publisher
the reason journal editors dont publish easter bunny science is
because it's easter bunny science. i've read your stuff and talked to
behe. neither of you has a CLUE about how science actually is done.
both of you have a 16th century view of science as religion.
>
> This isn't a dispassionate topic here. Darwinian thinking is defended
> with great passion and vigor by the scientific community at large.
yeah, science under attack from religious fanatics tends to do that.
It
> is like a group of hardened sectarian church-going fundamentalists who
> get all froathy around the mouth when their holy untouchable doctrines
> of Darwinism are remotely challenged or even seriously questioned in
> mainstream literature. This really isn't a scientific mentality if
> you ask me. It is religious-style dogma - not science.
says the 7th day adventist whose church is fundamentalist creationist.
gee, sean...do you see a conflict of interest there? i certainly do
no scientist agrees with you. elaine ecklund at rice university
interviewed 1700 scientists. not ONE thought ID was science. there are
evolutionary biologists on tokyo university, the sorbonne, cambridge,
etc. why do you think they ALL want to persecute a small band of
dedicated american fundamentalists who know the truth about
creationism?
or could it be your idea is 16th century religious dogma? when we're
looking for dogma, the fact is creationism has always been wrong,
never been right and is still thought of as science ONLY by
creationists.
wf3h
> On Mar 30, 1:26 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > The reason you fail to publish is exactly the same: You have nothing
> > worthwhile to publish.
>
> Several of Behe's articles dealing with the problems of evolutionary
> theory have been quite scholarly and his books have also made very
> nice scholarly points that deserve to at least be published and
> considered within mainstream scientitific journals.
care to cite any? as i've said, i've met behe and had a chance to talk
with him. he DOES get published in scholarly journals. we know that
because he was promoted to full professor AFTER his creationist tome
came out. and lehigh does not give tenure for publishing creationist
literature.
If his ideas are
> so obviously off base, why not let them be published so that they can
> be openly discussed and reviewed by other scientists within the medium
> of peer reviewed journals?
why? what's next? bring back heliocentrism? the flat earth? alchemy?
creationism is dead. it's a rotting stinking corpse that ony believers
in creationist theology...you...accept. no scientist accepts it.
that's why your ideas are not used. they're a failure. for 2000 years
your ideas have failed.
you seem to think creationism is NEW. it's not. it's the most commonly
used failed idea in history.
>
> Also, this isn't some religious issue for Behe - despite your
> suggestion to the contrary. Behe was trained as an evolutionist and
> had no problems with evolutionary ideas or philosophical naturalism.
> He became convinced of the problems with Darwinian-style evolution
> outside of any religious motivation.
>
weeping jesus on the cross...sean...do you READ behe? have you TALKED
with the man? it sure as shit IS a religious issue with him. that's
ALL it is...and the same for you
you guys keeping pretending that if you hide your agenda that the rest
of us will just give it a pass since the 'science' is good.
the fact is, your science is non existent. your religious beliefs are
obvious. THAT'S why you cant get published.
Ernest Major
<b1aa7ff2-7164-4f79...@d7g2000prl.googlegroups.com>,
Seanpit <sea...@gmail.com> writes
>Several of Behe's articles dealing with the problems of evolutionary
>theory have been quite scholarly and his books have also made very nice
>scholarly points that deserve to at least be published and considered
>within mainstream scientitific journals.
His supporters here have failed to present those nice scholarly points.
Perhaps you would be so kind.
> If his ideas are so obviously off base, why not let them be published
>so that they can be openly discussed and reviewed by other scientists
>within the medium of peer reviewed journals?
You don't expect to see 2+2=5 published in a mathematics journal, do
you?
--
alias Ernest Major
Bruce Stephens
[...]
> It just so happens that this particular story is factually
> true.
Or not. At the least, I think critics have a plausible account.
> Check it out for yourself - using whatever reference you want.
OK.
Scientific American:
<http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=six-things-ben-stein-doesnt-want-you-to-know&page=2>
Expelled Exposed: <http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth/sternberg>
Dispatches from the Culture Wars:
<http://www.scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2006/12/creating_a_martyr_the_sternber.php>
Wikipedia: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sternberg_peer_review_controversy>
His sponsor at the Smithsonian:
<http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/02/sternberg-vs-sm.html#comment-13302>.
Seanpit
This nonsense is just a bunch of cirular reasoning. It's like the
observation of David Klinghoffer published in a 2005 issue of the Wall
Street Journal:
"Note the circularity: Critics of ID have long argued that the
theory was unscientific because it had not been put forward in a peer-
reviewed scientific journal. Now that it has, they argue that it
shouldn't have been because it's unscientific."
Amazing "logic" - huh? ; )
> DJT
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
+use...@cenderis.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> [...]
>
> > It just so happens that this particular story is factually
> > true.
>
> Or not. At the least, I think critics have a plausible account.
>
> > Check it out for yourself - using whatever reference you want.
>
> OK.
>
> Scientific American:
>
> Expelled Exposed: <http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth/sternberg>
>
> Dispatches from the Culture Wars:
>
> Wikipedia: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sternberg_peer_review_controversy>
>
> His sponsor at the Smithsonian:
Yes yes - - the usual objections that Sternberg wasn't really
"terrorized". This is really beside the point. The main point here
is that the mainstream scientific community was all up in arms and
acting quite frantic actually just because a paper was published
opposing Darwinian thinking. No such uproar would have happened if
some paper happened to get published on something like feathered
dinosuars which were shown to actually be based on false data. Such a
paper would simply be rebutted in a rather quite and calm manner
without any big hubbub. Not so when someone tries to publish
something countering Darwinian thinking. Mainstream scientists get
all rabbid when that happens . . .
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Rusty Sites
I sure don't see it there. Why don't you just give us the minimum size
requirement for some actual protein. How about telling us the minimum
size required for cytochrome c activity. Please try to understand that
I am not asking for the minimum size of a protein that would be called
cytochrome c because of its sequence, but for the minimum size for a
protein that performs the function of cytochrome c. Nothing says it has
to look anything like cytochrome c as we know it. You should be able to
produce a number for us.
Seanpit
About 80aa. Lactase is over 300aa. Nylonase is over 200aa.
Flagellar motility over 10,000aa.
That's the best available data. As all scientific hypotheses are,
these conclusions are open to potential falsification. Nothing in
science is absolutely certain. That is why science is all about
predictive value that is based on limited information which is
currently available. That's the nature of science. It isn't about
absolute proof, but about predictive value based on limited
information.
Good luck falsifying these hypotheses though . . . They already have
a great deal of predictive power.
> Please try to understand that
> I am not asking for the minimum size of a protein that would be called
> cytochrome c because of its sequence, but for the minimum size for a
> protein that performs the function of cytochrome c.
That's right . . . That minimum size appears to be over 80aa.
> Nothing says it has
> to look anything like cytochrome c as we know it.
Correct . . .
> You should be able to
> produce a number for us.
I have - and not just for CytoC. All protein-based systems have
minimum threshold requirements that can be determined to at least some
useful level of certainty . . .
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Dana Tweedy
>>
>> Science is not "pro atheism" and depsite your fantasies, scientists
>> don't spend their time like you do in your bathroom. IDists and other
>> creationists are so eager to publish in scientific journals, that
>> they have made up their own 'tame' journals, so that they can
>> pretend to be publishing.
>>
>> The fact remains, creationists don't publish in legitimate scientific
>> journals because they know their work is not science.
>
> This nonsense is just a bunch of cirular reasoning.
What's circular about it? Creationists don't publish in legitamate
scientific journals. They don't even submit their "work" to such journals.
The one "paper" that got in, was published through a ruse.
It's like the
> observation of David Klinghoffer published in a 2005 issue of the Wall
> Street Journal:
>
> "Note the circularity: Critics of ID have long argued that the
> theory was unscientific because it had not been put forward in a peer-
> reviewed scientific journal. Now that it has, they argue that it
> shouldn't have been because it's unscientific."
It's notable that the only published ID paper had to be snuck in, without
any normal review, and contained no scientific content.
>
> Amazing "logic" - huh? ; )
So, where are all the scientific papers from IDists?
The fact still remains that creationists don't bother to submit papers for
publicaiton.
DJT
Seanpit
> >> Seanpit wrote:
> >>> On Mar 28, 5:38 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>> The problem with arguments such as Felsenstein is that they only
> >>>>> consider fitness landscapes at very low levels of functional
> >>>>> complexity.
> >> Define functional complexity.
>
> >http://www.detectingdesign.com/flagellum.html#Complexity
>
>
> -----
> I know
> >that Yockey has written a long and expensive book, presumably on the
> >probability of the information content of a protein being generated by
> >known physical laws and chance. I have heard that he concludes that the
> >probability is very low and the chance theory inadequate. Can someone
> >give an accurate summary of his work and claims and how it affects the
> >probability argument against the non-supernatural origin of life?
>
> The usual argument against probability rests upon the assumption that
> one and only 1 sequence will perform a given function. Thus for
> cytochrome c with 100 amino acids or so, there are around 10^137
> different sequences possible. Thus the usual anti-evoutionist claim is
> that the odds against formation of a useful cytochrome is 10^-137.
> Yockey calculates that there are 10^93 different functional permutations
> which will perform the function of c. This is based upon a substitution
> of hydrophilic for hydrophilic amino acid and hydrophobic for
> hydrophobic. Thus he calculates the odds against the formation of a
> useful cytochrome as 10^93/10^137 or 10^-44, which is a considerable
> reduction in probability albeit it is still unlikely.
>
> Yockey's assumption is that the only functional sequences are those in
> which each cytochrome location is filled by its representative type of
> amino acid. This is
>
> location 1 - location 2- location 3---location 4-
> hydrophobic- hydrophobic- hydrophilic-whatever
>
> The question I asked Yockey personally was, if you define this pattern
> of protein as one family of solutions to the cytochrome c functionality
> whether another FAMILY, another pattern of hydrophobics hydrophilics etc
> will perform the function. If there are 10^30 different families, then
> you would further reduce the probability against finding a useful
> functional molecule by chance to 10^-14. This is in the range of what is
> found experimentally by making random biopolymers. (see Directed
> Evolution, by Gerald Joyce, Scientific American Dec. 1993? (or 1992)
>
> Yockey didn't answer.
> -----
>
> And neither do you.
Yes, I did. Did you actually read my essay on this? I answered this
question quite directly.
> Yours and Yockey's arguments are really about the
> odds of things turning out just the way they did rather than just
> working somehow. The chances of dealing out a deck of cards in a
> particular order is about 10^-66. You can say even before you deal them
> that an event with a microscopically small probability will occur. Yet
> the probability of dealing them out in some order is 1 (or very nearly
> so if you insist on being pedantic). You are really arguing that the
> chances of life turning out very close to the way it did is very small
> and I think most knowledgeable people at least strongly suspect that is
> the case. Your only candidates for cytochrome c functionality are
> proteins which are very similar to cytochrome c. You just assume that
> there aren't lots of other very different proteins that have the same
> function. (I am sure there are examples of different proteins with the
> same activity out there but I don't know of them.) You also fail to
> consider the possibility that life could have evolved without cytochrome
> c functionality at all.
I consider all of these possibilities. And, as a matter of fact, they
all have roughly knowable probabilities. Why not at least try and
read through the essay I've written for once? Try to counter
something I've actually said instead of constantly assuming, wrongly,
what you think I said?
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Dana Tweedy
> There wouldn't be a snowflake's chance in Hell that anything I
> submitted in fundamental disagreement with Darwinian or naturalistic
> thinking,
Here's the key... All science must use methodological naturalism. If
you are proposing non "naturalistic thinking", you aren't doing science.
> no matter how well thought out and backed by the best
> available data, would get publihed.
If you propose a "non naturalistic" cause for a natural event, of course
it's not going to pass scientific muster.. Therefore you want to change
the rules.
DJT
Seanpit
> In message
> <b1aa7ff2-7164-4f79-8625-a89bce4a8...@d7g2000prl.googlegroups.com>,
> Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> writes
>
> >Several of Behe's articles dealing with the problems of evolutionary
> >theory have been quite scholarly and his books have also made very nice
> >scholarly points that deserve to at least be published and considered
> >within mainstream scientitific journals.
>
> His supporters here have failed to present those nice scholarly points.
> Perhaps you would be so kind.
>
> > If his ideas are so obviously off base, why not let them be published
> >so that they can be openly discussed and reviewed by other scientists
> >within the medium of peer reviewed journals?
>
> You don't expect to see 2+2=5 published in a mathematics journal, do
> you?
I'd expect at least some effort to try and present opposing ideas to a
prevailing "theory" - that's for sure. So far, such efforts to even
question Darwinian dogma in mainstream literature are essentially non-
existent. No one wants to even consider any opposing ideas for a
prominent theory out there? - not even from very well educated
biologists, biochemists, or others who have their PhDs or some
equivalent in the relevant fields of science? And that's "science"?
Come on . . . If at least a few highly educated men and women of
science just don't "get it" when it comes to Darwinian thinking,
should their ideas at least be considered by the status quo? - No?
Really?
> alias Ernest Major
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
wf3h
a line of propaganda bullshit a mile away
ben stein is a hack and the movie he produced is so filled with lies
it get <10% from movie critics who aren't known for their scientific
wisdom
every single lie and distortion in that movie has been called out and
exposed. it's easy to do
is THIS the argument you REALLY want to make? that the 7th day
adventist church is in the forefront of advanced technology and is
being held back by religious fundamentalist institutions like MIT,
harvard, yale, UC berkeley, the sorbonne, u. of tokyo....
is that where you're headed?
i already told you what this particular reference is bogus. but you
insist that it's true...which certainly calls into question your whole
argument about creationism.
wf3h
> On Mar 31, 11:00 am, Bruce Stephens <bruce
>
>
>
>
>
> +use...@cenderis.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > [...]
>
> > > It just so happens that this particular story is factually
> > > true.
>
> > Or not. At the least, I think critics have a plausible account.
>
> > > Check it out for yourself - using whatever reference you want.
>
> > OK.
>
> > Scientific American:
> > <http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=six-things-ben-stein-doesnt-want-...>
>
> > Expelled Exposed: <http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth/sternberg>
>
> > Dispatches from the Culture Wars:
> > <http://www.scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2006/12/creating_a_martyr_the_...>
>
> > Wikipedia: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sternberg_peer_review_controversy>
>
> > His sponsor at the Smithsonian:
> > <http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/02/sternberg-vs-sm.html#comment-...>.
>
> Yes yes - - the usual objections that Sternberg wasn't really
> "terrorized". This is really beside the point. The main point here
> is that the mainstream scientific community was all up in arms and
> acting quite frantic actually just because a paper was published
> opposing Darwinian thinking.
wrong. it was up in arms because the paper proposed a non-scientific,
13th century view of science from a guy who is a young earth
creationist.
No such uproar would have happened if
> some paper happened to get published on something like feathered
> dinosuars which were shown to actually be based on false data.
hey sean...why not look up jan hendrik schon. HE published a paper
based on falsified info. see what happened to him. i used to work at
bell labs. guess what they did to him.
a paper that is based on WRONG data is a bad paper. a paper that is
based on superstition is not science
there's a difference
Such a
> paper would simply be rebutted in a rather quite and calm manner
> without any big hubbub. Not so when someone tries to publish
> something countering Darwinian thinking. Mainstream scientists get
> all rabbid when that happens . . .
>
yeah. ever since we figured out how evolution works. no different than
the fact the 'j. of chemical physics' doesn't publish papers on
alchemy
the mere fact that a science journal does not publish superstition is
not proof that superstition is science.
Seanpit
> Seanpit wrote:
> > On Mar 30, 3:44 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>
> snip
>
>
>
> >> Science is not "pro atheism" and depsite your fantasies, scientists
> >> don't spend their time like you do in your bathroom. IDists and other
> >> creationists are so eager to publish in scientific journals, that
> >> they have made up their own 'tame' journals, so that they can
> >> pretend to be publishing.
>
> >> The fact remains, creationists don't publish in legitimate scientific
> >> journals because they know their work is not science.
>
> > This nonsense is just a bunch of cirular reasoning.
>
> What's circular about it? Creationists don't publish in legitamate
> scientific journals. They don't even submit their "work" to such journals.
> The one "paper" that got in, was published through a ruse.
>
> It's like the
>
> > observation of David Klinghoffer published in a 2005 issue of the Wall
> > Street Journal:
>
> > "Note the circularity: Critics of ID have long argued that the
> > theory was unscientific because it had not been put forward in a peer-
> > reviewed scientific journal. Now that it has, they argue that it
> > shouldn't have been because it's unscientific."
>
> It's notable that the only published ID paper had to be snuck in, without
> any normal review, and contained no scientific content.
That's what so circular about it. Who gets to decide what is and what
is not "scientific"? Hmmmm? If someone doesn't agree with the
opinions of popular scientists, then that idea must not be
"scientific" - right? riiiiiight . . .
> > Amazing "logic" - huh? ; )
>
> So, where are all the scientific papers from IDists?
> The fact still remains that creationists don't bother to submit papers for
> publicaiton.
Oh, papers have been submitted. It is just that the bias of the
mainstream vetters will not allow them to be published. This little
story should tell you something about the odds of getting through this
wall of bias against anything questioning the status quo regarding
such a sacred holy doctrine as Darwinism has come to be viewed within
mainstream science.
> DJT
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
wf3h
> On Mar 30, 3:44 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > > On Mar 30, 10:49 am, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
> > snip
>
> > >> Why would Behe have trouble getting his ideas published in real
> > >> scientific journals?
>
> > > Why would any IDist want to publish in a pro-Atheism masturbation rag?
>
> > Ray, scientific journals are where scientists publish scientific papers, and
> > his how scientific knowledge is spread. The defining factor in a
> > scientist's career is not the degrees he or she has earned ,but what
> > articles he or she has published.
>
> > spend their time like you do in your bathroom. IDists and other
> > creationists are so eager to publish in scientific journals, that they have
> > made up their own 'tame' journals, so that they can pretend to be
> > publishing.
>
> > The fact remains, creationists don't publish in legitimate scientific
> > journals because they know their work is not science.
>
> observation of David Klinghoffer published in a 2005 issue of the Wall
> Street Journal:
if there's anyone who knows less about science than you do, sean, it's
klinghoffer. quoting him is not gonna save your ass.
>
> "Note the circularity: Critics of ID have long argued that the
> theory was unscientific because it had not been put forward in a peer-
> reviewed scientific journal. Now that it has, they argue that it
> shouldn't have been because it's unscientific."
it would be reviewed and published if it were scientific. certainly
someone in tokyo or paris or moscow would do it. you seem to think the
7th day adventist church has the secret of the universe
did you ever think that your church's association with morons like
george mccready price could have something to do with your beliefs?
your church has tried to pass off ignorance of the most basic type as
the most advanced science. it's one reason no one believes you. you're
the bernie madoff of science.
wf3h
>
> Oh, papers have been submitted. It is just that the bias of the
> mainstream vetters will not allow them to be published. This little
> story should tell you something about the odds of getting through this
> wall of bias against anything questioning the status quo regarding
> such a sacred holy doctrine as Darwinism has come to be viewed within
> mainstream science.
>
and if someone submitted a paper on alchemy to the 'j. of the american
chemical society', what would their response be?
you seem to have forgotten your own church's association with
pseudoscience. george mccready price was a prominent member of your
church, and published a young earth screed that was so full of
distortions and errors that it was a laughingstock. and it was what
your church taught and still teaches.
THAT'S why you can't get published. you're a pseudoscientist. you're a
snake oil salesman who wants everyone to forget that your church sold
crap as science for 100 years and now wants to be taken seriously.
Seanpit
> Seanpit wrote:
> > On Mar 31, 12:20 am, "richardalanforr...@googlemail.com"
>
> snip
>
> > There wouldn't be a snowflake's chance in Hell that anything I
> > submitted in fundamental disagreement with Darwinian or naturalistic
> > thinking,
>
> Here's the key... All science must use methodological naturalism. If
> you are proposing non "naturalistic thinking", you aren't doing science.
That's BS. Science is only about explaining the facts with the
hypothesis that develops the greatest degree of predictive value.
That's science - period. There is nothing in real scientific
methodology that rules out an intelligent force of any kind as being
required to produce certain types of phenomena. In fact, some science
are based on the ability to detect the activity of intelligent agents
of at least human-level intelligence - even in the form of some as yet
unknown alien species from somewhere else on some distant planet.
There is no problem for the methods of science to detect the need for
intelligent input behind certain types of phenomena. That's not
beyond the realm of real science at all. It is just that mainstream
scientists don't want to apply this need to biological systems for
some reason - - no matter what the evidence might be.
> > no matter how well thought out and backed by the best
> > available data, would get publihed.
>
> If you propose a "non naturalistic" cause for a natural event, of course
> it's not going to pass scientific muster.. Therefore you want to change
> the rules.
There is nothing inherently "non-natural" about human-level
intelligence. Come on. This isn't about trying to prove omnipotence
here. That's not even theoretically possible. The limited cannot
prove the unlimited. However, the limited can demonstrate that at
least a certain degree of intelligent input was most likely required
to produce certain types of phenomena within this world and universe.
> DJT
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Rusty Sites
The rub was that it was published in a peer reviewed journal but it was
not peer reviewed. Sternberg could have published anything he wanted to
and that's what happened.
Bruce Stephens
[...]
> Yes yes - - the usual objections that Sternberg wasn't really
> "terrorized".
Yes yes, the usual cherry-picking.
> This is really beside the point. The main point here is that the
> mainstream scientific community was all up in arms and acting quite
> frantic actually just because a paper was published opposing
> Darwinian thinking.
The critics seem to be annoyed by more than that. The paper seems to
have been out of line in quality for the journal. For example,
<http://www.palass.org/modules.php?name=palaeo&sec=newsletter&page=25>:
In my most favourable judgment, Meyer’s paper reads like a student
report. He has evidently read a lot of papers, and he has the best
intentions of providing a critical discussion of his chosen
topic. And, considering what he has read, he does an OK job. I
would let him pass, probably with a B. However, he would not get
an A or A+ because the literature that he has selected is severely
biased. Many readily available papers that depart significantly
from his conclusions are omitted without excuse, and the logic of
his arguments is not always as tight as it should be. [...]
And then there's the real question of how the thing got published in
the first place.
> No such uproar would have happened if some paper happened to get
> published on something like feathered dinosuars which were shown to
> actually be based on false data. Such a paper would simply be
> rebutted in a rather quite and calm manner without any big hubbub.
It would depend. There have been scandals recently about academic
articles unconnected to ID.
> Not so when someone tries to publish something countering Darwinian
> thinking. Mainstream scientists get all rabbid when that happens
> . . .
I'm sure you're right that such subject matter will tend to
concentrate attention on a paper (in a way that a less controversial
paper on feathered dinosuars might not). Had Andrew Wakefield
published some uncontroversial research about autism (presuming
uncontroversial research is possible in that field) without declaring
conflict of interest probably fewer people would have noticed.
That's just the natural way of things: people care about some things
more than others. It doesn't seem wrong, either: research against a
strong, long-established theory has to be very strong.
wf3h
> On Mar 31, 10:57 am, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
?
>
> > You don't expect to see 2+2=5 published in a mathematics journal, do
> > you?
>
> I'd expect at least some effort to try and present opposing ideas to a
> prevailing "theory" - that's for sure.
it happens all the time in science. but creationism is not an opposing
idea. it's pseudoscience
you keep trying to pretend it's a new idea. it's not. it's 2000 years
old. and it's wrong
you keep trying to pretend your church has no influence on your
beliefs. but it's apparent the lies taught by your church are part of
your belief system. your church teaches creationism. it's preposterous
to pretend this has no influence on you.
So far, such efforts to even
> question Darwinian dogma in mainstream literature are essentially non-
> existent.
which, of course, is another lie. the fact there there are a number of
mechanisms besides darwinian natural selection that are accepted by
the scientific community. how did THOSE get accepted if your paranoid
view of science is right?
answer: your analysis is wrong. your analysis is tainted by religion.
YOUR church teaches creationism. george mccready price was one of your
champion liars. YOU are a creationist.
do you really expect anyone to buy the used car you're selling?
No one wants to even consider any opposing ideas for a
> prominent theory out there? - not even from very well educated
> biologists, biochemists, or others who have their PhDs or some
> equivalent in the relevant fields of science?
yeah. both of 'em. seems the only guy anyone knows is behe. with all
due respect to my former college, lehigh is not the totality of the
world's repository of science. if he hasn't been able to convince
stanford and harvard and MIT and the sorbonne, perhaps it's because
his argument isn't science.
you're a religious fanatic. you're a member of a church that
encourages such beliefs. do you REALLY expect us to ignore that?
wf3h
> There wouldn't be a snowflake's chance in Hell that anything I
> submitted in fundamental disagreement with Darwinian or naturalistic
> thinking, no matter how well thought out and backed by the best
> available data, would get publihed.
>
wrong. robert gentry, a young earth creationist, DID get published in
one of the world's premier journals, 'science' when he raised
questions about polonium haloes.
what DIDNT get published was his solution for this problem: 'god did
it'...
which is also your solution...it's the most commonly used failed idea
in history.
wf3h
But, in real life, this is not so easy because of a little
> problem known as probability. Your possibilities are not remotely
> probable in the real world beyond the 1000 fsaar threshold level of
> functional complexity. It has never been observed to happen and
> statsitically it is extremely unlikely to happen.
>
says the guy who believes the easter bunny is real.
creationism is the most commonly used wrong idea in history. it has
never been observed and when posited as a cause of an event in nature,
has ALWAYS been wrong. always.
so it's not only statistically unlikely...it's impossible
yet it's what sean believes.
wf3h
> On Mar 31, 11:46 am, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
> >
> > Here's the key... All science must use methodological naturalism. If
> > you are proposing non "naturalistic thinking", you aren't doing science.
>
> That's BS. Science is only about explaining the facts with the
> hypothesis that develops the greatest degree of predictive value.
which is methodological naturalism. YOUR idea was tried, sean. for
2000 years it was the ONLY model in existence. day in and day out for
thousands of years, supernaturalism was tried
and it was always wrong. always. without exception. 100% of the time.
so methodological naturalism has replaced your easter bunny view of
nature.
if you disagree then:
1. find a SINGLE example of a supernatural cause in nature
2. show a SINGLE example of a failure of methodological naturalism
go ahead. prove your case.
> That's science - period. There is nothing in real scientific
> methodology that rules out an intelligent force of any kind as being
> required to produce certain types of phenomena.
bullshit. total bullshit. what science DOES rule out is intelligence
AS INTELLIGENCE being a force of nature. why?
because for 2000 years that bullshit was tried. and it was ALWAYS
wrong.
in addition, intelligence, without the use of methodological
naturalism....can achieve nothing at all.
In fact, some science
> are based on the ability to detect the activity of intelligent agents
> of at least human-level intelligence - even in the form of some as yet
> unknown alien species from somewhere else on some distant planet.
which does NOT mean that scientists think that intelligence is a force
of nature as YOU do. not a single scientist who is not a creationist
agrees with that. none.
>
> > > no matter how well thought out and backed by the best
> > > available data, would get publihed.
>
> > If you propose a "non naturalistic" cause for a natural event, of course
> > it's not going to pass scientific muster.. Therefore you want to change
> > the rules.
>
> There is nothing inherently "non-natural" about human-level
> intelligence. Come on.
there is something inherently non natural about intelligence itself
being a force of nature.
your church teaches that.
you believe it. it's wrong
it's the oldest wrong idea in history.
This isn't about trying to prove omnipotence
> here. That's not even theoretically possible. The limited cannot
> prove the unlimited.
go lookup 'taylor's series' and tell me again...
Dana Tweedy
Scientists, obviously.
> If someone doesn't agree with the
> opinions of popular scientists, then that idea must not be
> "scientific" - right? riiiiiight . . .
If it doesn't follow the rules of science, right.
>
>>> Amazing "logic" - huh? ; )
>>
>> So, where are all the scientific papers from IDists?
>> The fact still remains that creationists don't bother to submit
>> papers for publicaiton.
>
> Oh, papers have been submitted.
Such as? Where are those papers? Where are the rejection letters?
> It is just that the bias of the
> mainstream vetters will not allow them to be published.
They expect scientific papers to be scientific.... go figure.
> This little
> story should tell you something about the odds of getting through this
> wall of bias against anything questioning the status quo regarding
> such a sacred holy doctrine as Darwinism has come to be viewed within
> mainstream science.
It's quite difficult getting an unscientific work considered science. It
has nothing to do with "Darwinism", and everything to do with the
unscientific nature of creationism.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
> On Mar 31, 11:46 am, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>> Seanpit wrote:
>>> On Mar 31, 12:20 am, "richardalanforr...@googlemail.com"
>>
>> snip
>>
>>> There wouldn't be a snowflake's chance in Hell that anything I
>>> submitted in fundamental disagreement with Darwinian or naturalistic
>>> thinking,
>>
>> Here's the key... All science must use methodological naturalism. If
>> you are proposing non "naturalistic thinking", you aren't doing
>> science.
>
> That's BS.
No, that's the rules. If you can't play by the rules, take your ball and go
elsewhere.
> Science is only about explaining the facts with the
> hypothesis that develops the greatest degree of predictive value.
Within the framework of methodological naturalism.
> That's science - period. There is nothing in real scientific
> methodology that rules out an intelligent force of any kind as being
> required to produce certain types of phenomena.
Except that the 'intelligent force' needs to be observable, and detectable
by normal naturalistic means. Appealing to a supernatural "intelligence"
is inherently unscientific.
> In fact, some science
> are based on the ability to detect the activity of intelligent agents
> of at least human-level intelligence - even in the form of some as yet
> unknown alien species from somewhere else on some distant planet.
Again, using natural means. This 'unknown alien species' is at least
presumed to exist within normal material reality. What SETI researchers
are looking for is not merely the "activity of intelligent agents", but
specific identifiable artifacts, such as a particular type of radio signal.
> There is no problem for the methods of science to detect the need for
> intelligent input behind certain types of phenomena.
Like your buddy Ray, you are equivocating "intelligent" for "supernatural".
It's possible to identify specific artifacts that are known to be produced
by physical beings. It's not science to ascribe an unknown to a
generalized "intelligence", especially when that "intelligence" is assumed
to be supernatural.
> That's not
> beyond the realm of real science at all.
The supernatural is, however.
> It is just that mainstream
> scientists don't want to apply this need to biological systems for
> some reason - - no matter what the evidence might be.
That's because there isn't any such "need". Biological systems can be
explained by normal, naturalistic forces, and appeal to supernatural beings
is not only unnecessary, it's unscientific. Even in cases where
intelligence is recognized, as in artificial breeding by farmers,
supernatural beings aren't proposed to explain the findings.
>
>>> no matter how well thought out and backed by the best
>>> available data, would get publihed.
>>
>> If you propose a "non naturalistic" cause for a natural event, of
>> course it's not going to pass scientific muster.. Therefore you want
>> to change the rules.
>
> There is nothing inherently "non-natural" about human-level
> intelligence.
Then why are you complaining about "naturalistic" thinking? Human level
intelligence is readily reconginzied by science, and scientists who propose
human impact on nature don't have any trouble publishing. So, it's not
"human level intelligence" that trips up creationists, it's dependence on
the supernatural.
> Come on. This isn't about trying to prove omnipotence
> here.
Indeed, it's about you wanting to include the supernatural as an explanation
for natural events. That just isn't going to fly.
> That's not even theoretically possible. The limited cannot
> prove the unlimited.
Again, omnipotence isn't the issue, it's the supernatural. Supernatural
explanations are inherently unscientific. Surely you must know that.
> However, the limited can demonstrate that at
> least a certain degree of intelligent input was most likely required
> to produce certain types of phenomena within this world and universe.
If you can show that your not evidenced, not observable, and non human
"human level intelligence" exists, and is capable of doing what you require,
then you shouldn't have an trouble getting published. Your problem is,
and has always been, that you are proposing supernatural causation when you
know it's unscientific.
DJT
Seanpit
Right . . . You keep telling yourself that . . .
It is just that this mantra of yours is considered to be true by those
who share your opinion - by definition. That's not really in line
with the scientific method. It's just popular opinion.
> DJT
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
>
>
> > "Note the circularity: Critics of ID have long argued that the
> > theory was unscientific because it had not been put forward in a peer-
> > reviewed scientific journal. Now that it has, they argue that it
> > shouldn't have been because it's unscientific."
>
> > Amazing "logic" - huh? ; )
>
> The rub was that it was published in a peer reviewed journal but it was
> not peer reviewed. Sternberg could have published anything he wanted to
> and that's what happened.
Actually, it was peer reviewed. It just wasn't reviewed by the
"right" peers evidently ; )
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
wf3h
sean seems blissfully unaware that charlatans who consider their
superstitions to be science are a dime a dozen. they all make the same
cliche'd arguments sean has. they all ignore their own history
blah blah blah...
Seanpit
< snip >
> > However, the limited can demonstrate that at
> > least a certain degree of intelligent input was most likely required
> > to produce certain types of phenomena within this world and universe.
>
> If you can show that your not evidenced, not observable, and non human
> "human level intelligence" exists, and is capable of doing what you require,
> then you shouldn't have an trouble getting published. Your problem is,
> and has always been, that you are proposing supernatural causation when you
> know it's unscientific.
I've never proposed any such thing as proving or even suggesting the
supernatural as the causative agent. I've always proposed an agent of
some kind with at least human-level intelligence that is able to
naturally manipulate natural elements in this universe - essentially
the same as SETI scientists are proposing.
You think such evidence would have not problem getting published?
That's very naive of you. Anything, and I mean anything, that
fundamentally challenges the Darwinian story of origins is going to be
passionately opposed by the mainstream scientific community. Any
editor who publishes any such paper is going to be at significant risk
of loosing his/her job. That's the fact of the situation these days
in mainstream science. It is a religious dogmatic position that is
defended with great passion. There simply is no other way to describe
it.
> DJT
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
wf3h
that's true. it wasn't reviewed by scientists
richardal...@googlemail.com
> On Mar 31, 12:20 am, "richardalanforr...@googlemail.com"
>
>
>
> <richardalanforr...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 30, 4:12 pm, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > "You cherry pick information and are arrogant, pathetic and dishonest".
>
> > > > No, it's a perfectly acurate description of Sean Pitman'sbehaviour.
> > > > Why not read his posting history?
>
> > > > Why do *you* think that he hasn't even tried to publish his "theory"?
>
> > >http://www.conservapedia.com/Smithsonian-Sternberg_affair
>
> > journal only by dishonestly evading normal editorial policies. This is
> > not because there is a cabal of "evolutionists" who control the
> > editorial policies of all academic journals, but because creationism
> > does not stand up to any sort of academic or scientific scrutiny.
>
> Again, this is a subjective opinion.
No, it's a simple statement of fact.
There isn't a vast conspiracy of scientists to suppress creationist
"theories". It's simply that the creationist "explanation" that "God
did it" has no place in science.
> All kinds of hypotheses get
> published and then torn apart within the medium of scientific
> journals. Why not at least publish stuff that at least attempts to
> question or challenge the fundamentals of Darwinian thinking? The
> reason why thoughtful papers along these lines are not published is
> because there most certainly is a very strong bias against these ideas
> that goes beyond scientific investigation.
Bullshit, Sean.
You haven't even *tried* to get your "theory" published.
It's perfectly clear that you *know* that it's a load of unmitigated
bull, but so long as you can impress the ignorant and illeducated
creationists you are content.
> These biases are more
> doctrinal in nature - backed by a religious-style passion and
> motivation
More bullshit, Sean.
You haven't even *tried* to get you silly "theory" published.
Pretending that there is some quasi-religious anti-creationist bias in
*ALL* academic journals is an utterly facile excuse.
>
> > *You* claim to have a theory which would overturn centuries of
> > research in evolutionary theory, yet you don't even try to get it
> > published. That's because you know perfectly well that it's a load of
> > bullshit. You can fool the ignorant and ill-educated creationists who
> > you want to impress, but you don't fool anyone with even a basic level
> > of knowledge of science.
>
> There wouldn't be a snowflake's chance in Hell that anything I
> submitted in fundamental disagreement with Darwinian or naturalistic
> thinking,
I suggest that if you think that *ANY* proposition in *ANY* branch of
science which is not based on the assumption of naturalism should be
published it shows that you don't understand the fundamental nature of
science.
Why should science accept as an explanation a paradigm which was
rejected centuries ago in the development of modern science because it
is unfruitful?
> no matter how well thought out and backed by the best
> available data, would get publihed.
As you have no data to support your model of evolution, and no data to
support your assertions the point is moot in any case.
You have nothing and you know it. You haven't even tried to get you
stupid "theory" published because you know perfectly well that it will
not stand up to *any* critical analysis. Inventing conspiracies
against creationism is simply a transparent excuse.
It's pathetic, Sean.
RF
>
> > RF
>
> Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
richardal...@googlemail.com
> On Mar 31, 11:46 am, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>
> > Seanpit wrote:
> > > On Mar 31, 12:20 am, "richardalanforr...@googlemail.com"
>
> > snip
>
> > > There wouldn't be a snowflake's chance in Hell that anything I
> > > submitted in fundamental disagreement with Darwinian or naturalistic
> > > thinking,
>
> > Here's the key... All science must use methodological naturalism. If
> > you are proposing non "naturalistic thinking", you aren't doing science.
>
> That's BS.
If it is, please provide a citation to *ANY* paper published in *ANY*
field on *ANY* science which is *NOT* ultimately based on
methodological naturalism.
> Science is only about explaining the facts with the
> hypothesis that develops the greatest degree of predictive value.
And what "predictive value" is there in the assertion that an
unidentified "intelligent designer" using possibly supernatural means
has interfered in the natural processes of evolution?
Science advances because it formulates hypotheses which limit possible
outcomes. What possible outcome is prohibited by the assertion that an
"intelligent designer", using unspecified but possibly supernatural
processes is involved?
> That's science - period. There is nothing in real scientific
> methodology that rules out an intelligent force of any kind as being
> required to produce certain types of phenomena.
There is in the assertion that intelligent agents for whom there is no
evidence and who may have used supernatural processes is involved.
> In fact, some science
> are based on the ability to detect the activity of intelligent agents
> of at least human-level intelligence - even in the form of some as yet
> unknown alien species from somewhere else on some distant planet.
..by setting search parameters which are based on the assumption that
any alien intelligence will be using technology based on the same
principles as our own, and looking for characteristics of such
signals.
> There is no problem for the methods of science to detect the need for
> intelligent input behind certain types of phenomena.
Yes, there is. That's because "intelligent input" is so vague that it
does not set any parameters on possible outcomes, especially if
supernatural processes are invoked.
> That's not
> beyond the realm of real science at all. It is just that mainstream
> scientists don't want to apply this need to biological systems for
> some reason - - no matter what the evidence might be.
No, Sean. It's because the assertion that an "intelligent designer",
using possibly supernatural processes sets no limits on possible
outcomes and cannot therefore be tested using the tools of science.
>
> > > no matter how well thought out and backed by the best
> > > available data, would get publihed.
>
> > If you propose a "non naturalistic" cause for a natural event, of course
> > it's not going to pass scientific muster.. Therefore you want to change
> > the rules.
>
> There is nothing inherently "non-natural" about human-level
> intelligence.
There is about what you are proposing.
> Come on. This isn't about trying to prove omnipotence
> here. That's not even theoretically possible. The limited cannot
> prove the unlimited. However, the limited can demonstrate that at
> least a certain degree of intelligent input was most likely required
> to produce certain types of phenomena within this world and universe.
Bullshit, Sean.
You have proposed nothing which can be tested using the tools of
science.
RF
>
> > DJT
>
> Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
wf3h
> On Mar 31, 12:39 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>
>
> > If you can show that your not evidenced, not observable, and non human
> > "human level intelligence" exists, and is capable of doing what you require,
> > then you shouldn't have an trouble getting published. Your problem is,
> > and has always been, that you are proposing supernatural causation when you
> > know it's unscientific.
>
> I've never proposed any such thing as proving or even suggesting the
> supernatural as the causative agent.
bullshit. and a lie. i went to a website with the URL of :
http://www.detectingdesign.com/Presentations/Lecture%201%20-%20Darwin%20vs.%20God.ppt#281,34,An
Intelligent Religion
and there found on slide 34 an explicit religious argument that 'god
did it' is science
i think you have something to do with that website
your fundamentalist beliefs are written all over your assertions. in
the 100 year history of your religion, all it's produced is lie after
lie after lie after lie
you're just the latest in a series of seventh day adventist liars. you
pretend your religion has NOTHING to do with your 'science' when it's
apparent, just as it was for george mccready price, that it has
EVERYTHING to do with your 'science.
I've always proposed an agent of
> some kind with at least human-level intelligence that is able to
> naturally manipulate natural elements in this universe - essentially
> the same as SETI scientists are proposing.
more bullshit. sean is the most misunderstood genius in the world it
seems
when informed that david wolpert, the mathematican who INVENTED the
'no free lunch' theorem, said creationism was wrong....sean said
'he doesn't understand his theory'.
when felsenstein wrote a long essay on the application of the NFL
theorem, sean said 'he doesn't understand mathematics'....
when seth shostak, a world renowned SETI researcher said creationism
was bullshit, sean said:
'shostak doesn't understand SETI"
seems that the ONLY person who knows ANYTHING about ANYTHING is the
world renowned 7th day adventist nobel laureate sean pitman. MIT?
harvard? yale?
bush leaguers. they have done nothing for science. but the 7th day
adventist church? it's always been a scientific leader....
jesus h. christ....proof of sean's religious delusions is not JUST
that he's a creationist but that he believes all this bullshit about
his religion NOT being an influence on creationism.
>
> You think such evidence would have not problem getting published?
> That's very naive of you.
naive? hell, sean, you're still mouthing wooden blocks and pissing in
your diapers when it comes to scientific knowledge.
Anything, and I mean anything, that
> fundamentally challenges the Darwinian story of origins is going to be
> passionately opposed by the mainstream scientific community.
and any science will be opposed by the 7th day adventist church.
Any
> editor who publishes any such paper is going to be at significant risk
> of loosing his/her job.
bullshit. if persecution was the order of the day, mike behe would be
sweeping streets in bethlehem, PA. he's a full tenured professor
your paranoid lies are part of your religion.
That's the fact of the situation these days
> in mainstream science. It is a religious dogmatic position that is
> defended with great passion. There simply is no other way to describe
> it.
sure there is:
evolution is science
creationism is a lie. YOU are a creationist. your church says so. YOU
say so. and creationism was wrong when george mccready price lied
about it and it's wrong now.
so which is MORE logical:
-that ALL the world's scientists are wrong
-or that you are a member of a cult of liars that has, for 100 years,
pushed a lie as science
it's pretty conclusive: the 7th day adventist church is based on a
lie.
Stuart
Hey Sean where are all the ID research proposals submitted to the
Templeton FOundation?
Oh right. The Discotute frowns outside sources for grant money.
yeah. thats the ticket.
Stuart
Stuart
> On Mar 31, 11:00 am, Bruce Stephens <bruce
>
>
>
> +use...@cenderis.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > [...]
>
> > > It just so happens that this particular story is factually
> > > true.
>
> > Or not. At the least, I think critics have a plausible account.
>
> > > Check it out for yourself - using whatever reference you want.
>
> > OK.
>
> > Scientific American:
> > <http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=six-things-ben-stein-doesnt-want-...>
>
> > Expelled Exposed: <http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth/sternberg>
>
> > Dispatches from the Culture Wars:
> > <http://www.scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2006/12/creating_a_martyr_the_...>
>
> > Wikipedia: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sternberg_peer_review_controversy>
>
> > His sponsor at the Smithsonian:
> > <http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/02/sternberg-vs-sm.html#comment-...>.
>
> is that the mainstream scientific community was all up in arms and
> acting quite frantic actually just because a paper was published
> some paper happened to get published on something like feathered
> dinosuars which were shown to actually be based on false data.
If this is a reference to archeaoraptor, there was indeed an uproar.
The first
uproar was due to the fact it was published in Nat Geo. before the
peer-review process completed.
A number of posters in this forum commented on that. Doing an end-
around the peer-review process
is a bad idea. While the peer-review process can be time consuming,
and cause you to pull your hair out from time
to time it exists to protect both the scientist and the science. The
second uproar, was when it was revealed the fossils came from a fossil
hunter with no photos showing the in-situ arrangement of the fossils
or
anything else to fully establish the provenance of these fossils. That
contributed mightily to the screw-up.
Had the authors waited until the completion of the peer-review
process, they would have saved themselves
a good deal of embarrassment. Sternberg got crapped on, along with the
outgoing editor cause his paper
was not subjected to the peer-review process as established for that
journal. Even if it was a good paper
the process still should have been criticized. Journals should not
situationally change their established review process.
Stuart
Stuart
> On Mar 31, 11:46 am, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>
> > Seanpit wrote:
> > > On Mar 31, 12:20 am, "richardalanforr...@googlemail.com"
>
> > snip
>
> > > There wouldn't be a snowflake's chance in Hell that anything I
> > > submitted in fundamental disagreement with Darwinian or naturalistic
> > > thinking,
>
> > Here's the key... All science must use methodological naturalism. If
> > you are proposing non "naturalistic thinking", you aren't doing science.
>
> That's BS. Science is only about explaining the facts with the
> hypothesis that develops the greatest degree of predictive value.
> That's science - period. There is nothing in real scientific
> methodology that rules out an intelligent force of any kind as being
> required to produce certain types of phenomena. In fact, some science
> are based on the ability to detect the activity of intelligent agents
> of at least human-level intelligence - even in the form of some as yet
> unknown alien species from somewhere else on some distant planet.
Science was developed as a method to yield explanations of natural
phenomenon without
recourse to the supernatural. That method is referred to sometimes as
methodological
naturalism.
> There is no problem for the methods of science to detect the need for
> intelligent input behind certain types of phenomena.
So long as the intelligences are well known. Such is the case with
archeology.
However, when propose unknown designers with unknown motives using
unknown methods
you are no longer doing science.
First humananity tried explaining all phenomena as the result of god
or gods. Then humanity tried mixing observations (data) and
supernatural designers. We got astrology, alchemy and bunch of other
bogus "arts".
Welcome to the 21st century Sean.
Stuart
Stuart
> Greg G. <ggw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 30, 5:43 pm, heekster <heeks...@ifiwxtc.net> wrote:
> > > On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 13:11:51 -0700 (PDT), wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > >On Mar 30, 1:37 pm, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> On Mar 30, 9:22 am, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
> > > >> > On Mar 30, 12:14 pm, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >> > > On Mar 30, 9:08 am, Rusty Sites <SpameYou...@spamex.com> wrote:
>
> > > >> > > > Seanpit wrote:
> > > >> > > > > <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > >> > > > >>> The problem with arguments such as Felsenstein is that they
> > > >> > > > >>> only consider fitness landscapes at very low levels of
> > > >> > > > >>> functional complexity.
>
> > > >> > > > Define functional complexity.
>
> > > >> > >http://www.detectingdesign.com/flagellum.html#Complexity
>
> > > >> > from lewis carroll's 'alice in wonderland': " a word means exactly
> > > >> > what i want it to mean; nothing more and nothing less'
>
> > > >> It's simple. A level of functional complexity is defined by the
> > > >> minimum size and specificity requirements for a system to achieve a
> > > >> particular type of function.
>
> > > >> What about that is this definition is too difficult for you to
> > > >> understand? ; )
>
> > > >what's difficult to understand is why an MD is a creationist. it's
> > > >like a chemist trying to change lead into gold.
>
> > > That would be an alchemist.
>
> > Does a coholic get more respect than an alcoholic?
>
> Nearly as much as a gebraist.
What about a jezeera?
Stuart
Rusty Sites
>> <b1aa7ff2-7164-4f79-8625-a89bce4a8...@d7g2000prl.googlegroups.com>,
>> Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> writes
>>
>>> Several of Behe's articles dealing with the problems of evolutionary
>>> theory have been quite scholarly and his books have also made very nice
>>> scholarly points that deserve to at least be published and considered
>>> within mainstream scientitific journals.
>> His supporters here have failed to present those nice scholarly points.
>> Perhaps you would be so kind.
>>
>>> If his ideas are so obviously off base, why not let them be published
>>> so that they can be openly discussed and reviewed by other scientists
>>> within the medium of peer reviewed journals?
>> You don't expect to see 2+2=5 published in a mathematics journal, do
>> you?
>
> I'd expect at least some effort to try and present opposing ideas to a
> prevailing "theory" - that's for sure.
Has there been any effort lately to present alternatives to the
heliocentric model of the solar system? The geocentric version of the
universe used to be all the rage but people seemed to have all jumped on
the heliocentric model bandwagon. It's as if long ago people decided
the earth revolved around the sun and nobody is allowed to question that
now. Anybody suggesting that the sun revolves around the earth is
treated with scorn and derision and can't get any papers published. Who
knows. With modern supercomputers somebody might get an epicyclic model
to work.
Rusty Sites
> On Mar 30, 12:47 pm, Rusty Sites <SpameYou...@spamex.com> wrote:
>> Seanpit wrote:
>>> On Mar 30, 9:08 am, Rusty Sites <SpameYou...@spamex.com> wrote:
>>>> Seanpit wrote:
>>>>> On Mar 28, 5:38 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> The problem with arguments such as Felsenstein is that they only
>>>>>>> consider fitness landscapes at very low levels of functional
>>>>>>> complexity.
>>>> Define functional complexity.
>>> http://www.detectingdesign.com/flagellum.html#Complexity
>>
>> -----
>> I know
>> >that Yockey has written a long and expensive book, presumably on the
>> >probability of the information content of a protein being generated by
>> >known physical laws and chance. I have heard that he concludes that the
>> >probability is very low and the chance theory inadequate. Can someone
>> >give an accurate summary of his work and claims and how it affects the
>> >probability argument against the non-supernatural origin of life?
>>
>> The usual argument against probability rests upon the assumption that
>> one and only 1 sequence will perform a given function. Thus for
>> cytochrome c with 100 amino acids or so, there are around 10^137
>> different sequences possible. Thus the usual anti-evoutionist claim is
>> that the odds against formation of a useful cytochrome is 10^-137.
>> Yockey calculates that there are 10^93 different functional permutations
>> which will perform the function of c. This is based upon a substitution
>> of hydrophilic for hydrophilic amino acid and hydrophobic for
>> hydrophobic. Thus he calculates the odds against the formation of a
>> useful cytochrome as 10^93/10^137 or 10^-44, which is a considerable
>> reduction in probability albeit it is still unlikely.
>>
>> Yockey's assumption is that the only functional sequences are those in
>> which each cytochrome location is filled by its representative type of
>> amino acid. This is
>>
>> location 1 - location 2- location 3---location 4-
>> hydrophobic- hydrophobic- hydrophilic-whatever
>>
>> The question I asked Yockey personally was, if you define this pattern
>> of protein as one family of solutions to the cytochrome c functionality
>> whether another FAMILY, another pattern of hydrophobics hydrophilics etc
>> will perform the function. If there are 10^30 different families, then
>> you would further reduce the probability against finding a useful
>> functional molecule by chance to 10^-14. This is in the range of what is
>> found experimentally by making random biopolymers. (see Directed
>> Evolution, by Gerald Joyce, Scientific American Dec. 1993? (or 1992)
>>
>> Yockey didn't answer.
>> -----
>>
>> And neither do you.
>
> Yes, I did. Did you actually read my essay on this? I answered this
> question quite directly.
Would you mind actually quoting yourself, then, because I find no such
thing. You say, "Yockey's estimate for the number of sequences with the
CytoC function is around 1e65 for 100aa sequence space". I imagine what
he is actually saying is that there are that many variations of the
cytochrome c protein that work. That is not the same as how many aa
sequences have cytochrome c functionality. I looked up some of your
references and that is definitely what they mean. Anytime anybody is
doing anything that involves substituting aa's and checking for
functionality, they are determining how many variants of the cytochrome
c protein work, not how many proteins have the same function as
cytochrome c.
>
>> Yours and Yockey's arguments are really about the
>> odds of things turning out just the way they did rather than just
>> working somehow. The chances of dealing out a deck of cards in a
>> particular order is about 10^-66. You can say even before you deal them
>> that an event with a microscopically small probability will occur. Yet
>> the probability of dealing them out in some order is 1 (or very nearly
>> so if you insist on being pedantic). You are really arguing that the
>> chances of life turning out very close to the way it did is very small
>> and I think most knowledgeable people at least strongly suspect that is
>> the case. Your only candidates for cytochrome c functionality are
>> proteins which are very similar to cytochrome c. You just assume that
>> there aren't lots of other very different proteins that have the same
>> function. (I am sure there are examples of different proteins with the
>> same activity out there but I don't know of them.) You also fail to
>> consider the possibility that life could have evolved without cytochrome
>> c functionality at all.
>
> I consider all of these possibilities.
Bullshit you do.
> And, as a matter of fact, they
> all have roughly knowable probabilities.
Double bullshit on that one. How would one go about determining how
many proteins have a certain functionality? It would require randomly
generating proteins and testing them. Again, this isn't the same as
finding out how many variants of a given sequence work which is all I
find on your page.
> Why not at least try and
> read through the essay I've written for once?
Why not try reading and understanding those papers you reference? They
are not saying what you think they are. There is no understanding your
page because it is ultimately incoherent
..
> Try to counter
> something I've actually said instead of constantly assuming, wrongly,
> what you think I said?
A lot of the time, what you say doesn't make sense. I have to not only
figure out what you are saying but what the papers you quote are
actually saying.
wf3h
sean ignores this fact as well. the templeton foundation actually
solicited grant proposals for ID research. they would fund them.
they got zero proposals. none.
creationsits can't even come up with a view on how creationism works
when you give 'em a million dollars
heekster
Wilkins) wrote:
>Greg G. <ggw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mar 30, 5:43 pm, heekster <heeks...@ifiwxtc.net> wrote:
>> > On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 13:11:51 -0700 (PDT), wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > >On Mar 30, 1:37 pm, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >> On Mar 30, 9:22 am, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > >> > On Mar 30, 12:14 pm, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > >> > > On Mar 30, 9:08 am, Rusty Sites <SpameYou...@spamex.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > >> > > > Seanpit wrote:
>> > >> > > > > On Mar 28, 5:38 pm, John Harshman
>> > >> > > > > <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> > >> > > > >>> The problem with arguments such as Felsenstein is that they
>> > >> > > > >>> only consider fitness landscapes at very low levels of
>> > >> > > > >>> functional complexity.
>> >
>> > >> > > > Define functional complexity.
>> >
>> > >> > >http://www.detectingdesign.com/flagellum.html#Complexity
>> >
>> > >> > from lewis carroll's 'alice in wonderland': " a word means exactly
>> > >> > what i want it to mean; nothing more and nothing less'
>> >
>> > >> It's simple. A level of functional complexity is defined by the
>> > >> minimum size and specificity requirements for a system to achieve a
>> > >> particular type of function.
>> >
>> > >> What about that is this definition is too difficult for you to
>> > >> understand? ; )
>> >
>> > >what's difficult to understand is why an MD is a creationist. it's
>> > >like a chemist trying to change lead into gold.
>> >
>> > That would be an alchemist.
>>
>> Does a coholic get more respect than an alcoholic?
>
>Nearly as much as a gebraist.
Reminds me of an Egyptian kid's game:
copts & jabbars.
Dana Tweedy
> On Mar 31, 12:39 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>
>
> < snip >
>
>>> However, the limited can demonstrate that at
>>> least a certain degree of intelligent input was most likely required
>>> to produce certain types of phenomena within this world and
>>> universe.
>>
>> If you can show that your not evidenced, not observable, and non
>> human "human level intelligence" exists, and is capable of doing
>> what you require, then you shouldn't have an trouble getting
>> published. Your problem is,
>> and has always been, that you are proposing supernatural causation
>> when you know it's unscientific.
>
> I've never proposed any such thing as proving or even suggesting the
> supernatural as the causative agent.
Again, why then are you complaining about the "naturalistic thinking"?
> I've always proposed an agent of
> some kind with at least human-level intelligence that is able to
> naturally manipulate natural elements in this universe - essentially
> the same as SETI scientists are proposing.
So, what evidence do you have that such a being exists? It's known that
humans can do some limited genetic engineering. When and where did this
unknown, unseen, and unevidenced being do what you feel was done?
>
> You think such evidence would have not problem getting published?
If you had any evidence of such a being, why not?
> That's very naive of you. Anything, and I mean anything, that
> fundamentally challenges the Darwinian story of origins is going to be
> passionately opposed by the mainstream scientific community.
For good reason, but if you had the evidence, the scientific community would
ultimately have to accept it. The problem for you is, of course, you
don't have any such evidence.
> Any
> editor who publishes any such paper is going to be at significant risk
> of loosing his/her job.
Not if you have the evidence to back up your claims. The only reason
someone might lose a job as an editor (which as I understand it, are usually
part time, poorly compensated positions), is if that person let through an
article that was obviouisly unscientific, and unsupported. A bold
claim, challenging the status quo that's well supported isn't going to make
anyone lose their job.
> That's the fact of the situation these days
> in mainstream science.
That's a common whine among creationists, but isn't borne out by the
evidence.
> It is a religious dogmatic position that is
> defended with great passion. There simply is no other way to describe
> it.
Actually, you could describe it as a well supported , vital, and working
scientific theory. Calling it a "religious dogmatic positon" is telling a
rather large whopper.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
>> It's quite difficult getting an unscientific work considered
>> science. It has nothing to do with "Darwinism", and everything to do
>> with the unscientific nature of creationism.
>
> Right . . . You keep telling yourself that . . .
Thanks, but I don't need to keep telling myself the truth. I already know
it. I notice you can't dispute my statement.
>
> It is just that this mantra of yours is considered to be true by those
> who share your opinion - by definition.
Those who "share my opinion" are scientists, Sean. If you don't follow
the scientific method, you aren't being scientific.
> That's not really in line
> with the scientific method. It's just popular opinion.
Since when is science not in line with the scientific method?
DJT
R. Baldwin
news:f4c4ef9e-4fee-4830...@d19g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
> On Mar 31, 11:46 am, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>> Seanpit wrote:
>> > On Mar 31, 12:20 am, "richardalanforr...@googlemail.com"
>>
>> snip
>>
>> > There wouldn't be a snowflake's chance in Hell that anything I
>> > submitted in fundamental disagreement with Darwinian or
>> > naturalistic thinking,
>>
>> Here's the key... All science must use methodological naturalism.
> If
>> you are proposing non "naturalistic thinking", you aren't doing
>> science.
>
> That's BS. Science is only about explaining the facts with the
> hypothesis that develops the greatest degree of predictive value.
> That's science - period. There is nothing in real scientific
> methodology that rules out an intelligent force of any kind as being
> required to produce certain types of phenomena. In fact, some science
> are based on the ability to detect the activity of intelligent agents
> of at least human-level intelligence - even in the form of some as yet
> unknown alien species from somewhere else on some distant planet.
> There is no problem for the methods of science to detect the need for
> intelligent input behind certain types of phenomena. That's not
> beyond the realm of real science at all. It is just that mainstream
> scientists don't want to apply this need to biological systems for
> some reason - - no matter what the evidence might be.
"That's not right. It's not even wrong." - Pauli
Your argument does not refute the point Dana Tweedy made. He stated that
all science must use methodological naturalism. You countered with an
argument about intelligent force. Since natural intelligent forces exist,
you have not explained how methodological naturalism may be set aside while
still doing science.
Let's take a closer look at your points:
1. "Science is only about explaining the facts with the hypothesis that
develops the greatest degree of predictive value. That's science - period."
FALSE.
a. Science is not "only" about explaining facts with hypotheses. It is also
about using processes, methods, and concepts that are germane to methodical
observation and characterization.
b. If alternate hypotheses provide equally good predictions, the most
parsimonious hypothesis is preferred.
c. Hypothesis is the weakest of explanations for facts. Theory is the
strongest explanation for facts.
2. "There is nothing in real scientific methodology that rules out an
intelligent force of any kind as being required to produce certain types of
phenomena."
FALSE.
Science does not claim that only X can cause a phenomenon. It may claim
that X causes a phenomenon. It cannot rule out all other possible causes.
3. "In fact, some science are based on the ability to detect the activity
of intelligent agents of at least human-level intelligence - even in the
form of some as yet unknown alien species from somewhere else on some
distant planet."
TRUE
SETI is using science to look for evidence that might indicate alien
intelligence.
4. "There is no problem for the methods of science to detect the need for
intelligent input behind certain types of phenomena."
FALSE
a. SETI does not claim that intelligence would be "needed" for certain
phenomena to be observed. Intelligence would be a plausible explanation,
not a "needed" explanation.
5. "That's not beyond the realm of real science at all. It is just that
mainstream scientists don't want to apply this need to biological systems
for some reason - - no matter what the evidence might be."
FALSE
a. NATURAL explanations for intelligent origin or manipulation of Earth's
biosphere are lacking in evidence and not parsimonious. If aliens seeded
Earth with life, it simply moves the problem of abiogenesis elsewhere (not
parsimonious), and no serious credible evidence exists to cause scientists
to look for aliens either did this, or are causing ongoing changes in the
biosphere. No REASONS exist for mainstream scientists to give this serious
thought. If there WERE reasons, this could be a line of research using
methodological naturalism. It would be scientific.
b. SUPERNATURAL explanations for intelligent origin are not amenable to
science. If supernatural causes occur, they are inherently rare or nothing
would be predictable and science would completely fail. Further, it is not
possible to characterize the necessary consequences of supernatural events.
Given a miracle, anything might happen. Therefore, no experiment can be
devised to distinguish between miraculous and natural origin (is something
unlikely because it is a miracle, or unlikely because it is rare?). The
miraculous is not repeatable. It is not predictable. It cannot be measured
and described. It is OUTSIDE the realm of science. No REASONS exist for
mainstream scientists to give this serious thought, either. There CAN BE NO
EVIDENCE because a miracle could explain any conceivable observed result.
[snip]
XaurreauX
> On Mar 31, 11:41 am, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
> Who gets to decide what is and what is not "scientific"? Hmmmm?
Adults who don't believe in talking snakes which were created by a god
who found it necessary to impregnate a virgin in order to give birth
to himself in order to be sacrificed to himself in order to sit beside
himself in order to save the world from himself.
Ernest Major
<cbf35c42-54e5-42ab...@w35g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
Seanpit <sea...@gmail.com> writes
>> It's quite difficult getting an unscientific work considered science. It
>> has nothing to do with "Darwinism", and everything to do with the
>> unscientific nature of creationism.
>
>Right . . . You keep telling yourself that . . .
Actually it's you, and Tony, and Ray, and Spintronic and M/adman, who
keeps telling (showing) us the unscientific nature of creationism.
--
alias Ernest Major
Vend
> On Mar 28, 5:38 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > >The problem with arguments such as Felsenstein is that they only
> > > consider fitness landscapes at very low levels of functional
> > > complexity.
>
> You, evidently, haven't read the Felsenstein article for
> comprehension:
>
> http://ncseweb.org/rncse/27/3-4/has-natural-selection-been-refuted-ar...
>
> In the article Felsenstein writes:
>
> "Suppose that the sequences are each 1000 bases long. There are 4
> x 4 x 4 x … x 4 = 4^1000 possible sequences, which in alphabetic order
> would go from AAAA...A to TTTT...T. Now imagine that our organism is
> haploid, so that there is only one copy of the gene per individual,
> and suppose that each of these sequences has a fitness. A very tiny
> fraction of the sequences is functional, and almost all of the rest
> have fitness zero.
> Suppose that we want to find an organism of high fitness, and we
> want to do so by looking at 10,000 different DNA sequences. The best
> we can do, of course, is to take the highest one we find among these.
> Now note that 4^1000 is about 10^602, a number far greater than the
> number of elementary particles in the universe. It is not unreasonable
> to guess that the fraction of DNA sequences that has a nonzero fitness
> is tiny — let's be very generous and say 1 in 10^20."
>
> Notice that Felsenstein does something similar to what I'm doing. He
> is considering 1000-character sequence space of DNA (equivalent to
> 333aa sequence space for proteins). He then does something very very
> interesting here. He assumes, without any basis whatsoever, that the
> ratio of beneficial vs. non-beneficial sequences within that space is
> extremely high - as high as 1 in 1e20.
The ratio doesn't matter.
Felsenstein argues that functional sequences aren't distributed
uniformely, which contraddicts Dembski's and your main assumption.
hersheyh
> > >> On Mar 30, 12:14 pm, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> On Mar 30, 9:08 am, Rusty Sites <SpameYou...@spamex.com> wrote:
> > >>>>> On Mar 28, 5:38 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> > >>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>> The problem with arguments such as Felsenstein is that they only
> > >>>>>>> consider fitness landscapes at very low levels of functional
> > >>>>>>> complexity.
> > >>>http://www.detectingdesign.com/flagellum.html#Complexity
> > >> from lewis carroll's 'alice in wonderland': " a word means exactly
> > >> what i want it to mean; nothing more and nothing less'
>
> > > It's simple.
>
>
> > A level of functional complexity is defined by the
>
> > > minimum size and specificity requirements for a system to achieve a
> > > particular type of function.
>
> > size and specificity requirements" are or can even suggest how to
> > determine them, any talk about "levels of functional complexity" is pure
> > sophistry.
>
> > > What about that is this definition is too difficult for you to
> > > understand? ; )
>
> > about that is too difficult for you to understand?
>
> Ah, but it can be and has been applied. That's why I gave you the
> website reference. The details of application are listed there.
>
> Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
Where, besides your very own unrefereed web site, does anyone use
*size* to measure *functional complexity*? Has anyone even tried to
publish this amazing and weirdly subjective capacity to determine what
functions are complex and which are not based on size alone?
hersheyh
> On Mar 30, 1:30 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 30, 1:37 pm, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 30, 9:22 am, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 30, 12:14 pm, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Mar 30, 9:08 am, Rusty Sites <SpameYou...@spamex.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Seanpit wrote:
> > > > > > > On Mar 28, 5:38 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >>> The problem with arguments such as Felsenstein is that they only
> > > > > > >>> consider fitness landscapes at very low levels of functional
> > > > > > >>> complexity.
>
> > > > > > Define functional complexity.
>
> > > > >http://www.detectingdesign.com/flagellum.html#Complexity
>
> > > > from lewis carroll's 'alice in wonderland': " a word means exactly
> > > > what i want it to mean; nothing more and nothing less'
>
> > > minimum size and specificity requirements for a system to achieve a
> > > particular type of function.
>
> > > understand? ; )
>
> > *functional complexity*. You assert a single teleologically named
> > *function* (usually due to a series of subfunctional moieties, often
> > with independent utility) and then count up the aa's in the proteins
> > that do it. Gives you a size number, but has nothing to do with the
> > *complexity* of *function*. Nor does it prevent stepwise acquisition
> > of the named function in a non-teleologic process.
>
> All specific types of functions have minimum size and specificity
> requirements - all of them. These requirements are different for
> different types of functional systems. Those with greater minimum
> requirements are at higher levels of functional complexity. There
> really isn't anything difficult about this definition of "functional
> complexity".
It is subjective rubbish. First, you *arbitrarily* declare something
to be *the* "function" of a protein, thinking that if you assign a
"name" to something, that is all it can do. You do this even when it
leads to absurdities like saying that the "function" of the ribosome
is to be "strep sensitive" so that you can declare the acquisition of
"strep resistance" to be due to the "loss of a previously tight
relationship".
> Your problem is that because higher level systems are often comprised
> of subsystems that can have or do have independent functionality you
> think it is easy to simply stick these subsystems together to form the
> larger system using the mechanism of RM/NS.
It doesn't have to be *easy*. It just has to be possible. After all,
in evolution, one does not have to invent the flagella for each and
every organism that has it. It only needs to happen once (in an
environment where such even a primitive functionality is selectively
useful). [Actually, it happened at least twice for rotary flagella,
but in other organisms, different modes of motility arose.] After
that initial establishment of the utility of rotary motorization of a
whip (not necessarily as a flagella) occurred the hill-climbing
optimization function of RM/NS can easily produce the modern variants
of that function. *All* modern flagella in *modern* organisms reached
those modern organisms from ancestors that *already* had flagella.
Which is why the modern eubacterial flagella all show signs of the
typical pattern of descent with modification from common ancestry. In
a statistically undeniable fashion. Rotary flagellar function is NOT
independently created in each in every organism and it NEVER evolved
by random assembly from scratch.
> That's your problem.
> This little trick might seem easy to you in your dreamworld where you
> can imagine the nessessary starting points and steps that could take
> place. But, in real life, this is not so easy because of a little
> problem known as probability. Your possibilities are not remotely
> probable in the real world beyond the 1000 fsaar threshold level of
> functional complexity.
And the friggin 1000 fsaar threshold is only relevant if you think
that the *function* of rotary flagella arose *from scratch* by random
assembly of aa's with no possible intermediate functional systems that
are themselves subfunctions of the flagellar function. Otherwise it,
and the bogus numerology your derive from it, is irrelevant. For
exactly the same reason that NFL is irrelevant to the real landscape
that organisms face. The probability of generating motorized rotation
in *some* ancestral organism when nearly all ancestral organisms would
have already had rotatable pores and motors is much greater than in
your *imaginary* organism that has some random DNA sequences it has to
randomly mutate in the absence of *any* selection for *any* utility
until it, purely by chance, happens to generate a fully modern
flagella. There is no evidence whatsoever for your completely
imaginary organism with its imaginary random sequence search. There
is evidence for organisms, even those without flagella, that have
rotatable pores and motor subsystems. But,again, the point is that in
evolution a system with rotary flagella only needs to happen once (in
conditions where that function is selectively useful).
> It has never been observed to happen and
> statsitically it is extremely unlikely to happen.
Yes it has. You just ignore it because it because the starting point
that lacks the "function" is too close to the end point that has the
"function". Or you ignore it because the size is too small (although
if a 1000 fsaar is not possible in orders of magnitude longer than the
universe has existed, why one should be able to generate a 330 fsaar
system in a matter of months or even days is puzzling). Or the
"function" is something like the highly selectively useful trait of
"dying in the presence of strep".
> Of course, you argue that such concepts "are not computable". While
> your fairytales are not computable, my predictions are quite
> computable.
And, as I point out, I agree that *if* evolution worked by complete
random chance from scratch, it wouldn't have happened. That *means*
that there is a causal bias, a non-random mechanism, at work. Your
claim that the only possible non-random mechanism that could explain
functionally useful systems is "god" is not supported by evidence. It
is only supported by false dichotomy and assertions that ignorance is
evidence. I point out alternative (natural) non-random mechanisms
that *require* the existence, in an ancestral organism, of systems I
describe in some detail. I point out that such systems are ubiquitous
or quite common and that the end functional structures are related to
those systems. So which hypothesis of non-random mechanism is
supported by evidence? Your invisible imaginary poofing fairy able to
do whatever you say it can or a mechanism using known and observable
types of mutations to alter systems that do exist to perform a
modified, additional, or novel function?
> Your position is non-scientific by your own admission,
No. My position is fully scientific. It is testable. It generates
specific testable hypotheses. It uses known natural mechanisms. It
generates specific expected patterns of relationships between
organisms that have been amply statistically validated.
> while mine is open to statistical analysis and potential falsification
> - - making it scientific.
What statistical analysis have you applied to the claim that a magical
invisible fairy did whatever you want it to? The only statistical
analysis you have performed is one that falsifies a hypothesis of
completely random assembly. That is not a statistical analysis of
*your* hypothesis that a magic invisible fairy did it. How do you
falsify the idea of a magic invisible fairy making something that
existed long before science did?
> You've got just-so stories, I"ve got actual
> predictive value.
And, as I keep pointing out, I do not disagree with the conclusion
that evolution cannot work by completely random assembly from scratch
in a random NFL-type surface. We can reject that hypothesis and
mechanism on many grounds. That is NOT, by itself, a test that favors
a magical poofer fairy. It is a test that rejects a specific type of
random mechanism. By rejecting that mechanism, we can say that there
is *some* sort of non-random mechanism involved in producing the
observed systems. That it is not pure chance that the eubacterial
flagella of the spirochetes differ from the eubacterial flagella of
coliform bacteria than the flagella of each group does from others of
that group. [Hint: descent with modification]. That it is not pure
chance that parts of the eubacterial flagella have sequence and
structure similarity with other cellular systems. That means we have
to come up with non-random explanations that 'explain' these
features. I come up with such mechanisms that provide testable
expectations and generate modelling experiments showing the
feasibility of the explanation. You come up with a magical poofing
fairy that can do anything you claim it can do. You have no evidence
for your fairy and no statistical predictive value consistent with
*that* hypothesis. All you have is a false dichotomy.
>
> Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
Kaduli van Iljeis
<redd...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>Ray Martinez wrote:
>> On Mar 30, 10:49 am, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>snip
>
>>>
>>> Why would Behe have trouble getting his ideas published in real
>>> scientific journals?
>>>
>>
>> Why would any IDist want to publish in a pro-Atheism masturbation rag?
>
>Ray, scientific journals are where scientists publish scientific papers, and
>his how scientific knowledge is spread.
As well as scientific ignorance...
wf3h
> On Mar 31, 1:00 pm, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > while mine is open to statistical analysis and potential falsification
> > - - making it scientific.
>
> What statistical analysis have you applied to the claim that a magical
> invisible fairy did whatever you want it to? The only statistical
> analysis you have performed is one that falsifies a hypothesis of
> completely random assembly. That is not a statistical analysis of
> *your* hypothesis that a magic invisible fairy did it. How do you
> falsify the idea of a magic invisible fairy making something that
> existed long before science did?
>
this question keeps getting asked of sean...and keeps getting ignored.
it is fatal to his argument and thus he ignores it.
he says he's not pushing god as the designer. but since his website
says god is the designer, he's a creationist and his church is
creationist, that's a blatant lie.
he is cut from the same cloth as behe, phillip johnson and others who
never say in public what they admit in private: they want god taught
as science in public schools.
their lies are shameful. and if they weren't such a potent political
(NOT scientific) force, they'd be completely ignored and their
movement would be of relevance only to historians of religion.
as it is, they are an ugly sore on the body of american culture (such
as it is), and deserve to be treated as such.
hersheyh
> On Mar 30, 1:14 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 30, 1:34 pm, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 30, 9:20 am, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 30, 11:12 am, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > "You cherry pick information and are arrogant, pathetic and dishonest".
>
> > > > > > Why not read his posting history?
>
> > > > > > Why do *you* think that he hasn't even tried to publish his "theory"?
>
> > > > >http://www.conservapedia.com/Smithsonian-Sternberg_affair
>
> > > > with the man?
>
> > > > i have. i graduated from lehigh's chemistry dept and have had a chance
> > > > to talk with behe about his creationist views.
>
> > > Ah, but did you actually ask Behe about his success at getting his
> > > ideas published in mainstream journals? Why do you think he had to
> > > publish a book instead of publishing his ideas in mainstream science
> > > journals? Hmmmm?
>
> > actually i did. but your question is a non sequitur.
> > your statement was that creationists suffer when they publish their
> > ideas. it's perfectly evident, given behe's success, that such a
> > statement is wrong.
>
> No. I didn't say that creationists suffer when they publish. I said
> that creationists aren't allowed to publish their ideas in mainstream
> science journals. There is an active suppression of anything
> fundamentally counter to the Darwinian doctrine within mainstream
> circles.
Which is why Kimura was unable to publish the "neutral" explanation of
evolutionary change. And why Mendelian genetics was rejected in favor
of Darwinian blending inheritance. If you had something worthwhile
*and* scientific, rather than a false dichotomy biased to favor the
magical poofing fairy idea of science, you could get it published. It
might get laughed at. But so did Wegner's ideas. So did Galilleo's.
So did Bozo the Clown's.
> > NOW you want to move the goalposts by saying that creationists are NOT
> > persecuted but can't get their ideas published in scientific journals.
>
> That's what I've been saying all along. It isn't that big a deal if
> someone doesn't like you or your ideas - as long as they are willing
> to publish them.
Given that your "ideas", such as they are, involve a false dichotomy
and you have NO independent (or statistical) support for your magical
poofing fairy hypothesis, it is hardly surprising that such a paper
would be rejected out of hand.
> > and THAT is both different than your original claim AND correct. it's
> > correct because neither ID nor creationism (a redundancy) is science.
>
> That is certainly your opinion and the opinion of most mainstream
> scientists. However, it isn't actually true. It is just a subjective
> opinion that just so happens to be the majority view at the present
> time.
>
> > and if you want to move the goalposts, put on a striped jersey, blow
> > the whistle and throw a flag.
>
> I'm just saying that it is pointless to try to counter, in a
> fundamental manner, the Darwinian dogma within mainstream science
> journals because such papers, no matter how well evidenced and well
> argued will not get published without a huge backlash against the
> publisher - to the extent that the publisher will be austrasized by
> his/her peers and probably be asked to leave his/her position as cheif
> editor.
Where is there any well-evidenced and well-argued papers that have
been published in the non-peer-reviewed literature. There is a
whooooooole lot of creationist dreck (like your stuff) by people (like
you) who have no grasp of the material they spew out and no
understanding of the even simple things like what a "false dichotomy"
is, who think that disproving a straw man is evidence for magical
poofing fairies in science. But well-evidenced? Well-argued? All I
see is piles and piles of manure, most even worse than what you have
at your site. And your site reeks.
> This isn't a dispassionate topic here. Darwinian thinking is defended
> with great passion and vigor by the scientific community at large. It
> is like a group of hardened sectarian church-going fundamentalists who
> get all froathy around the mouth when their holy untouchable doctrines
> of Darwinism are remotely challenged or even seriously questioned in
> mainstream literature. This really isn't a scientific mentality if
> you ask me. It is religious-style dogma - not science.
So, when are you going to present a well-argued and well-evidenced
case on your own site, rather than typical quote-mines, distortions of
the scientific literature, false dichotomies, god-of-the-gap
explanations, and all the hoary non-scientific scholasticism of a
medieval monk or a fundamentalist preacher? If you cannot even do it
when there is no peer-review by people knowledgeable about the
subjects, what makes you think it is a conspiracy rather than a
reflection on the quality of your so-called "ideas". [Your so-called
math and ideas have been, in a sense, peer-reviewed here by people who
obviously know more than you, and have given the sort of scathing
reviews ordinarily applied to films like "Godzilla vrs. the Smog
Monster".]
hersheyh
> On Mar 30, 1:26 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > i have. i graduated from lehigh's chemistry dept and have had a chance
> > > > to talk with behe about his creationist views.
>
> > > Ah, but did you actually ask Behe about his success at getting his
> > > ideas published in mainstream journals?
>
> > research or even a scholarly review of the literature. What, exactly,
> > in DBB do you think would warrant being published in, say, the J. of
> > Biochem. (where Behe *has* published original research without any
> > apparent problem).
>
> > > Why do you think he had to
> > > publish a book instead of publishing his ideas in mainstream science
> > > journals? Hmmmm?
>
> > article with things like real evidence or real analysis. He did so
> > because he had nothing worthwhile to say other than "I, personally,
> > don't think evolution can produce this. That is my religious
> > viewpoint and don't try to say I'm wrong."
>
> > The reason you fail to publish is exactly the same: You have nothing
> > worthwhile to publish.
>
> Several of Behe's articles dealing with the problems of evolutionary
> theory have been quite scholarly and his books have also made very
> nice scholarly points that deserve to at least be published and
> considered within mainstream scientitific journals.
Name them.
> If his ideas are
> so obviously off base, why not let them be published so that they can
> be openly discussed and reviewed by other scientists within the medium
> of peer reviewed journals?
>
> Also, this isn't some religious issue for Behe - despite your
> suggestion to the contrary. Behe was trained as an evolutionist and
> had no problems with evolutionary ideas or philosophical naturalism.
> He became convinced of the problems with Darwinian-style evolution
> outside of any religious motivation.
>
> Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
hersheyh
>
> > snip
>
> > > There wouldn't be a snowflake's chance in Hell that anything I
> > > submitted in fundamental disagreement with Darwinian or naturalistic
> > > thinking,
>
> > Here's the key... All science must use methodological naturalism. If
> > you are proposing non "naturalistic thinking", you aren't doing science.
>
> That's BS. Science is only about explaining the facts with the
> hypothesis that develops the greatest degree of predictive value.
So, what predictions arise from the hypothesis that whatever exists in
biological nature was poofed into existence by some unknown mechanism
by an invisible, undetectable, something at some time and place with
that invisible entity having whatever powers it needs to produce what
we see? And tell me how to calculate the probability of that
hypothesis.
> That's science - period. There is nothing in real scientific
> methodology that rules out an intelligent force of any kind as being
> required to produce certain types of phenomena.
Of course not. But that is a two variable question, not a probability
question. That is, one has to find a positive correlation between the
"intelligent entity" and the "phenomena". Such a correlation is
rather difficult when the "intelligent entity" is invisible,
undetectable, and a purely hypothetical agent with just the needed
abilities. Independent ability to empirically observe or detect or
limit the abilities of the agent are needed to make the question
testable in the scientific sense, regardless of whether or not you
*believe* it to be true.
> In fact, some science
> are based on the ability to detect the activity of intelligent agents
> of at least human-level intelligence - even in the form of some as yet
> unknown alien species from somewhere else on some distant planet.
Again, SETI is based on the observation that the signal production
mechanism only occurs, on the one planet we know has life, in the
presence of modern human civilizations and does not occur in the
absence of that level of societal organization (even in the presence
of humans). That is, we have an apparently universal correlation
between "scientific civilizations" and "type of radio signal searched
for" that has been documented and observed. Finding similar signals
from outer space would be "predicted" to indicate that there is a
similar "scientific civilization" producing it. There is no similar
correlation (much less a universal one) between an invisible unseen
intelligent something and the production of *any* biological system on
the one planet we know life exists on. Unless, of course, one
generates a false dichotomy between a pure chance explanation and a
magical fairy explanation.
> There is no problem for the methods of science to detect the need for
> intelligent input behind certain types of phenomena. That's not
> beyond the realm of real science at all. It is just that mainstream
> scientists don't want to apply this need to biological systems for
> some reason - - no matter what the evidence might be.
>
> > > no matter how well thought out and backed by the best
> > > available data, would get publihed.
>
> > If you propose a "non naturalistic" cause for a natural event, of course
> > it's not going to pass scientific muster.. Therefore you want to change
> > the rules.
>
> There is nothing inherently "non-natural" about human-level
> intelligence. Come on. This isn't about trying to prove omnipotence
> here. That's not even theoretically possible. The limited cannot
> prove the unlimited. However, the limited can demonstrate that at
> least a certain degree of intelligent input was most likely required
> to produce certain types of phenomena within this world and universe.
Again, you have no independent evidence that *any* human-level
intelligence or higher existed at the time and place needed.
Certainly, a human-like intelligence capable of generating all the
systems you claim, would require a "scientific civilization" which
would have left "fossil" evidence of their existence. Magical poofing
fairies and gods, OTOH, present no empirical evidence of their
existence.
>
> > DJT
>
> Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
gregwrld
> On Mar 31, 2:58 pm, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 31, 11:46 am, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>
> > > Seanpit wrote:
> > > > On Mar 31, 12:20 am, "richardalanforr...@googlemail.com"
>
> > > snip
>
> > > > There wouldn't be a snowflake's chance in Hell that anything I
<snip>
> > > If you propose a "non naturalistic" cause for a natural event, of course
> > > it's not going to pass scientific muster.. Therefore you want to change
> > > the rules.
>
> > There is nothing inherently "non-natural" about human-level
> > intelligence. Come on. This isn't about trying to prove omnipotence
> > here. That's not even theoretically possible. The limited cannot
> > prove the unlimited. However, the limited can demonstrate that at
> > least a certain degree of intelligent input was most likely required
> > to produce certain types of phenomena within this world and universe.
>
> Again, you have no independent evidence that *any* human-level
> intelligence or higher existed at the time and place needed.
> Certainly, a human-like intelligence capable of generating all the
> systems you claim, would require a "scientific civilization" which
> would have left "fossil" evidence of their existence. Magical poofing
> fairies and gods, OTOH, present no empirical evidence of their
> existence.
This is the real hole in creationism, and
the one Sean tries to cover by trying to
blind people with irrelevant math.
There is no "there" there, just as there
are no human footprints in dino footprints.
The so-called "weakness of evo" approach
is just sleight-of-hand to distract from their
own lack of evidence.
gregwrld
>
>
>
> > > DJT
>
> > Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
Rich Andy
wrote:
>On Mar 31, 2:51 pm, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Oh, papers have been submitted. It is just that the bias of the
>> mainstream vetters will not allow them to be published. This little
>> story should tell you something about the odds of getting through this
>> wall of bias against anything questioning the status quo regarding
>> such a sacred holy doctrine as Darwinism has come to be viewed within
>> mainstream science.
>>
>
>and if someone submitted a paper on alchemy to the 'j. of the american
>chemical society', what would their response be?
Also one based on ignorance. Alchemy (low energy transmutation of
elements into others) is a fact, check out Kervran, Baranger, Zundel,
Komaki, Russell, Ohsawa, etc. who all have found experimental evidence
for the phenomena in the lab. It's been observed as a side effect in
recent cold fusion experiments also. But like ID, it's always been a
taboo in mainstream science. Example:
From 1875-1883, von Herzeele conducted 500 analyses which verified an
increase in weight in the ashes of plants grown without soil in a
controlled medium. He concluded that, "Plants are capable of effecting
the transmutation of elements". His publications so outraged the
scientific community of the time, they were removed from libraries.
His writings were lost for more than 50 years until a collection was
found in Berlin by Dr. Hauscka, who subsequently published von
Herzeele's findings.
Further:
M. Baranger (Ecole Polytechnique, Paris) became intrigued with Von
Herzeele's experiments, but he thought that the number of trials had
been too limited and the precautions against error were insufficient.
Baranger decided to repeat the experiments with all possible
precautions and a very large number of cases which would allow a
statistical study. His research project lasted four years and involved
thousands of analyses. Baranger verified the content of P, K, and Ca
of vetch seeds before and after germination in twice-distilled water
to which pure calcium chloride was/was not added. Hundreds of lots of
7-10 grams each were selected, weighed to 1/100th milligram, and
graded, then germinated in a controlled environment. The plants were
tested by the methods described by A. Brunel-Tourcoin in his Practical
Treatise of Plant Chemistry (1948). Baranger found a significant
decrease in P in the Ca-series of tests. Non-germinated seeds and
seeds germinated in the distilled water showed no significant change
in their levels of K. Those seeds treated with CaCl2 showed a 10%
increase in their K content.
None of the specialists who examined Baranger's work were able to find
any experimental errors. Baranger concluded:
These results, obtained by taking all possible precautions, confirm
the general conclusions proposed by V. Herzeele and lead one to think
that under certain conditions the plants are capable of forming
elements which did not exist before in the external environment.
[...]
Louis Kervran (Univ. of Paris) was the most ardent researcher of
biological transmutation, and his work in the field earned him a
nomination for the Nobel Prize. Kervran elucidated several of these
nuclear reactions and verified them:
This vital phenomenon is not of a chemical order... The nucleus of the
atom in light elements is quite different from what nuclear physics
regards as the average type, the latter having value only for the
heavy elements... Nature moves particles from one nucleus to another -
particles such as hydrogen and oxygen nuclei and, in some cases, the
nuclei of carbon and lithium. There is thus a transmutation...
Biological transmutation is a phenomenon completely different from the
atomic fissions or fusions of physics... it reveals a property of
matter not seen prior to this work. (4, 7-13)
[...]
After many experiments, hundreds of analyses of tens of thousands of
grains or plants J.E. Zundel (then Chemical Engineer of the
Polytechnicum School of Zurich) confirmed these findings in a lecture
in 1971 at the French Academy of Agriculture (Bull No. 4, 1972). He
had then used chemical and physical methods of analysis. Later in
1979, Zundel, using the mass spectrometer at C.N.R.S (the
Microanalysis Laboratory of the French National Scientific Research
Centre), and neutron activation mass analysis at the Swiss Institute
for Nuclear Research in Villigen (Aargau), confirmed the increase for
Calcium of 61% + or - 2% (average for both laboratories) that is
absolutely beyond any statistical dispersion. (There was also an
increase of 291% for Phosphorus and 36% for Sulphur). See the article
- 'Transmutation of the Elements in Oats' in The Planetary Association
for Clean Energy Newsletter, Volume 2, Number 3, July/August 1980. So
it now seems that transmutations of a few elements arise as a property
of the metabolism of living matter, transmutations obtained in great
quantity at a low energy.
[...]
There is so much credible documentation of low-energy transmutation
that, in the words of Rupert Gould, "did it relate to any more
probable event, we should be compelled either to accept it or cease
putting any faith in recorded testimony.
http://www.alchemywebsite.com/nelson2_8.html
http://www.levity.com/alchemy/kervran.html
end of quotes
This is a phenomena which can and has been repeatedly proven through
thousands of experiments in the lab, and yet it is still ignored or
rejected by mainstream science. Considering that, even if you could
prove ID in the lab, do you think it would be recognized and accepted
just like that?
wf3h
> On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 12:00:58 -0700 (PDT), wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Mar 31, 2:51 pm, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Oh, papers have been submitted. It is just that the bias of the
> >> mainstream vetters will not allow them to be published. This little
> >> story should tell you something about the odds of getting through this
> >> wall of bias against anything questioning the status quo regarding
> >> such a sacred holy doctrine as Darwinism has come to be viewed within
> >> mainstream science.
>
> >and if someone submitted a paper on alchemy to the 'j. of the american
> >chemical society', what would their response be?
>
> Also one based on ignorance. Alchemy (low energy transmutation of
> elements into others) is a fact, check out Kervran, Baranger, Zundel,
> Komaki, Russell, Ohsawa, etc. who all have found experimental evidence
> for the phenomena in the lab. It's been observed as a side effect in
> recent cold fusion experiments also. But like ID, it's always been a
> taboo in mainstream science. Example:
DARN!! i missed the cold fusion connection...must be too many neutrons
flying around the place...
of course, cold fusion can only happen in places like idaho and
minnesota...
>
> Further:
>
> M. Baranger (Ecole Polytechnique, Paris) became intrigued with Von
> Herzeele's experiments, but he thought that the number of trials had
> been too limited and the precautions against error were insufficient.
yes, my wife's an attorney. she's always in favor of more trials...
>
> This is a phenomena which can and has been repeatedly proven through
> thousands of experiments in the lab, and yet it is still ignored or
> rejected by mainstream science. Considering that, even if you could
> prove ID in the lab, do you think it would be recognized and accepted
> just like that?
i know...i sympathize....persecution is hard to bear...
TomS
<vpv6t4tm6nq65t143...@4ax.com>, Rich Andy stated..."
[...snip...]
>This is a phenomena which can and has been repeatedly proven through
>thousands of experiments in the lab, and yet it is still ignored or
>rejected by mainstream science. Considering that, even if you could
>prove ID in the lab, do you think it would be recognized and accepted
Of course, I note the date of this posting.
Aside from that, WRT your comment about ID:
Before thinking about evidence for ID, it might be a good idea to
get around to describing ID, telling us something positive about
it. Such as:
*What* sort of thing is "designed", what sort of thing is not.
(Individuals, body parts, populations, laws of nature, the universe
as a whole, processes?)
*When* does "design" happen? (Only once, some billion years ago?
Half a dozen times, a few thousand years ago? Constantly, even
recently?)
*Who* does it? (Demiurges, non-personal forces, time travelers,
demons, gods?)
*Why* is it done? (Because things as they were before design were
not up to standards, because humans and chimps serve similar
purposes, to counter-act other designs?)
*Where* is it done? (Everywhere, in Eden, in heaven?)
*How* is it done? (By following certain principles, by random
events?)
So far, the advocates of ID seem to be telling us that they have
no interest at all in what ID might be, what its consequences
might be, or in doing anything other than talking about evolution.
--
---Tom S.
"As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand."
attributed to Josh Billings