Dembski poses 10+1 questions for PZ Myers
Steven L.
Dembski is asking his fans there to attend Myers' lecture and pose the
following questions to Myers:
10+1 Questions for Professor Myers:
1) In light of the Darwinian evolutionary paradigm, can you account for
the observation that the eggs [sic; "embryos"?] of the five classes of
vertebrate (i.e. fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals) begin
markedly different from each other? While the cleavage patterns in four
of the five classes show some general similarities, the pattern in
mammals is very different. Furthermore, in the gastrulation stage, a
fish is very different from an amphibian,while both are starkly
different from reptiles, birds and mammals, which are somewhat similar
to each other. Doesn’t Darwinism predict a pattern wherein the earliest
stages are the most similar and the later stages are the most different?
2) Kalinka et al. (2010) have documented that the developmental
hourglass model (which describes the observation that embryogenesis
within a phylum diverges most extensively during early and late
development, while converging in the middle) holds true even with
respect to patterns of gene expression, which has a central role in
elaboration of different animal forms. Given that mutations affecting
the earliest stages of development are the least likely to be
evolutionarily tolerated, would you please explain how you would account
for this observation in terms of evolutionary rationale?
3) Could you please explain the sheer lack of congruence between
anatomical homology and developmental pathways / precursors? Since such
congruence is a prediction of neo-Darwinism,why isn’t it observed?
Moreover, not only are there different embryological (i.e.
non-homologous) processes and different genetic mechanisms to apparently
homologous organs. But there is also the conundrum of homologous genetic
mechanisms for analogous (i.e. non-homologous) organs. And then there is
also the problem of homologous structures arising from different
embryological sources, utterly undermining the evolutionary explanation.
Isn’t the most straightforward reading of these facts that the adult
organs have not been derived from a common ancestor? Why is it that you
are happy to use those instances where embryological development and
adult similarities are consistent as evidence of common descent, but set
aside those instances where they are not consistent?
4) Could you please explain the near-total absence of evidence for
evolutionarily relevant (i.e. stably heritable) large-scale variations
in animal form, as required by common descent? “Near-total”, that is,
because losses of structure are often possible. But common descent
requires the generation of anatomical novelty. Why is it the case that
all observed developmental mutations that might lead to macroevolution
(besides the loss of an unused structure) are harmful or fatal?
5) Would you please explain why the purported embryological evidence for
evolution is not subject to careful cherry picking of data, given that
instances can be identified in which, for example, tissues arise during
development in the opposite order from which they are presumed to have
evolved (e.g. the formation of teeth after the tongue whereas it is
thought that the teeth evolved first; and various vertebrate organs such
as liver and lung develop embryologically in quite different ways from
how it is thought they evolved)?
6) Would you please explain instances of species which possess similar
adult forms but different immature forms, which could conform with
recapitulation only if the species evolved convergently? Related to this
is the observation that similar phylotypic stages and/or adult
morphologies may be attained by very different developmental routes.
Don’t such observations demonstrate that the view of development being
an exclusively divergent process of increased specialisation is false?
7) Would you please elaborate on how a reproductively-capable embryo can
evolve by virtue of successive but slight modification while retaining
selectable utility at every stage? Paul Nelson discussed the concept of
ontogenetic depth in some detail here and here. He also responded to
your criticisms of his article, and the somewhat ironic charge of
quote-mining, here.
8 ) On your blog, you have defended the central dogmatist (gene-centric)
view that an organism’s DNA sequence contains both the necessary and
sufficient information needed to actualise an embryo’s final morphology.
If your position is so well supported and the position espoused by
Jonathan Wells (and others) is so easily refuted, then why do you
perpetually misrepresent his views? For example, you state “These
experiments emphatically do not demonstrate that DNA does not matter …
[Wells'] claim is complete bunk.” Where has Jonathan Wells stated that
DNA “does not matter”? Moreover, contrary to your assertions, the
phenomenon of genomic equivalence is a substantial challenge to the
simplistic “DNA-is-the-whole-show” view espoused by the majority of
neo-Darwinists. Cells in the prospective head region of an organism
contain the same DNA as cells in the prospective tail region. Yet head
cells must turn on different genes from tail cells, and they “know”
which genes to turn on because they receive information about their
spatial location from outside themselves — and thus, obviously, from
outside their DNA. So an essential part of the ontogenetic program
cannot be in the organism’s DNA, a fact that conflicts with the
DNA-centrism of neo-Darwinism. Some attempts to salvage DNA programs
(e.g. Rinn et al.) rely on “target sequences” — molecular zipcodes, if
you will — of amino acids that direct proteins to particular locations
in the cell. But such “molecular zipcodes” do not create a spatial
co-ordinate system, they presuppose it.
9) If, as is often claimed by Darwinists, the pharyngeal pouches and
ridges are indeed accurately thought of as vestigial gill slits (thus
demonstrating our shared ancestry with fish), then why is it that the
‘gill-slit’ region in humans does not contain even partly developing
slits or gills, and has no respiratory function? In fish, these
structures are, quite literally, slits that form openings to allow water
in and out of the internal gills that remove oxygen from the water. In
human embryos, however, the pharyngeal pouches do not appear to be ‘old
structures’ which have been reworked into ‘new structures’ (they do not
develop into analogous structures such as lungs). Instead, the
developmental fate of these locations includes a wide variety of
structures which become part of the face, bones associated with the ear,
facial expression muscles, the thymus, thyroid, and parathyroid glands
(e.g. Manley and Capecchi, 1998).
10) Why do Darwinists continue to use the supposed circuitous route
taken by the vas deferens from the testes as an argument for common
descent when, in fact, the route is not circuitous at all? The testes
develop from a structure called the genital ridge (the same structure
from which the ovaries develop in females, which is in close proximity
to where the kidneys develop). The gubernaculum testis serves as a cord
which connects the testes to the scrotum. As the fetus grows, the
gubernaculum testis does not, and so the testis is pulled downward,
eventually through the body wall and into the scrotum. The lengthening
vas deferens simply follows. And, moreover, before the vas deferens
joins the urethra, there needs to be a place where the seminal vesicle
can add its contents.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/10-1-questions-for-professor-myers/
Note: I have omitted the "+1" question because it's an ad hominem
attack not worth responding to.
-- Steven L.
jillery
>
> Note: I have omitted the "+1" question because it's an ad hominem
> attack not worth responding to.
>
> -- Steven L.
This reminds me of the kind of test with questions like "In 25 words
or less, describe the Universe. Give 3 examples."
Q1 should be easy for PZ, as IIRC he's actually addressed that point
in his blog.
Q9 starts with a false premise. IIUC scientists do not describe
pharyngeal pouches as vestigial gill slits, but that pharyngeal
pouches are the structures from where fish embryos develop their
gills, among other organs. ISTM that's an important distinction.
Q10 may be technically correct but ISTM simply misses the point; the
vas deferens uses a circuitous route because of developmental
contingency, similarly to the recurrent laryngeal nerve, and contrary
to ID poofery.
Q2-Q8 are beyond me. I guess that means I fail the test. I'm betting
PZ does better.
Steven L.
Q5 seems to assume that "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" is still a
vital part of the modern evolutionary synthesis.
As you know, it isn't. At least not in Haeckel's original form.
It is true that the young embryos of different species can look similar.
But the development of any such embryo does not necessarily track with
the order in which its (adult) ancestors evolved, as Haeckel thought. A
modern embryo (say a human embryo) can reflect features of embryos of
ancestor species, that's all.
And that's my answer to that one.
-- Steven L.
Ray Martinez
> PZ Myers is going to Glasgow to lecture on evolution.
>
> Dembski is asking his fans there to attend Myers' lecture and pose the
> following questions to Myers:
>
False.
Somebody who calls himself "Jonathan M" is doing the asking, not
Dembski himself.
> http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/10-1-questions-for-...
>
> Note: I have omitted the "+1" question because it's an ad hominem
> attack not worth responding to.
>
> -- Steven L.
The "+1" question is now seen below:
"11) How many peer-reviewed papers have you published since setting up
your blog, Pharyngula? We think the number’s zero, but it would be
nice to get confirmation of this."
Ray
chris thompson
I am sure with a little Googling you can his CV online. Most
scientists include a link to recent publications.
Chris
John S. Wilkins
Actually PZ's CV (PZsCVPZsCV... sorry) hasn't been updated since 2003,
about when Pharyngula started
http://www.morris.umn.edu/directories/personnel/cv/Myers.html
However Paul is a teaching professor, not a research professor, and he
spends his time educating. All the publications of his I have been able
to find since then are educational or public policy. That is fine. He
has quite a much longer list of research publications than, say Jonathon
Wells.
--
John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
Vend
> Q10 may be technically correct but ISTM simply misses the point; the
> vas deferens uses a circuitous route because of developmental
> contingency, similarly to the recurrent laryngeal nerve, and contrary
> to ID poofery.
This question is particularly IDiotic, considering that external
testicles do really look like a bad design to begin with.
Most mammals have an abdominal temperature of 38 C, which is too high
for their testicles to produce sperm, so that they dangle outside the
body wall for cooling.
But birds have an even higher body temperature and yet their internal
testicles are perfectly functional.
This is consistent with independent evolution of thermal regulation in
birds and mammals, or with very incompetent (or man-hating) design.
jillery
I bet there is some Casey Luskin wannabe out there trying to figure
out an intelligently designed benefit of external vs. internal
testicles.
Randy C
> Dembski is asking his fans there to attend Myers' lecture and pose the
> following questions to Myers:
> 10+1 Questions for Professor Myers:
It would be interesting to see if ANY of these questions support ID,
since Dembski is an ID abvocate, or whether all of them only argue
against evolution.
**IF** all of them only only arguments against evolution, then we have
yet more confirming evidence that ID is nothing but the "God of the
Gaps".
> 1) In light of the Darwinian evolutionary paradigm, can you account for
> the observation that the eggs [sic; "embryos"?] of the five classes of
> vertebrate (i.e. fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals) begin
> markedly different from each other?
> [snip]
Obviously a question about evolution. Scorecard:
"God of the Gaps" arguments: 1
ID arguments: 0
> 2) Kalinka et al. (2010) have documented that the developmental
> hourglass model (which describes the observation that embryogenesis
> within a phylum diverges most extensively during early and late
> development, while converging in the middle) holds true even with
> respect to patterns of gene expression, which has a central role in
> elaboration of different animal forms. Given that mutations affecting
> the earliest stages of development are the least likely to be
> evolutionarily tolerated...
Enough said. Scorecard:
"God of the Gaps" arguments: 2
ID arguments: 0
> 3) Could you please explain the sheer lack of congruence between
> anatomical homology and developmental pathways / precursors? Since such
> congruence is a prediction of neo-Darwinism...
Once again, enough said. Scorecard:
"God of the Gaps" arguments: 3
ID arguments: 0
> 4) Could you please explain the near-total absence of evidence for
> evolutionarily relevant...
Need I say it? Scorecard:
"God of the Gaps" arguments: 4
ID arguments: 0
> 5) Would you please explain why the purported embryological evidence for
> evolution...
Yawn. Scorecard:
"God of the Gaps" arguments: 5
ID arguments: 0
> 6) Would you please explain instances of species which possess similar
> adult forms but different immature forms, which could conform with
> recapitulation only if the species evolved convergently?...
HYow easy is this? Scorecard:
"God of the Gaps" arguments: 6
ID arguments: 0
> 7) Would you please elaborate on how a reproductively-capable embryo can
> evolve...
I'm sorry but I have to laugh. Scorecard:
"God of the Gaps" arguments: 7
ID arguments: 0
> 8 ) On your blog, you have defended the central dogmatist (gene-centric)
> view that an organism s DNA sequence contains both the necessary and
> sufficient information needed to actualise an embryo s final morphology.
> If your position is so well supported and the position espoused by
> Jonathan Wells (and others) is so easily refuted, then why do you
> perpetually misrepresent his views? For example, you state These
> experiments emphatically do not demonstrate that DNA does not matter
> [Wells'] claim is complete bunk. Where has Jonathan Wells stated that
> DNA does not matter ? Moreover, contrary to your assertions, the
> phenomenon of genomic equivalence is a substantial challenge to the
> simplistic DNA-is-the-whole-show view espoused by the majority of
> neo-Darwinists. Cells in the prospective head region of an organism
> contain the same DNA as cells in the prospective tail region. Yet head
> cells must turn on different genes from tail cells, and they know
> which genes to turn on because they receive information about their
> spatial location from outside themselves and thus, obviously, from
> outside their DNA. So an essential part of the ontogenetic program
> cannot be in the organism s DNA, a fact that conflicts with the
> DNA-centrism of neo-Darwinism.
Conflicts with Neo-Darwinian? Need I say more? Scorecard:
"God of the Gaps" arguments: 8
ID arguments: 0
> 9) If, as is often claimed by Darwinists...
Gee, that one only took seven words. Scorecard:
"God of the Gaps" arguments: 9
ID arguments: 0
> 10) Why do Darwinists...
Dembski has achieved what may be a personal record. It took only
three words for him to begin a "God of the Gaps" argument.
Scorecard:
"God of the Gaps" arguments: 10
ID arguments: 0
That's what they call a "shutout".
Clearly and undeniably and indisputably, ID is nothing but the "God of
the Gaps" argument.
Checked on the evidence for "rain gods" recently?
I knew that I could count on Billy to prove how unscientific his
claims are.
Ron O
> PZ Myers is going to Glasgow to lecture on evolution.
>
> Dembski is asking his fans there to attend Myers' lecture and pose the
> following questions to Myers:
>
> 10+1 Questions for Professor Myers:
>
I thought that Dembski claimed to know his math. He can't even count
to eleven anymore. Being an IDiot must be some sort of degenerative
disease.
Ron Okimoto
AGW Facts
<sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote:
> PZ Myers is going to Glasgow to lecture on evolution.
>
> Dembski is asking his fans there to attend Myers' lecture and pose the
> following questions to Myers:
>
> 10+1 Questions for Professor Myers:
Rev Dembski ought to get internet access and use Google Scholar.
Why the bloody anal fuck should PZM waste his time trying to
educate cult loons when the cult loons refuse to educate
themselves?
AGW Facts
<69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 31, 4:22 pm, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote:
*CUT* Please see original
> Q2-Q8 are beyond me. I guess that means I fail the test. I'm betting
> PZ does better.
Why should he try? If Rev Dembski wanted to know the answers all
he has to do is look; _Cell_ has an index where he can find most
of the answers. Google Scholar has thousands of papers on the
subjects.
Fuck Dembski: he has not earned the right to demand other people
educate him.
Burkhard
It raises interesting questions about the place of the porn industry
and john Holmes in the overall creation plan...
jillery
> On Tue, 31 May 2011 14:07:51 -0700 (PDT), jillery
>
I agree with your sentiment, but apparently PZ is looking forward to
it. My impression is he can't wait to publicly humiliate Dembski.
Rolf
> On 5/31/2011 5:07 PM, jillery wrote:
>> On May 31, 4:22 pm, "Steven L."<sdlit...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote:
>>> PZ Myers is going to Glasgow to lecture on evolution.
>>>
That should nto be to difficult to learn and know for a person willing to
learn and understand. How could it be otherwise? It is easy to see than no
adult member of a species conforming to the physical characteristics of a
foetus ever existed.
We even have to grow and develop for several years after birth to look like
a real human being. Just compare a newborn baby with, say, a newborn deer.
Rolf
mur...@tntech.edu
>
> > PZ Myers is going to Glasgow to lecture on evolution.
>
> > Dembski is asking his fans there to attend Myers' lecture and pose the
> > following questions to Myers:
>
>[....]
> > Note: I have omitted the "+1" question because it's an ad hominem
> > attack not worth responding to.
>
> > -- Steven L.
>
> The "+1" question is now seen below:
>
> "11) How many peer-reviewed papers have you published since setting up
> your blog, Pharyngula? We think the number’s zero, but it would be
> nice to get confirmation of this."
>
Ray, remind me: How many peer-reviewed scholarly papers did the
World's Greatest Scholar (according to you) *ever* publish in his
lifetime?
---DPM
>
> - Show quoted text -
Rolf
They are not asking because they want to learn. They have no desire to
learn, do not want to know! It is all about creating a bad image of
evolution in order to boost faith in creationism. It is a matter of
rhetorics; a word game for them.
hersheyh
>
> Dembski is asking his fans there to attend Myers' lecture and pose the
> following questions to Myers:
>
> 10+1 Questions for Professor Myers:
Here is how I, with only a little study, would respond:
>
> 1) In light of the Darwinian evolutionary paradigm, can you account for
In light of Intelligent design, can you explain the reasoning behind
> the observation that the eggs [sic; "embryos"?] of the five classes of
> vertebrate (i.e. fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals) begin
> markedly different from each other? While the cleavage patterns in four
> of the five classes show some general similarities, the pattern in
> mammals is very different.
Size and the amount of yolk has a great deal to do with the
differences, which are not as great as you claim. Evolution of mammals
from terrestrial organisms that had already evolved such terrestrial
specializations as the amniotic sac also has an important role.
> Furthermore, in the gastrulation stage, a
> fish is very different from an amphibian,while both are starkly
> different from reptiles, birds and mammals, which are somewhat similar
> to each other.
"Very different" is in the eye of the beholder. All vertebrates form
guts asshole first through invagination (the blastopore in amphibians,
the primitive groove in birds, reptiles, and mammals). Fish, as
exemplified by the zebrafish (PZ has some familiarity with this
organism ;-) produces a dorsal thickening (the embryonic shield) that
is the functional equivalent of the dorsal blastopore lip of
amphibians. "If one conceptually opens a Xenopus blastula at the
vegetal pole and stretches the opening into a marginal ring, the
resulting fate map closely resembles that of the zebrafish embryo at
the stage when half of the yolk has been covered by the blastoderm."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK10100/
IOW, most of the *differences* are a consequence of egg and yolk size
and the shape of the invagination site rather than any fundamental
difference. Apparently IDiots cannot understand topological homology.
> Doesn’t Darwinism predict a pattern wherein the earliest
> stages are the most similar and the later stages are the most different?
>
> 2) Kalinka et al. (2010) have documented that the developmental
> hourglass model (which describes the observation that embryogenesis
> within a phylum diverges most extensively during early and late
> development, while converging in the middle) holds true even with
> respect to patterns of gene expression, which has a central role in
> elaboration of different animal forms. Given that mutations affecting
> the earliest stages of development are the least likely to be
> evolutionarily tolerated,
Can you provide the empirical or theoretical reasoning behind the
above assumption? Does ID provide an alternative testable explanation
for whatever you think you mean for whatever examples you mean? Or
does it, like the God of the Gaps it is, simply say that whatever
happens is due to the dyslexic doG?
> would you please explain how you would account
> for this observation in terms of evolutionary rationale?
>
> 3) Could you please explain the sheer lack of congruence between
> anatomical homology and developmental pathways/precursors? Since such
> congruence is a prediction of neo-Darwinism,why isn’t it observed?
Can you give some examples of what you mean?
> Moreover, not only are there different embryological (i.e.
> non-homologous) processes and different genetic mechanisms to apparently
> homologous organs. But there is also the conundrum of homologous genetic
> mechanisms for analogous (i.e. non-homologous) organs. And then there is
> also the problem of homologous structures arising from different
> embryological sources, utterly undermining the evolutionary explanation.
> Isn’t the most straightforward reading of these facts that the adult
> organs have not been derived from a common ancestor? Why is it that you
> are happy to use those instances where embryological development and
> adult similarities are consistent as evidence of common descent, but set
> aside those instances where they are not consistent?
That is a claim without examples as stated. Can you provide specific
examples of what you mean?
> 4) Could you please explain the near-total absence of evidence for
> evolutionarily relevant (i.e. stably heritable) large-scale variations
> in animal form, as required by common descent? “Near-total”, that is,
> because losses of structure are often possible. But common descent
> requires the generation of anatomical novelty. Why is it the case that
> all observed developmental mutations that might lead to macroevolution
> (besides the loss of an unused structure) are harmful or fatal?
Can't creationists wrapped in the cheap tuxedo of ID come up with
anything but the old, tired, "evolution must work by magically poofing
some large change into existence or it is impossible"? Especially
when *their* explanation is that "some dyslexic doG magically poofed
some large change into existence." The fact is that all major changes
observed in modern vertebrate structure (like wings or hands) are
modifications of pre-existing vertebrate structures. So, again, what
*specific* examples are they talking about?
>
> 5) Would you please explain why the purported embryological evidence for
> evolution is not subject to careful cherry picking of data, given that
> instances can be identified in which, for example, tissues arise during
> development in the opposite order from which they are presumed to have
> evolved (e.g. the formation of teeth after the tongue whereas it is
> thought that the teeth evolved first; and various vertebrate organs such
> as liver and lung develop embryologically in quite different ways from
> how it is thought they evolved)?
Why do you think that evolution requires that the timing of
development of a tissue must be the same as the timing of its
evolution? Oh, I see. IDiots seem to be stuck in the idea that
modern evolutionists all believe that "ontogeny recapitulates
phylogeny" is a universal law. I hate to Haeckel you, but "It ain't
true."
> 6) Would you please explain instances of species which possess similar
> adult forms but different immature forms, which could conform with
> recapitulation only if the species evolved convergently?
Perhaps the best example is direct development as opposed to pluteus
development in sea urchins. Ans: Egg size has a lot to do with it.
What other examples do you propose? BTW, Rudy Raff has done a lot of
this work. Hasn't shaken his understanding that evolution explains
the results.
http://members.fortunecity.com/smashx14/urchin.html
> Related to this
> is the observation that similar phylotypic stages and/or adult
> morphologies may be attained by very different developmental routes.
> Don’t such observations demonstrate that the view of development being
> an exclusively divergent process of increased specialisation is false?
Again, no specificity. If you expect an actual response, you need to
do better than simply make a broad claim/assertion as if it were
'truth'. And again you seem to have this idea that modern evolution
and evo-devo is nothing but warmed over Haeckel.
> 7) Would you please elaborate on how a reproductively-capable embryo can
> evolve by virtue of successive but slight modification while retaining
> selectable utility at every stage?
Do you mean, for example, like the neotenous salamanders (which are
reproductively-capable embryos)? In some cases, the embryo simply
does not produce thyroxin (the hormone that triggers conversion to
adult body form) while its reproductive organs continue to mature. In
those species (axolotl), one can induce adult body form by injecting
thyroxin. In other species, there is loss of the thyroxin receptor
protein, so, even though the immature forms can produce thyroxin, they
cannot respond to it. And in yet other species, the change is
facultative and in wet areas, they produce enough thyroxin and in dry
areas they don't. Notably, the neotenous forms tend to occur in
environments where the land is dry, but there are springs that exist
year around. Some might attribute that to selective pressure. But
the genetic "switch" is pretty simple.
And I have already mentioned the pluteus-forming versus direct-
development in sea urchins. The latter tend to occur in seas where
there has been selection for larger nutrient rich eggs because of
relatively nutrient-poor seas being unable to sustain longer pluteus
development.
> Paul Nelson discussed the concept of
> ontogenetic depth in some detail here and here. He also responded to
> your criticisms of his article, and the somewhat ironic charge of
> quote-mining, here.
>
> 8 ) On your blog, you have defended the central dogmatist (gene-centric)
> view that an organism’s DNA sequence contains both the necessary and
> sufficient information needed to actualise an embryo’s final morphology.
> If your position is so well supported and the position espoused by
> Jonathan Wells (and others) is so easily refuted, then why do you
> perpetually misrepresent his views? For example, you state “These
> experiments emphatically do not demonstrate that DNA does not matter …
> [Wells'] claim is complete bunk.” Where has Jonathan Wells stated that
> DNA “does not matter”? Moreover, contrary to your assertions, the
> phenomenon of genomic equivalence is a substantial challenge to the
> simplistic “DNA-is-the-whole-show” view espoused by the majority of
> neo-Darwinists.
Who is misrepresenting whom here? DNA is ultimately the whole show,
but epigenetic phenomena (like differential methylations) do exist.
> Cells in the prospective head region of an organism
> contain the same DNA as cells in the prospective tail region. Yet head
> cells must turn on different genes from tail cells, and they “know”
> which genes to turn on because they receive information about their
> spatial location from outside themselves — and thus, obviously, from
> outside their DNA.
Positional information from cell-cell interaction (or its lack, one of
the first such triggers in mammals involves whether a cell is on the
inside or the outside of the blastocyst), interaction with the
environment, or the presence of positional information molecules in
the egg is clearly important in the differentiation process. Almost
all that information acts through DNA activation or non-activation and
a cascading or spreading or chain of activity. Did you have a point?
Development and evolution *both* involve the interaction of an
organism's genome with its environment. Again, what is your point?
Are you claiming that DNA is irrelevant to some important differences?
> So an essential part of the ontogenetic program
> cannot be in the organism’s DNA, a fact that conflicts with the
> DNA-centrism of neo-Darwinism. Some attempts to salvage DNA programs
> (e.g. Rinn et al.) rely on “target sequences” — molecular zipcodes, if
> you will — of amino acids that direct proteins to particular locations
> in the cell. But such “molecular zipcodes” do not create a spatial
> co-ordinate system, they presuppose it.
There is a difference between "interaction" of organismal genome and
environment and the environment acting completely independently of the
genome to produce an organismal feature. The formation of a human
embryo is dependent on the cell(s) being inside the blastocyst (that
is, positional information). If there is no such cell inside, no
embryo forms. But the positional information "triggers" a difference
in the pattern of genetic information expressed. It doesn't create
that information.
> 9) If, as is often claimed by Darwinists, the pharyngeal pouches and
> ridges are indeed accurately thought of as vestigial gill slits (thus
> demonstrating our shared ancestry with fish), then why is it that the
> ‘gill-slit’ region in humans does not contain even partly developing
> slits or gills, and has no respiratory function?
Again with the warmed over Haeckel. Ontogeny only very roughly
correlates with phylogeny. It does not recapitulate it. Been a long
evolutionary time since mammals needed actual gills for respiration.
> In fish, these
> structures are, quite literally, slits that form openings to allow water
> in and out of the internal gills that remove oxygen from the water.
No. In fish, some of these embryonic structures develop *into* slits
that later *become* gills used for respiration. Except for the ones
that develop *into* jaws and other structures.
> In
> human embryos, however, the pharyngeal pouches do not appear to be ‘old
> structures’ which have been reworked into ‘new structures’ (they do not
> develop into analogous structures such as lungs).
Because lungs are *analogous* structures, not *homologous* ones. The
structures homologous to lungs are swim bladders (which evolved from
primitive lungs in certain fish). Both are blood rich outgrowths of
the gut in fish that initially got oxygen from air by *swallowing*
it. Gills are not useful for oxygen extraction in terrestrial
settings (as any fish flopping on the deck could tell you). BTW,
amphibians also get a substantial amount of oxygen through their thin
skins and their lungs and associated circulatory systems tend to be
simpler than the lungs of reptiles.
> Instead, the
> developmental fate of these locations includes a wide variety of
> structures which become part of the face, bones associated with the ear,
> facial expression muscles, the thymus, thyroid, and parathyroid glands
> (e.g. Manley and Capecchi, 1998).
Yes. And don't forget jaws. Did you have a point?
>
> 10) Why do Darwinists continue to use the supposed circuitous route
> taken by the vas deferens from the testes as an argument for common
> descent when, in fact, the route is not circuitous at all? The testes
> develop from a structure called the genital ridge (the same structure
> from which the ovaries develop in females, which is in close proximity
> to where the kidneys develop). The gubernaculum testis serves as a cord
> which connects the testes to the scrotum. As the fetus grows, the
> gubernaculum testis does not, and so the testis is pulled downward,
> eventually through the body wall and into the scrotum. The lengthening
> vas deferens simply follows. And, moreover, before the vas deferens
> joins the urethra, there needs to be a place where the seminal vesicle
> can add its contents.
Rather ballsy of you to include this. The question is why is the
testes pulled through the body wall, causing a weak spot where the
intestine can bulge through? Poor design? How does ID explain this
other than "Because the dyslexic doG wanted it that way."
>
> http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/10-1-questions-for-...
pnyikos
shown up, whereas posts to othe Usnet newsgroups have, and posts done
to this thread long after my unsuccessful ones did show up.
CC: John Wilkins, because DIG still hasn't replied to my three e-mails
that I sent him last night, and John and I get along OK.
On May 31, 5:07 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 31, 4:22 pm, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > PZ Myers is going to Glasgow to lecture on evolution.
>
> > Dembski is asking his fans there to attend Myers' lecture and pose the
> > following questions to Myers:
[...]
> > 3) Could you please explain the sheer lack of congruence between
> > anatomical homology and developmental pathways / precursors? Since such
> > congruence is a prediction of neo-Darwinism,why isn t it observed?
Here is an example of that. Myers and Hershey insisted that an amnion
formed by lamination from the cytotrophoblast is homologous to an
amnion formed by spreading from the embryonic disk.
The early embryo divides into the embryonic disk and the trophoblast,
of which the inner part is the cytotrophoblast. There is NO overlap
between the two. So I naturally denied homology.
I held out, and even did a variation on the trial scene in "A Man for
All Seasons" where Rich gives a perjured account of a conversation
with Thomas More. The variation went as follows:
_______________________________________
PROSECUTOR: Please recount your conversation with the prisoner.
HERSHEY: I put the following question to him: if the National
Academy of Sciences were to declare that an amnion formed
by unfolding of somatopleure is ectoderm, would you agree?
PROSECUTOR: And his answer to that?
HERSHEY: He agreed. Then he said, "I will put to you a higher
case. Suppose the National Academy of Sciences were to declare
that the eye of an octopus is homologous to the eye of a human
being. Would you agree to that?"
NYIKOS: That is correct, and you said...
JUDGE: SILENCE! Let the witness continue.
HERSHEY: Then I said, "I will put to you an intermediate
case. Suppose the National Academy of Sciences were
to declare that an amnion formed by delamination from
a cytotrophoblast were homologous to one formed by spreading
from the epiblast. Would you agree?
PROSECUTOR: And what did he say to that?
HERSHEY: <swallowing> He said "NAS has not the authority."
PROSECUTOR: <feigned surprise> WHAT????
HERSHEY: <softly> NAS has not the competence...or words to
that effect.
PROSECUTOR: He committed high treason against NAS! Your honor,
I have no further questions of the witness.
===================== end of excerpt from
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/e0878b5a84bc9626
> > Moreover, not only are there different embryological (i.e.
> > non-homologous) processes and different genetic mechanisms to apparently
> > homologous organs. But there is also the conundrum of homologous genetic
> > mechanisms for analogous (i.e. non-homologous) organs. And then there is
> > also the problem of homologous structures arising from different
> > embryological sources,
See above for whether the word "homologous" is even appropriate for
such a thing.
[deletia of things to be discussed later]
> > Note: I have omitted the "+1" question because it's an ad hominem
> > attack not worth responding to.
>
> > -- Steven L.
>
> This reminds me of the kind of test with questions like "In 25 words
> or less, describe the Universe. Give 3 examples."
Come off it! Myers is free to say, "I'll be glad to explain this
further in private conversation; could we move on to the next
question?"
> Q1 should be easy for PZ, as IIRC he's actually addressed that point
> in his blog.
I wonder how honestly, and if honestly, how effectively.
> Q2-Q8 are beyond me. I guess that means I fail the test. I'm betting
> PZ does better.
It isn't hard to do better than you did so far. ;-)
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
nyikos @ math.sc.edu
Grandbank
Ah, but where would contemporary American politics be without teabag
imagery?
KP
pnyikos
up on talk.origins but are showing up in other Usenet newsgroups.
On May 31, 9:15 pm, Randy C <randyec...@gmail.com> wrote:
Randy C's fixation on the phrase "God of the Gaps" inspired me to come
up with the natural counterpart:
Darwin of the Gaps
This is the default, one-size-fits-all, totally unfalsifiable
naturalistic explanation for any and all biological phenomena:
"Well, it's natural selection, y'know. The __________ that did/could/
are __________ had a survival advantage over the ones that didn't/
couldn't/weren't and so they are the ones we see today."
The irony is that I've seen very few U. of Ediacara types even go THIS
far in trying to explain biological phenomena. Randy C certainly
doesn't even pretend to do so below. So I do a little turnabout on
him.
> > PZ Myers is going to Glasgow to lecture on evolution.
> > Dembski is asking his fans there to attend Myers' lecture and pose the
> > following questions to Myers:
> > 10+1 Questions for Professor Myers:
>
> It would be interesting to see if ANY of these questions support ID,
> since Dembski is an ID abvocate, or whether all of them only argue
> against evolution.
There is no attempt to argue for evolution of any features by Randy C.
below.
> > 1) In light of the Darwinian evolutionary paradigm, can you account for
> > the observation that the eggs [sic; "embryos"?] of the five classes of
> > vertebrate (i.e. fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals) begin
> > markedly different from each other?
> > [snip]
>
> Obviously a question about evolution. Scorecard:
>
"Darwin of the Gaps" arguments: 1
[just put the obvious things in the blanks]
Randy C arguments for evolution: 0
> > 2) Kalinka et al. (2010) have documented that the developmental
> > hourglass model (which describes the observation that embryogenesis
> > within a phylum diverges most extensively during early and late
> > development, while converging in the middle) holds true even with
> > respect to patterns of gene expression, which has a central role in
> > elaboration of different animal forms. Given that mutations affecting
> > the earliest stages of development are the least likely to be
> > evolutionarily tolerated...
>
> Enough said. Scorecard:
>
"Darwin of the Gaps" arguments: 2
Randy C: 0
> > 3) Could you please explain the sheer lack of congruence between
> > anatomical homology and developmental pathways / precursors? Since such
> > congruence is a prediction of neo-Darwinism...
>
> Once again, enough said. Scorecard:
>
"Darwin of the Gaps" arguments: 3
Randy C: 0
Well, you get the picture.
[...]
Picking up the count at the end:
> > 10) Why do Darwinists...
>
> Dembski has achieved what may be a personal record. It took only
> three words for him to begin a "God of the Gaps" argument.
>
> Scorecard:
>
"Darwin of the Gaps" arguments [once Dembski's words are restored and
used to fill in the blanks]: 10
Randy C: 0
> That's what they call a "shutout".
> Clearly and undeniably and indisputably,
Randy C. is incapable of something even as simple as the "Darwin of
the Gaps" argument. :-)
Peter Nyikos
Mark Isaak
A good first step would be to ask the inquirer, "Just to be clear of the
question, could you please give an example of what you are talking
about?", and watch the squirming by the person who had simply memorized
the list.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
pnyikos
like I'll have to repost the ones I did yesterday. Well, here goes
the first reply:
On May 31, 4:22 pm, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote:
> PZ Myers is going to Glasgow to lecture on evolution.
>
> Dembski is asking his fans there to attend Myers' lecture and pose the
> following questions to Myers:
Dembski left out the most embarrassing: why did Myers lie repeatedly
and shamelessly in talk.origins ca. 1997 about a lecture by Behe at
Temple University that he attended part of? Why did almost nothing he
said have any counterpart in Behe's lecture? Why did he shove his
fiction in the face of Julie Thomas, who knew less about Behe than I
did? Why did he run away when I posted a full transcript of Behe's
lecture and showed how shamelessly Myers had lied?
Finally, why did Myers lie that he stayed to the end of the lecture
while one person saw him leave early and Behe could not find him in
the audience at the end?
Being badly outnumbered by Myers fans, I decided to let this last lie
go in order to concentrate on the rest.
> 10+1 Questions for Professor Myers:
>
> 1) In light of the Darwinian evolutionary paradigm, can you account for
> the observation that the eggs [sic; "embryos"?] of the five classes of
> vertebrate (i.e. fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals) begin
> markedly different from each other?
> While the cleavage patterns in four
> of the five classes show some general similarities, the pattern in
> mammals is very different.
Yes; there is even a 3-cell stage in human beings and probably other
mammals, but not amphibians, that Myers will probably be
oblivious to, since he regularly downplays the differences.
> Furthermore, in the gastrulation stage, a
> fish is very different from an amphibian,while both are starkly
> different from reptiles, birds and mammals, which are somewhat similar
> to each other.
I hit Myers on this back in the 1990's. Naturally, he tried to
downplay the differences. He and his fans pretended to be aghast at
my ignorance when I said that, up until a few years before, I thought
that the mammalian blastocyst underwent a similar gastrulation as the
classical pictures you see in high school textbooks: blastulata gets
invagination and becomes a gastrula. The fact that I knew better now
did not do anything to diminish the artificial hilarity.
I even questioned the aptness of the term "gastrulation" since it is
only a small part of the whole organism that undergoes it in mammals.
The rest is taken up by the extraembryonic "membranes" [mis-
translation of Latin "membranum"]: umbilical vesicle ("yolk sac," but
without yolk), allantois, umbilical cord, amniotic sac, trophoblast.
Also, as the article says, the whole process is very different.
Myers kept stonewalling on this.
Myers also stubbornly adhered to a simplistic account of "3 layers" --
ectoderm, endoderm, mesoderm - in vertebrates, ignoring a fourth
component, the neural crest, in mammals (also other vertebrates, IIRC,
but I'm not sure which). I forget how he classed the extraembryonic
membranes of mamals --or if he even tried. Calling them all
"ectoderm" doesn't seem to be the right thing to do.
> Doesn’t Darwinism predict a pattern wherein the earliest
> stages are the most similar and the later stages are the most different?
I doubt it; people who ignorantly rely on Haeckel's fraudulent
pictures of embryos probably do think this, but the phenomenon might
be more
widespread.
> > 2) Kalinka et al. (2010) have documented that the developmental
> > hourglass model (which describes the observation that embryogenesis
> > within a phylum diverges most extensively during early and late
> > development, while converging in the middle) holds true even with
> > respect to patterns of gene expression, which has a central role in
> > elaboration of different animal forms. Given that mutations affecting
> > the earliest stages of development are the least likely to be
> > evolutionarily tolerated, would you please explain how you would account
> > for this observation in terms of evolutionary rationale?
An excellent question, a generalization of Question 1.
> Note: I have omitted the "+1" question because it's an ad hominem
> attack not worth responding to.
A marshmallow attack compared to the *ad hominem* attack (not fallacy)
I do at the beginning of this post.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
>
> > On May 31, 4:22 pm, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote:
>
> *CUT* Please see original
> > Q2-Q8 are beyond me. I guess that means I fail the test. I'm betting
> > PZ does better.
>
> Why should he try? If Rev Dembski wanted to know the answers all
> he has to do is look; _Cell_ has an index where he can find most
> of the answers. Google Scholar has thousands of papers on the
> subjects.
Whenever someone posts something like this in reply to me, I tell them
I have no desire to look through haystacks for (possibly nonexistent)
needles.
The "(possibly nonexistent)" is there because the person I am
addressing gives no specific references. As here.
> Fuck Dembski: he has not earned the right to demand other people
> educate him.
Darwin of the Gaps arguments: 10
AGW Facts: 0
Reference:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/2c01ed40cd08cfe2?dmode=source
Peter Nyikos
Randy C
Evolution makes specific testable and potentially falsifiable
predictions. ID doesn't.
Example: In 2004 fossil remains of a hominid named Homo floresiensis
were found on the island of Flores in Indonesia. DNA was not found,
but paleontologists are actively searching for additional specimens.
If such specimens are found it is quite possible that, as was done
with Neanderthal DNA, the DNA of Homo floresiensis can be recreated.
In the event that such a recreation is achieved, numerous specific
predictions can be made about what will be found in that DNA.
For example, evolution would predict the existence of a number of
pseudogenes. As one example the GULO gene will be broken.
Evolutionists could even be expected to provide a fairly accurate
prediction of how close the GULO gene in Homo floresiensis will match
that of humans. Evolutionary scientists will also make specific
predictions about how close the other pseudogenes in Homo floresiensis
will match those of humans.
Note that if it turns out that the GULO gene would have been actually
working in Homo floresiensis that would be almost impossible for
evolution to explain.
How would ID address such evidence?
**IF** the GULO gene is broken as expected, then ID advocates will
probably say that the gene actually serves some useful function, as
yet undiscovered, and does not falsify ID.
On the other hand, in the very unlikely event that **IF** the GULO
gene was working in Homo floresiensis ID advocates would, quite
justifiably, attack evolution and say that ID is the only alternative.
In other words, nothing could falsify ID. But there are many specific
predictions that could potentially falsify evolution.
So evolution is science and ID is not.
pnyikos
Darwin of the Gaps arguments: 10
Rolf: 0
pnyikos
> On Tue, 31 May 2011 22:20:16 -0700, jillery wrote:
> > On Jun 1, 12:07 am, AGW Facts <AGWFa...@ipcc.org> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 31 May 2011 14:07:51 -0700 (PDT), jillery
>
> >> <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > On May 31, 4:22 pm, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote:
>
> >> *CUT* Please see original
>
> >> > Q2-Q8 are beyond me. I guess that means I fail the test. I'm
> >> > betting PZ does better.
>
> >> Why should he try? If Rev Dembski wanted to know the answers all he
> >> has to do is look; _Cell_ has an index where he can find most of the
> >> answers. Google Scholar has thousands of papers on the subjects.
>
> >> Fuck Dembski: he has not earned the right to demand other people
> >> educate him.
>
> > I agree with your sentiment, but apparently PZ is looking forward to
> > it. My impression is he can't wait to publicly humiliate Dembski.
Myers of the Gaps arguments: 10
[just wanted to break the monotony, folks]
> A good first step would be to ask the inquirer, "Just to be clear of the
> question, could you please give an example of what you are talking
> about?", and watch the squirming by the person who had simply memorized
> the list.
Hee hee. Did you catch my lack of squirming wrt this very challenge
by you and Howard Hershey wrt Q3? Fortuitously, it posted immediately
after Hershey's post even though it was composed yesterday evening!
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
Very good, Vend.
Darwin of the Gaps arguments: 0
Vend: 1
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
Intelligent discourse: 0
Ron Okimoto: 1
pnyikos
Then there is Michael Behe, who cheerfully accepts the evoution of
H.f. and H.s.s. from a common ancestor, and takes his stand elsewhere.
And I cheefully accept the evolution of all metazoans from a common
ancestor and have no problem with the evolution of archae,
eubacteria, and eukaryotes from one common ancestor apiece, but put
my ID arguments just before them and hew to a completely naturalistic
version of ID.
We are a diverse bunch, Randy, and your effort to dismiss us all is
another one-size-fits-all argument, just like the "Darwin of the Gaps"
argument.
Peter Nyikos
Frank J
> PZ Myers is going to Glasgow to lecture on evolution.
>
> Dembski is asking his fans there to attend Myers' lecture and pose the
> following questions to Myers:
>
> 10+1 Questions for Professor Myers:
>
> the observation that the eggs [sic; "embryos"?] of the five classes of
> vertebrate (i.e. fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals) begin
> of the five classes show some general similarities, the pattern in
> fish is very different from an amphibian,while both are starkly
> different from reptiles, birds and mammals, which are somewhat similar
> stages are the most similar and the later stages are the most different?
>
> hourglass model (which describes the observation that embryogenesis
> within a phylum diverges most extensively during early and late
> development, while converging in the middle) holds true even with
> respect to patterns of gene expression, which has a central role in
> elaboration of different animal forms. Given that mutations affecting
> the earliest stages of development are the least likely to be
> for this observation in terms of evolutionary rationale?
>
> anatomical homology and developmental pathways / precursors? Since such
> attack not worth responding to.
>
Note that the mere process of answering the questions constitutes the
same "taking the bait" that Dembski admitted 9 years ago that he will
not do. No matter how well the questions are answered, they will give
Dembski an opportunity to exploit more "gaps" to promote unreasonable
doubt among science-challenged people who want ID or "something like
it" to win.
Also, the mere process of answering the questions keeps the focus on
evolution, and away from ID, which unlike even YEC and OEC can't even
take a simple position on when life originated, let alone when all
those other blessed events occurred. Dembski even admitted that he
personally accepts mainstream science's conclusions on those
questions, but I can almost guarantee that PZ will not call him on
that. Which means that YECs and OECs will interpret this "debate" as
validating their fairy tales.While ID itself continues to accommodate
all the results of everyting from "Darwinism" (which Dembski admitted)
to Geocentric Last Thursdayism.
More classic Dembski chutzpah comes from the "as required by common
descent" question. If he truly had a problem with CD (he claims to be
uncertain about CD in general, but doubts that species "evolved" from
common ancestors, indicating that he might accept saltation of front-
loading) he'd be debating Behe on it.
Randy C
> H.f. and H.s.s. from a common ancestor, and takes his stand elsewhere.
Behe's an especially good example of someone who depends solely on the
“God of the Gaps” argument. Here is Behe’s own definition of
“irreducible complexity”:
[begin quote]
By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-
matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function,
wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to
effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be
produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial
function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight,
successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor
to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by
definition nonfunctional.
[end quote]
Behe’s very definition really says nothing more than “Darwinian
evolution using slight modfications cannot explain this [whatever]
therefore it must be intelligently designed!” That is the “God of the
Gaps” argument writ large.
Thanks for raising him as an example.
> And I cheefully accept the evolution of all metazoans from a common
> ancestor and have no problem with the evolution of archae,
> eubacteria, and eukaryotes from one common ancestor apiece, but put
> my ID arguments just before them and hew to a completely naturalistic
> version of ID.
> We are a diverse bunch, Randy, and your effort to dismiss us all is
> another one-size-fits-all argument, just like the "Darwin of the Gaps"
> argument.
You may be a diverse bunch. But ALL of you have this in common – you
depend solely on the “God of the Gaps” argument to make your case.
Steven L.
The lesbian on MSNBC who invented that insult would just have to invent
another one.
Being a lesbian, I doubt she's ever seen a male human testicle except in
videos and movies.
-- Steven L.
Steven L.
I don't believe that today's ID proponents ever claim that intelligent
design must be perfect design.
How could Dembski claim perfect design, given that he himself wears glasses?
-- Steven L.
TomS
<rOqdnSX9wrVw0HjQ...@earthlink.com>, Steven L. stated..."
>
>PZ Myers is going to Glasgow to lecture on evolution.
>
>Dembski is asking his fans there to attend Myers' lecture and pose the
>following questions to Myers:
>
>
>10+1 Questions for Professor Myers:
>
>1) In light of the Darwinian evolutionary paradigm, can you account for
>the observation that the eggs [sic; "embryos"?] of the five classes of
>vertebrate (i.e. fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals) begin
>markedly different from each other? While the cleavage patterns in four
>of the five classes show some general similarities, the pattern in
>mammals is very different. Furthermore, in the gastrulation stage, a
>fish is very different from an amphibian,while both are starkly
>different from reptiles, birds and mammals, which are somewhat similar
>to each other. Doesn’t Darwinism predict a pattern wherein the earliest
>stages are the most similar and the later stages are the most different?
Could someone explain to me about these so-called "five classes of
vertebrate"?
I thought that the old class of fish, "Pisces", has been universally
discarded as a class; and that is mostly so for "Reptilia"; and maybe
even for "Amphibia"?
--
---Tom S.
"... the heavy people know some magic that can make things move and even fly,
but they're not very bright, because they can't survive without their magic
contrivances"
Xixo, in "The Gods Must Be Crazy II"
jillery
I don't believe that today's evolutionists claim that the opposite of
poor design must be perfect design. OTOH if someone like Dembski
claims that certain things are Intelligently Designed, the statement
implies the design not have obvious and avoidable complications that
are better explained by the historical contingency of unguided natural
processes.
> How could Dembski claim perfect design, given that he himself wears glasses?
You probably meant that last bit as a rhetorical question, but
actually I have two answers. One is that wearing eyeglasses is in
part a consequence of his lifestyle, which is his choice and so not
the responsibility of the Designer. Another is, Dembski may believe
in the notion that it's part of the corruption of the flesh resulting
from Original Sin. I've heard both from as serious arguments from
creationists.
jillery
I doubt you are a lesbian, but if you mean who I think you mean, I
doubt you know this one way or the other. As if it matters one way or
the other.
Randy C
> design must be perfect design.
I don't even know how to define "perfect" as in "perfect design".
Among other things, I suppose that a "perfect design" would mean able
to eat anything, not susceptable to aging and invincible to
predators. There's probably lots of other stuff I'm leaving out.
chris thompson
> "On Tue, 31 May 2011 16:22:03 -0400, in article
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >PZ Myers is going to Glasgow to lecture on evolution.
>
> >Dembski is asking his fans there to attend Myers' lecture and pose the
> >following questions to Myers:
>
> >10+1 Questions for Professor Myers:
>
> >1) In light of the Darwinian evolutionary paradigm, can you account for
> >the observation that the eggs [sic; "embryos"?] of the five classes of
> >vertebrate (i.e. fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals) begin
> >markedly different from each other? While the cleavage patterns in four
> >of the five classes show some general similarities, the pattern in
> >mammals is very different. Furthermore, in the gastrulation stage, a
> >fish is very different from an amphibian,while both are starkly
> >different from reptiles, birds and mammals, which are somewhat similar
> >to each other. Doesn t Darwinism predict a pattern wherein the earliest
> >stages are the most similar and the later stages are the most different?
>
> [...snip...]
>
> Could someone explain to me about these so-called "five classes of
> vertebrate"?
>
> I thought that the old class of fish, "Pisces", has been universally
> discarded as a class; and that is mostly so for "Reptilia"; and maybe
> even for "Amphibia"?
I don't know about Amphibia, but certainly Pisces (as constructed
previously) is not considered a valid taxon, nor is Aves.
Like most creationists, Dembski probably believes that we should have
stuck rigidly to Linnaeus' scheme. Obviously, older is better.
Chris
jillery
>
> > > Moreover, not only are there different embryological (i.e.
> > > non-homologous) processes and different genetic mechanisms to apparently
> > > homologous organs. But there is also the conundrum of homologous genetic
> > > mechanisms for analogous (i.e. non-homologous) organs. And then there is
> > > also the problem of homologous structures arising from different
> > > embryological sources,
>
> See above for whether the word "homologous" is even appropriate for
> such a thing.
>
> [deletia of things to be discussed later]
>
> > > Note: I have omitted the "+1" question because it's an ad hominem
> > > attack not worth responding to.
>
> > > -- Steven L.
>
> > This reminds me of the kind of test with questions like "In 25 words
> > or less, describe the Universe. Give 3 examples."
>
> Come off it! Myers is free to say, "I'll be glad to explain this
> further in private conversation; could we move on to the next
> question?"
That's something you do regularly.
> > Q1 should be easy for PZ, as IIRC he's actually addressed that point
> > in his blog.
>
> I wonder how honestly, and if honestly, how effectively.
You don't have to wonder. His blog archives are readily available and
indexed. All you have to do is look.
> > Q2-Q8 are beyond me. I guess that means I fail the test. I'm betting
> > PZ does better.
>
> It isn't hard to do better than you did so far. ;-)
Well, I answered two, and you pretended to answer one. You better
hope they grade on a curve.
jillery
You like this answer? I bet Vend didn't say what you think he said.
jillery
> On Jun 1, 11:42 am, Mark Isaak <eci...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 31 May 2011 22:20:16 -0700, jillery wrote:
> > > On Jun 1, 12:07 am, AGW Facts <AGWFa...@ipcc.org> wrote:
> > >> On Tue, 31 May 2011 14:07:51 -0700 (PDT), jillery
>
> > >> <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > On May 31, 4:22 pm, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote:
>
> > >> *CUT* Please see original
>
> > >> > Q2-Q8 are beyond me. I guess that means I fail the test. I'm
> > >> > betting PZ does better.
>
> > >> Why should he try? If Rev Dembski wanted to know the answers all he
> > >> has to do is look; _Cell_ has an index where he can find most of the
> > >> answers. Google Scholar has thousands of papers on the subjects.
>
> > >> Fuck Dembski: he has not earned the right to demand other people
> > >> educate him.
>
> > > I agree with your sentiment, but apparently PZ is looking forward to
> > > it. My impression is he can't wait to publicly humiliate Dembski.
>
> Myers of the Gaps arguments: 10
What Gap?
> [just wanted to break the monotony, folks]
You're still posting. Try harder.
> > A good first step would be to ask the inquirer, "Just to be clear of the
> > question, could you please give an example of what you are talking
> > about?", and watch the squirming by the person who had simply memorized
> > the list.
>
> Hee hee. Did you catch my lack of squirming wrt this very challenge
> by you and Howard Hershey wrt Q3? Fortuitously, it posted immediately
> after Hershey's post even though it was composed yesterday evening!
More standard bombast and bluster. Very monotonous.
Tom McDonald
She didn't invent it, your bigotry to the contrary notwithstanding.
--
Tom
John Stockwell
> CC: DIG and John Wilkins, as before, because my posts aren't showing
> up on talk.origins but are showing up in other Usenet newsgroups.
>
> On May 31, 9:15 pm, Randy C <randyec...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Randy C's fixation on the phrase "God of the Gaps" inspired me to come
> up with the natural counterpart:
>
> Darwin of the Gaps
>
> This is the default, one-size-fits-all, totally unfalsifiable
> naturalistic explanation for any and all biological phenomena:
>
> "Well, it's natural selection, y'know. The __________ that did/could/
> are __________ had a survival advantage over the ones that didn't/
> couldn't/weren't and so they are the ones we see today."
>
> The irony is that I've seen very few U. of Ediacara types even go THIS
> far in trying to explain biological phenomena. Randy C certainly
> doesn't even pretend to do so below. So I do a little turnabout on
> him.
The basic property of a scientific theory is that it "fills in the
gaps" of our knowledge
with predictions, most of which can never be tested. Only some
predictions need to
be testable, as our level of knowledge expands. Such predictions must
give us enough information
for us to evaluate how well the theory is performing. To use Peter's
same absurd (il)logic we
might consider "Newton of the gaps" as filling in all past and future
positions of the dwarf
planet Pluto. There is no way that we will ever be able to test the
calculated past positions
of Pluto, but in the case of future positions, as time goes on we fill
in the gaps. The main
difference is that Newton of the gaps describes a process, whereas the
God of the gaps
is an hypothetical identity identification telling us nothing about
processes.
In the case of evolution, every time a gene is mapped, or a fossil is
found gaps are filled in
our view of biology. Compare this with all forms of creationism,
including intelligent design
creationism, and we see that there are no testable predictions that
can illuminate our knowledge
of the phenomena of the world. Indeed, what is indicative is if the
theory can actually be used
in a dynamic way to understand some aspect of the world in a day to
day fashion. Creationism,
as well as intelligent design creationism actually have not been shown
to actually be good
for anything, so even at the level of utility, these ideas fail the
science test.
John Stockwell
Again, the problem you have is that there is no process that goes with
"ID". ID is 100%
argument from ignorance. The entire claim is that ID is to be assumed
because
we can't figure out any process of origin of the object, and thus
label it "designed".
It's always interesting how ID seems to be found in the shadows of our
ignorance and
never in the daylight of our knowledge.
-John
Burkhard
There is another crucial difference to the one you identified. The
"God of the gaps" would be fine if the gap were stable(it is not a
fallacy per se, I'd say) The problem with G o g is not so much one of
epistemology or methodology, but theology. The gaps have the
unfortunate habit of getting smaller and smaller, so pinning your
metaphysical outlook to one is at the very least dangerous.
To the best of my knowledge, we do not day by day find that Darwinian
explanations have to be withdrawn because something else entirely has
been identified as the causal facto - then and only then would the
analogy be valid (ignoring your rebuttal for the sake of the argument)
pnyikos
> Note that the mere process of answering the questions constitutes the
> same "taking the bait" that Dembski admitted 9 years ago that he will
> not do.
I cannot "Note" something where one side of the picture is completely
unknown to me. Please provide a reference.
>No matter how well the questions are answered, they will give
> Dembski an opportunity to exploit more "gaps" to promote unreasonable
> doubt among science-challenged people who want ID or "something like
> it" to win.
This adversarial attitude is what keeps talk.origins from making more
than one solid contribution to evolutionary theory per year (maybe per
decade: the last I saw was Keith Robison's treatment of the blood
clotting cascade by invoking autocatalycity).
> Also, the mere process of answering the questions keeps the focus on
> evolution,
And what, pray tell, is wrong with giving evolutionary biologists some
challenging problems to solve? Isn't science all about satisfying our
curiosity about natural phenomena?
> and away from ID, which unlike even YEC and OEC can't even
> take a simple position on when life originated,
Because ID is not a monolithic movement, as I pointed out to Randy C.
I can't even take a simple position on that subject where life on
earth is concerned. I have three alternative hypotheses, incompatible
with each other.
I am in the business of seeking the truth, not in the business of
politically motivated polemics.
As to life itself, I merely take the position that it first occurred
naturally on another planet, beating the less-than-once-in-a-universe
odds because this is one of the universes that beat the odds, as
opposed to the far greater number of universes that did not.
> let alone when all
> those other blessed events occurred. Dembski even admitted that he
> personally accepts mainstream science's conclusions on those
> questions,
Can you find a reference to this last bit?
> but I can almost guarantee that PZ will not call him on
> that.
I can almost guarantee that PZ will misrepresent him as shamelessly as
he did a lecture by Behe that I wrote about in my second successful
post to this thread. And he won't be much nicer about it than you are
in your next two sentences.
>Which means that YECs and OECs will interpret this "debate" as
> validating their fairy tales.While ID itself continues to accommodate
> all the results of everyting from "Darwinism" (which Dembski admitted)
> to Geocentric Last Thursdayism.
You're putting the cart before the horse: GLT accommodates itself to
the designer-agnostic methodology of the DI people. As do all
standard brands of creationism.
> More classic Dembski chutzpah comes from the "as required by common
> descent" question. If he truly had a problem with CD (he claims to be
> uncertain about CD in general,
Huh? What was the meaning of your statement, "(which Dembski
admitted)?
> but doubts that species "evolved" from
> common ancestors, indicating that he might accept saltation of front-
> loading) he'd be debating Behe on it.
What's front-loading?
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> > Then there is Michael Behe, who cheerfully accepts the evoution of
> > H.f. and H.s.s. from a common ancestor, and takes his stand elsewhere.
>
> Behe's an especially good example of someone who depends solely on the
> God of the Gaps argument.
Get real.
> Here is Behe s own definition of
> irreducible complexity :
>
> [begin quote]
> By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-
> matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function,
> wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to
> effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be
> produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial
> function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight,
> successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor
> to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by
> definition nonfunctional.
> [end quote]
>
> Behe s very definition
You're making the same mistake Forrest did in conflating the
definition of IC with a consequence of both it AND the inadequately
defined term "directly". In the last clause, Behe is using the term
"by definition" to apply to the "definitions" of both terms.
This becomes clear in the sequel, where he admits that there could be
indirect ways of producing IC systems, but the more compllicated the
system, the lower the probabliity of an indirect route.
I call this the "IC gives more bang for the buck" argument and
explains why I am not particularly impressed by the claim that
something is IC. It's the details I am interested in, and my fondness
for the bacterial flagellum has very little to do with it being IC (or
not) and more with the *kind* of complexity it displays.
[Randy C riding his "God of the Gaps" hobbyhorse snipped here]
> > And I cheefully accept the evolution of all metazoans from a common
> > ancestor and have no problem with the evolution of archae,
> > eubacteria, and eukaryotes from one common ancestor apiece, but put
> > my ID arguments just before them and hew to a completely naturalistic
> > version of ID.
> > We are a diverse bunch, Randy, and your effort to dismiss us all is
> > another one-size-fits-all argument, just like the "Darwin of the Gaps"
> > argument.
>
> You may be a diverse bunch. But ALL of you have this in common you
> depend solely on the God of the Gaps argument to make your case.
Randy C. 1, reality 0.
Your claim is utterly false where I am concerned. I don't use ID to
explain anything, I derive it as a consequence of mathematically based
theories. In fact, in one of my three alternative directed panspermia
hypotheses ID can be completely dispensed with.
I gave Forrest, who argues a lot like you, a bunch of urls to look at
to see what my theories and hypotheses are like. He buried his head
in the sand about them with "Frankly I don't care" and refused to look
at them.
Would you do the same? Judging from the way you've been trolling on
another thread, I suspect the answer is a resounding "YES!"
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
On Jun 1, 1:40 pm, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> "On Tue, 31 May 2011 16:22:03 -0400, in article
> <rOqdnSX9wrVw0HjQnZ2dnUVZ_o-dn...@earthlink.com>, Steven L. stated..."
> >PZ Myers is going to Glasgow to lecture on evolution.
>
> >Dembski is asking his fans there to attend Myers' lecture and pose the
> >following questions to Myers:
>
> >10+1 Questions for Professor Myers:
>
> >1) In light of the Darwinian evolutionary paradigm, can you account for
> >the observation that the eggs [sic; "embryos"?] of the five classes of
> >vertebrate (i.e. fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals) begin
> >markedly different from each other? While the cleavage patterns in four
> >of the five classes show some general similarities, the pattern in
> >mammals is very different. Furthermore, in the gastrulation stage, a
> >fish is very different from an amphibian,while both are starkly
> >different from reptiles, birds and mammals, which are somewhat similar
> >to each other. Doesn t Darwinism predict a pattern wherein the earliest
> >stages are the most similar and the later stages are the most different?
>
> [...snip...]
>
> Could someone explain to me about these so-called "five classes of
> vertebrate"?
>
> I thought that the old class of fish, "Pisces", has been universally
> discarded as a class;
About a century ago it was split into four classes and sometimes
five. One of those classes, Placodermi, included some fish with more
than two pairs of paired fins, and is long extinct.
> and that is mostly so for "Reptilia"; and maybe
> even for "Amphibia"?
These two are still valid Linnean classes, but are paraphyletic and
therefore are shunned by cladophiles, as are three of the "fish"
classes. Cladophiles seem to be dominating systematics more and more,
but there are still a few devotees of the old Linnean system, and some
people hoping to rescue the Linnean system by modernizing it. I have
an idea for doing that but, not being a systematist, I don't think the
chances of success are worth the effort.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
Amphibia is out as far as the cladophiles are concerned. There are
Temnospondyls (ye olde "Labyrinthodonts"), Embolomeres, Lepospondyls,
Batrachosaurs, and Lissamphibians, currently believed to be a clade
within Temnospondyla AFAIK. But it may still turn out to be
polyphyletic, hence anathema fot both cladophiles and most Linneans.
The cladophiles will split Amphibia into as many clades as necessary
to maintain a classification that uses clades and only clades.
So, where do you get your information that Aves is not considered a
valid taxon. It's a clade, isn't it?
Peter Nyikos
Paul J Gans
>On May 31, 8:17 pm, Vend <ven...@virgilio.it> wrote:
>> On May 31, 11:07 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Q10 may be technically correct but ISTM simply misses the point; the
>> > vas deferens uses a circuitous route because of developmental
>> > contingency, similarly to the recurrent laryngeal nerve, and contrary
>> > to ID poofery.
>>
>> This question is particularly IDiotic, considering that external
>> testicles do really look like a bad design to begin with.
>> Most mammals have an abdominal temperature of 38 C, which is too high
>> for their testicles to produce sperm, so that they dangle outside the
>> body wall for cooling.
>> But birds have an even higher body temperature and yet their internal
>> testicles are perfectly functional.
>>
>> This is consistent with independent evolution of thermal regulation in
>> birds and mammals, or with very incompetent (or man-hating) design.
>I bet there is some Casey Luskin wannabe out there trying to figure
>out an intelligently designed benefit of external vs. internal
>testicles.
God is a woman?
--
--- Paul J. Gans
Frank J
Just what you think it is and pretend not to know. Read "Darwin's
Black Box." Behe is careful not to call it by name, but it's the
*only* alternative that he proposes.
Funny how he has not bothered to test it in 15 years. As one critic
notes, a human pseudogene for chlorophyll would vindicate him.
>
> Peter Nyikos
Frank J
Sorry for the 2nd reply, but I'm having trouble locating replies, and
didn't notice that this replied to my post.
>
> > Note that the mere process of answering the questions constitutes the
> > same "taking the bait" that Dembski admitted 9 years ago that he will
> > not do.
>
> I cannot "Note" something where one side of the picture is completely
> unknown to me. Please provide a reference.
You can google it just like everyone else. But to be nice I'll help:
Look for "as for your example, I'm not going to take the bait"
>
> >No matter how well the questions are answered, they will give
>
> > Dembski an opportunity to exploit more "gaps" to promote unreasonable
> > doubt among science-challenged people who want ID or "something like
> > it" to win.
>
> This adversarial attitude is what keeps talk.origins from making more
> than one solid contribution to evolutionary theory per year (maybe per
> decade: the last I saw was Keith Robison's treatment of the blood
> clotting cascade by invoking autocatalycity).
*They* are the ones making it adversarial. They are free to elaborate
on theit "theory" and test it, but they refuse. Even YECs command more
respect than these clowns.
>
> > Also, the mere process of answering the questions keeps the focus on
> > evolution,
>
> And what, pray tell, is wrong with giving evolutionary biologists some
> challenging problems to solve? Isn't science all about satisfying our
> curiosity about natural phenomena?
Nothing, but that is not what Dembski is doing.
>
> > and away from ID, which unlike even YEC and OEC can't even
> > take a simple position on when life originated,
>
> Because ID is not a monolithic movement, as I pointed out to Randy C.
There are the odd exceptions like you, but 99.9% of it is the big
tent, rooted in radical fundamentalism, and you know it.
>
> I can't even take a simple position on that subject where life on
> earth is concerned. I have three alternative hypotheses, incompatible
> with each other.
>
> I am in the business of seeking the truth, not in the business of
> politically motivated polemics.
Nor am I. I am still waiting for them - or any evolution denier - to
submit a proposal in response to my April 2007 post. You can look that
up too.
>
> As to life itself, I merely take the position that it first occurred
> naturally on another planet, beating the less-than-once-in-a-universe
> odds because this is one of the universes that beat the odds, as
> opposed to the far greater number of universes that did not.
Great. Have you tested it? On its own merits, and not "weaknesses" of
"Darwinism."
>
> > let alone when all
> > those other blessed events occurred. Dembski even admitted that he
> > personally accepts mainstream science's conclusions on those
> > questions,
>
> Can you find a reference to this last bit?
Yes. And so can you and the readers.
>
> > but I can almost guarantee that PZ will not call him on
> > that.
>
> I can almost guarantee that PZ will misrepresent him as shamelessly as
> he did a lecture by Behe that I wrote about in my second successful
> post to this thread. And he won't be much nicer about it than you are
> in your next two sentences.
He will be much nicer, as he will give them just what they want
(evolution = atheism).
>
> >Which means that YECs and OECs will interpret this "debate" as
> > validating their fairy tales.While ID itself continues to accommodate
> > all the results of everyting from "Darwinism" (which Dembski admitted)
> > to Geocentric Last Thursdayism.
>
> You're putting the cart before the horse: GLT accommodates itself to
> the designer-agnostic methodology of the DI people. As do all
> standard brands of creationism.
But unless it states the whats, whens and hows - even YEC and OEC can
do that - it's 100% worthless. Even worse, as it shoves under the rug
differences with which YEC and OEC fans could have healthy debates.
>
> > More classic Dembski chutzpah comes from the "as required by common
> > descent" question. If he truly had a problem with CD (he claims to be
> > uncertain about CD in general,
>
> Huh? What was the meaning of your statement, "(which Dembski
> admitted)?
Again you ask for what you can find easily. But against my better
judgment I'll help the "handicapped" yet again. Google "Is intelligent
Design testable?" The year was 2001.
While you're at it, before you pretend not to know what the big tent
is, google "the big tent and the camel's nose" which is Eugenie
Scott's reply to Dembski.
>
> > but doubts that species "evolved" from
> > common ancestors, indicating that he might accept saltation of front-
> > loading) he'd be debating Behe on it.
>
> What's front-loading?
Answered previously.
>
> Peter Nyikos
Frank J
Sorry for the 2nd reply, but I'm having trouble locating replies, and
didn't notice that this replied to my post.
>
> > Note that the mere process of answering the questions constitutes the
> > same "taking the bait" that Dembski admitted 9 years ago that he will
> > not do.
>
> I cannot "Note" something where one side of the picture is completely
> unknown to me. Please provide a reference.
You can google it just like everyone else. But to be nice I'll help:
Look for "as for your example, I'm not going to take the bait"
>
> >No matter how well the questions are answered, they will give
>
> > Dembski an opportunity to exploit more "gaps" to promote unreasonable
> > doubt among science-challenged people who want ID or "something like
> > it" to win.
>
> This adversarial attitude is what keeps talk.origins from making more
> than one solid contribution to evolutionary theory per year (maybe per
> decade: the last I saw was Keith Robison's treatment of the blood
> clotting cascade by invoking autocatalycity).
*They* are the ones making it adversarial. They are free to elaborate
on theit "theory" and test it, but they refuse. Even YECs command more
respect than these clowns.
>
> > Also, the mere process of answering the questions keeps the focus on
> > evolution,
>
> And what, pray tell, is wrong with giving evolutionary biologists some
> challenging problems to solve? Isn't science all about satisfying our
> curiosity about natural phenomena?
Nothing, but that is not what Dembski is doing.
>
> > and away from ID, which unlike even YEC and OEC can't even
> > take a simple position on when life originated,
>
> Because ID is not a monolithic movement, as I pointed out to Randy C.
There are the odd exceptions like you, but 99.9% of it is the big
tent, rooted in radical fundamentalism, and you know it.
>
> I can't even take a simple position on that subject where life on
> earth is concerned. I have three alternative hypotheses, incompatible
> with each other.
>
> I am in the business of seeking the truth, not in the business of
> politically motivated polemics.
Nor am I. I am still waiting for them - or any evolution denier - to
submit a proposal in response to my April 2007 post. You can look that
up too.
>
> As to life itself, I merely take the position that it first occurred
> naturally on another planet, beating the less-than-once-in-a-universe
> odds because this is one of the universes that beat the odds, as
> opposed to the far greater number of universes that did not.
Great. Have you tested it? On its own merits, and not "weaknesses" of
"Darwinism."
>
> > let alone when all
> > those other blessed events occurred. Dembski even admitted that he
> > personally accepts mainstream science's conclusions on those
> > questions,
>
> Can you find a reference to this last bit?
Yes. And so can you and the readers.
>
> > but I can almost guarantee that PZ will not call him on
> > that.
>
> I can almost guarantee that PZ will misrepresent him as shamelessly as
> he did a lecture by Behe that I wrote about in my second successful
> post to this thread. And he won't be much nicer about it than you are
> in your next two sentences.
He will be much nicer, as he will give them just what they want
(evolution = atheism).
>
> >Which means that YECs and OECs will interpret this "debate" as
> > validating their fairy tales.While ID itself continues to accommodate
> > all the results of everyting from "Darwinism" (which Dembski admitted)
> > to Geocentric Last Thursdayism.
>
> You're putting the cart before the horse: GLT accommodates itself to
> the designer-agnostic methodology of the DI people. As do all
> standard brands of creationism.
But unless it states the whats, whens and hows - even YEC and OEC can
do that - it's 100% worthless. Even worse, as it shoves under the rug
differences with which YEC and OEC fans could have healthy debates.
>
> > More classic Dembski chutzpah comes from the "as required by common
> > descent" question. If he truly had a problem with CD (he claims to be
> > uncertain about CD in general,
>
> Huh? What was the meaning of your statement, "(which Dembski
> admitted)?
Again you ask for what you can find easily. But against my better
judgment I'll help the "handicapped" yet again. Google "Is intelligent
Design testable?" The year was 2001.
While you're at it, before you pretend not to know what the big tent
is, google "the big tent and the camel's nose" which is Eugenie
Scott's reply to Dembski.
>
> > but doubts that species "evolved" from
> > common ancestors, indicating that he might accept saltation of front-
> > loading) he'd be debating Behe on it.
>
> What's front-loading?
Answered previously.
>
> Peter Nyikos
*Hemidactylus*
[snip]
> Actually PZ's CV (PZsCVPZsCV... sorry) hasn't been updated since 2003,
> about when Pharyngula started
>
> http://www.morris.umn.edu/directories/personnel/cv/Myers.html
>
> However Paul is a teaching professor, not a research professor, and he
> spends his time educating. All the publications of his I have been able
> to find since then are educational or public policy. That is fine. He
> has quite a much longer list of research publications than, say Jonathon
> Wells.
I was tickled to find a citation of his in the Selected Readings section
of a text of mine from when I was educated and stuff. The text was Kent
and Miller's *Comparative Anatomy of the Vertebrates* (eight edition)
and on page 418 of this fine book they reference:
Myers, P.Z. Spinal motorneurones of the larval zebrafish, Journal of
Comparative Neurology 236: 555, 1985
I've always had high regard for Myers especially when he and Larry sat
in the balcony seats here for all that time mocking our muppet show. If
memory serves, you tended to get along much better with Paul than Larry
the grouch (am I mixing muppet metaphors?).
The Paul and Larry show was one of the finer times of the t.o. golden age.
--
DJ *Hemidactylus* (see below)
Hemi's choice of the moment:
Strafe-Set it Off
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9XLB3fzJsM
jillery
Being a woman is one way to have internal gonads.
pnyikos
"private conversation" in Usenet terms means private e-mail, and I
don't recall suggesting a move to private e-mail to anyone since I
returned to Usenet posting in 2008, so I don't know what you are
babbling about.
> > > Q1 should be easy for PZ, as IIRC he's actually addressed that point
> > > in his blog.
>
> > I wonder how honestly, and if honestly, how effectively.
>
> You don't have to wonder. His blog archives are readily available and
> indexed. All you have to do is look.
Ah, yes, the Myers of the Gaps argument.
If it's so easy, suppose you tell me what it's indexed under.
> > > Q2-Q8 are beyond me. I guess that means I fail the test. I'm betting
> > > PZ does better.
>
> > It isn't hard to do better than you did so far. ;-)
>
> Well, I answered two,
You addressed two.
Big difference: you spoke vaguely about scientists in Q9 with IIUC,
which means that if someone cites five scientists who say what Q9 says
Darwinists say, you can simply say, "I didn't mean *those*
scientists."
And Vend did much better than you on Q10. IMO he did better than a
Darwin of the Gaps argument could have, and that's why I gave him
1-0.
> and you pretended to answer one.
Nonsense. I gave a concrete example pertaining to Q3, something
Hershey was incapable of doing and thus was not sure what to say about
it. And the fact that it had to do with a long, drawn-out dispute
back in the 1990's in which he played an even more stubborn role than
Myers, only makes it all the sweeter.
Like Randy C., you are way too generous to yourself and too stingy
towards others.
> You better
> hope they grade on a curve.
You spoke too soon. I went ahead with Q1, and I mean to get around to
a good number of the others, especially the ones on which Hershey is
waffling. You, on the other hand, threw in the towel on Q2-Q8.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
You bet because you have some of the most farfetched ideas of where I
am coming from. [Admittedly, Ron Okimoto is far worse--but then, he is
far worse than anyone else.]
I award points on a winner-take-all basis for each topic. The kind of
situation Vend handled so well is the kind where the Darwin of the
Gaps arguments, though still applicable as always, are at a
disadvantage because they have to postulate natural selection working
to produce one thing that is radically inferior to the thing that
emerged on the other evolutionary pathway. The fact that mammals came
up with what looks like a very clumsy solution to endothermy begs the
question: why didn't mammalian sperm evolve, by gradual Darwinian
steps, to be more tolerant of body heat?
In the beginning, when mammals (or therapsids--sorry about that,
Harshman) that began to evolve endothermy, one would expect that those
strains whose sperm could tolerate slightly higher temperatures would
be at an obvious survival advantage. After all
"fitness" (counteintuitively) is measured by the number of descendants
one has.
One would expect heat-toleration and endothermy to co-evolve, and
evidently they did in birds (or dinosaurs--there, that will make
Harshman happy!) but for some inexplicable reason the Darwinian
argument did not apply to mammals.
Thus one must cast about for a better reason, but the Darwin of the
Gaps argument doesn't much care about that: since the scrota evolved,
there *must* have been some survival advantage for testicles to be
hanging like that, because *why* *else* would we be in this condition
today?
Of course, the Darwin of the Gaps argument is at its best when it can
be dovetailed with a plausible explanation of HOW it happened. That
is why ultra-Darwinists ought to enjoy talking about birds, and would
be embarrassed by our scrota if it weren't an article of faith with
them that there *had* *to* *be* something that made the Diapsids with
descending testicles more fit.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
"I answered two, and you pretended to answer one.
You better hope they grade on a curve."
-- jillery, in post immediately before this one
Mine is nothing compared to that of Randy C., and of numerous other
people. You're just sore because I've documented you slandering me
twice.
This was the second step in the following logical progression:
3. you jeer at me and claim I never caught you,
4. I document you slandering me,
5. you delete everything, label it fruitless and off topic, and
"invite" me to start discussing on-topic stuff.
You''re lucky I set my face like flint to Okimoto's relentless pukings
on me shortly before, during, and after Holy Week, and the face-set
lingered long enough for me to stay on-topic all through our debate on
those genetically altered mice and Doolittle's embarrassing
oversight. As a result, I ignored all your flamebait, and we never
came to blows.
But in the end, I had the last word.
TEST OF JILLERY-SIMULATING SOFTWARE :-)
> But in the end, I had the last word.
More standard bombast and bluster. Very monotonous.
END OF TEST :-)
pnyikos
> On Jun 1, 9:33 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > CC: DIG and John Wilkins, as before, because my posts aren't showing
> > up on talk.origins but are showing up in other Usenet newsgroups.
>
> > On May 31, 9:15 pm, Randy C <randyec...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Randy C's fixation on the phrase "God of the Gaps" inspired me to come
> > up with the natural counterpart:
>
> > Darwin of the Gaps
>
> > This is the default, one-size-fits-all, totally unfalsifiable
> > naturalistic explanation for any and all biological phenomena:
>
> > "Well, it's natural selection, y'know. The __________ that did/could/
> > are __________ had a survival advantage over the ones that didn't/
> > couldn't/weren't and so they are the ones we see today."
>
> > The irony is that I've seen very few U. of Ediacara types even go THIS
> > far in trying to explain biological phenomena. Randy C certainly
> > doesn't even pretend to do so below. So I do a little turnabout on
> > him.
>
> The basic property of a scientific theory is that it "fills in the
> gaps" of our knowledge
> with predictions, most of which can never be tested.
Wait. It is a source of endless mirth that many of my predicitions
involving directed panspermy can never be tested, so much so that when
I last had a chance to mention that I do have some predictions that
*can* be tested, the response was "Frankly I don't care."
>Only some
> predictions need to
> be testable, as our level of knowledge expands. Such predictions must
> give us enough information
> for us to evaluate how well the theory is performing. To use Peter's
> same absurd (il)logic
Stop right there. What you describe below is something very much
unlike Darwin of the Gaps, which is deliberately modeled after God of
the Gaps.
The fact that your kind (especially Randy C., which is why I chose HIS
screed to introduce the Darwin of the Gaps concept) dishonestly
ascribe "God of the Gaps" arguments to various people on a truly
gargantuan scale does NOT mean that I am about to do the same with
"Darwin of the Gaps". That is why, for example, the score is Vend 1,
Darwin of the Gaps 0.
> we
> might consider "Newton of the gaps" as filling in all past and future
> positions of the dwarf
> planet Pluto. There is no way that we will ever be able to test the
> calculated past positions
> of Pluto, but in the case of future positions, as time goes on we fill
> in the gaps. The main
> difference is that Newton of the gaps describes a process, whereas the
> God of the gaps
> is an hypothetical identity identification telling us nothing about
> processes.
>
> In the case of evolution, every time a gene is mapped, or a fossil is
> found gaps are filled in
> our view of biology.
You are preaching to the choir in ALL what you wrote after your
gratuitous dig at me. And so, I have nothing more to say to you here.
Additional preaching to the choir deleted, along with the 3/4 of my
post that you did not respond to.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
Not my kind of ID; of course, Randy may have been talking about the
very narrow Judge-Jones-dependent concept of ID, but what I do is
something utterly different.
[...]
> > > On the other hand, in the very unlikely event that **IF** the GULO
> > > gene was working in Homo floresiensis ID advocates would, quite
> > > justifiably, attack evolution and say that ID is the only alternative.
>
> > Then there is Michael Behe, who cheerfully accepts the evolution of
> > H.f. and H.s.s. from a common ancestor, and takes his stand elsewhere.
>
> > And I cheefully accept the evolution of all metazoans from a common
> > ancestor and have no problem with the evolution of archae,
> > eubacteria, and eukaryotes from one common ancestor apiece, but put
> > my ID arguments just before them and hew to a completely naturalistic
> > version of ID.
>
> > We are a diverse bunch, Randy, and your effort to dismiss us all is
> > another one-size-fits-all argument, just like the "Darwin of the Gaps"
> > argument.
>
> Again, the problem you have is that there is no process that goes with
> "ID". ID is 100%
> argument from ignorance.
You are using a definition of ID which makes this last sentence true
by definition of terms. But then, it makes the sentence preceding it
inapplicable to me, along with the following:
> The entire claim is that ID is to be assumed
> because
> we can't figure out any process of origin of the object, and thus
> label it "designed".
That lets me off the hook. My claims have nothing in common with
this.
> It's always interesting how
...much you and Randy C. love to construct strawmen when you can't use
science to refute your opponents.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> On Jun 1, 9:24 pm, John Stockwell <john.19071...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 1, 9:33 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > CC: DIG and John Wilkins, as before, because my posts aren't showing
> > > up on talk.origins but are showing up in other Usenet newsgroups.
>
> > > On May 31, 9:15 pm, Randy C <randyec...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Randy C's fixation on the phrase "God of the Gaps" inspired me to come
> > > up with the natural counterpart:
>
> > > Darwin of the Gaps
>
> > > This is the default, one-size-fits-all, totally unfalsifiable
> > > naturalistic explanation for any and all biological phenomena:
>
> > > "Well, it's natural selection, y'know. The __________ that did/could/
> > > are __________ had a survival advantage over the ones that didn't/
> > > couldn't/weren't and so they are the ones we see today."
>
> > > The irony is that I've seen very few U. of Ediacara types even go THIS
> > > far in trying to explain biological phenomena. Randy C certainly
> > > doesn't even pretend to do so below. So I do a little turnabout on
> > > him.
>
> > The basic property of a scientific theory is that it "fills in the
> > gaps" of our knowledge
> > with predictions,
[delete other stuff addressed in my last post]
>
> There is another crucial difference to the one you identified. The
> "God of the gaps" would be fine if the gap were stable(it is not a
> fallacy per se, I'd say) The problem with G o g is not so much one of
> epistemology or methodology, but theology. The gaps have the
> unfortunate habit of getting smaller and smaller,
The gaps YOU look at have that habit. Other gaps keep getting larger,
as we discover that our universe has not lasted forever stretching
back in time, that there is dark matter and dark energy, that our
cells are not "blobs of protoplasmic jelly," etc.
Apropos of that last bit, a huge gap that I'd been oblivious to
suddenly opened up in front of me when I read Christian de Duve's
_Vital Dust_. That book had the opposite of its intended effect on
me, and I've told the story to many people far more receptive and far
more competent than you, so I won't repeat it here.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
>
> > What's front-loading?
>
> Just what you think it is
Until I read your last two lines below, I hadn't the foggiest idea.
>and pretend not to know. Read "Darwin's
> Black Box."
I did, years ago, and have been refreshing my memory of big chunks of
it, but the term "front-loading" is not one I recognize.
> Behe is careful not to call it by name, but it's the
> *only* alternative that he proposes.
Are you referring to "God did it?" He mentions another. [keyword:
Crick]
> Funny how he has not bothered to test it in 15 years.
Oops, looks like I guessed wrong.
> As one critic
> notes, a human pseudogene for chlorophyll would vindicate him.
OK, I see that this refers to all kinds of pseudogenes being put into
the first cell, to come alive at the proper time.
But "vindicate" is a strong word. The anti-Behe faction would still
rule the roost in talk.origins, claiming that one swallow doth not a
summer make.
By the way, the Robison-Miller explanation of how the clotting cascade
could have gradually evolved was a blessing in disguise for Behe.
Once pseudogenes for all the proteins in the cascade are no longer
needed, the ancestral super-cells begin to take on more reasonable
proportions.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> On Jun 1, 4:37 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 1, 12:29 pm, Frank J <f...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > As to life itself, I merely take the position that it first occurred
> > naturally on another planet, beating the less-than-once-in-a-universe
> > odds because this is one of the universes that beat the odds, as
> > opposed to the far greater number of universes that did not.
>
> Great. Have you tested it? On its own merits, and not "weaknesses" of
> "Darwinism."
I never touched the "weaknesses" of Darwinism where it was concerned.
It's to do with abiogenesis, not evolution.
There are tests possible, and I'm waiting eagerly for one article to
appear which might provide a test.
>
>
> > > let alone when all
> > > those other blessed events occurred. Dembski even admitted that he
> > > personally accepts mainstream science's conclusions on those
> > > questions,
>
> > Can you find a reference to this last bit?
>
> Yes. And so can you and the readers.
The "10+1" article carries the byline "Jonathan M". Why is everyone
associating it with William Dembski? His name doesn't even appear in
the article.
> > >Which means that YECs and OECs will interpret this "debate" as
> > > validating their fairy tales.While ID itself continues to accommodate
> > > all the results of everyting from "Darwinism" (which Dembski admitted)
> > > to Geocentric Last Thursdayism.
>
> > You're putting the cart before the horse: GLT accommodates itself to
> > the designer-agnostic methodology of the DI people. As do all
> > standard brands of creationism.
>
> But unless it states the whats, whens and hows - even YEC and OEC can
> do that - it's 100% worthless. Even worse, as it shoves under the rug
> differences with which YEC and OEC fans could have healthy debates.
Yes, it doesn't want to alienate its main source of funds.
It's lonely espousing some middle courses--just look at how low
participation is in alt.agnosticism compared to alt.atheism and all
the religious newsgroups.
>
>
> > > More classic Dembski chutzpah comes from the "as required by common
> > > descent" question. If he truly had a problem with CD (he claims to be
> > > uncertain about CD in general,
>
> > Huh? What was the meaning of your statement, "(which Dembski
> > admitted)?
>
> Again you ask for what you can find easily.
Not the way you worded it up there.
> But against my better
> judgment I'll help the "handicapped" yet again. Google "Is intelligent
> Design testable?" The year was 2001.
What's that got to do with accommodating Darwinism? Oh, wait, I
accommodate Darwinism and yet I find my brand of ID testable.
Do you still think I can get something out of that reference?
> While you're at it, before you pretend not to know what the big tent
> is, google "the big tent and the camel's nose" which is Eugenie
> Scott's reply to Dembski.
Why do you keep using the word "pretend" in connection with all these
arcane minutiae? .
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> On Jun 1, 4:37 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 1, 12:29 pm, Frank J <f...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > Note that the mere process of answering the questions constitutes the
> > > same "taking the bait" that Dembski admitted 9 years ago that he will
> > > not do.
>
> > I cannot "Note" something where one side of the picture is completely
> > unknown to me. Please provide a reference.
>
> You can google it just like everyone else. But to be nice I'll help:
> Look for "as for your example, I'm not going to take the bait"
Thanks. It was an incredibly open ended question Dembski was asked,
so I'm surprised to see it being compared to the highly specific ten
questions that are the the topic of this thread.
I would NOT be surprised if it had come from most of the other
participants of this thread, but I thought you had better sense than
this.
Anyway, thanks again for the tip. "Dembski take bait" did the job
beautifully. And I posted a response there to someone who got
specific and asked about the bacterial flagellum.
> > >No matter how well the questions are answered, they will give
> > > Dembski an opportunity to exploit more "gaps" to promote unreasonable
> > > doubt among science-challenged people who want ID or "something like
> > > it" to win.
>
> > This adversarial attitude is what keeps talk.origins from making more
> > than one solid contribution to evolutionary theory per year (maybe per
> > decade: the last I saw was Keith Robison's treatment of the blood
> > clotting cascade by invoking autocatalycity).
>
> *They* are the ones making it adversarial. They are free to elaborate
> on theit "theory"
I've been doing that since 1996 whenever I post to talk.origins, and
so I am skeptical about the rest of what you say about this.
> and test it, but they refuse.
Huh? I thought they got down to work after Dover.
>
>
> > > Also, the mere process of answering the questions keeps the focus on
> > > evolution,
>
> > And what, pray tell, is wrong with giving evolutionary biologists some
> > challenging problems to solve? Isn't science all about satisfying our
> > curiosity about natural phenomena?
>
> Nothing, but that is not what Dembski is doing.
If you are talking about the 10+1 questions, PZ Myers is not the right
man to expect research from, as someone has already commented.
What's more, I think PZ Myers disdains explanations of how something
might have evolved. He not only showed no interest in explaining how
the intermediate forms between a colugo-type glider and a bat might
have had some survival advantage over the forms immediately preceding
them, he even caviled at irrelevant details of a scenario I proposed
and acted as though that discredited my whole proposal.
The net result was that ABEKA still held most of the high cards in
this issue when I quit talk.origins in 2001; has anything changed in
the meantime?
I sometimes get the impression that most of the anti-creationists
have the Myers attitude: "don't try to explain evolutionary mysteries,
it'll just be acknowledging that there is a mystery there and we want
to create the impression that we have all the answers already."
> > > and away from ID, which unlike even YEC and OEC can't even
> > > take a simple position on when life originated,
>
> > Because ID is not a monolithic movement, as I pointed out to Randy C.
>
> There are the odd exceptions like you, but 99.9% of it is the big
> tent, rooted in radical fundamentalism, and you know it.
No. There are Roman Catholics and mainline Protestants involved, and
I wonder how many fundies are actually involved in it. Perhaps you
are thinking of where most of the money and support comes from, but
that's like trying to discredit the whole Republican Party of 1860
because of its "big tent" which included big business and the "vote
yourself a farm" crowd in addition to the antislavery faction.
>
>
> > I can't even take a simple position on that subject where life on
> > earth is concerned. I have three alternative hypotheses, incompatible
> > with each other.
>
> > I am in the business of seeking the truth, not in the business of
> > politically motivated polemics.
>
> Nor am I. I am still waiting for them - or any evolution denier - to
> submit a proposal in response to my April 2007 post. You can look that
> up too.
You made only one post to talk.origins in April 2007??
Concluded in next post.
Peter Nyikos
Erwin Moller
> On May 31, 3:22 pm, "Steven L."<sdlit...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote:
>> PZ Myers is going to Glasgow to lecture on evolution.
>>
>> Dembski is asking his fans there to attend Myers' lecture and pose the
>> following questions to Myers:
>>
>> 10+1 Questions for Professor Myers:
>>
>
> to eleven anymore. Being an IDiot must be some sort of degenerative
> disease.
>
> Ron Okimoto
>
Ron, see last note in the original posting:
"Note: I have omitted the "+1" question because it's an ad hominem
attack not worth responding to."
Regards,
Erwin Moller
--
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without
evidence."
-- Christopher Hitchens
Rolf
It just gets ever more boring as time passes by without anything new.
pzm...@gmail.com
Nyikos, back on TO, and right away he resurrects a 14 year old grudge
and repeats in his pretentious, tendentious way the same old
ridiculous claims that I dismissed so long ago. Has he spent the last
decade in suspended animation in a UFO or something?
And it's classic lying Nyikos again -- I somehow "ignore" neural
crest? He, a biologically ignorant mathematician, questions the whole
concept of gastrulation? I am not encouraged to spend any further time
on TO. I definitely won't be wasting time on the pompous fraud.
TomS
<is6dra$nu4$1...@reader1.panix.com>, Paul J Gans stated..."
A woman designed the human birth process?
--
---Tom S.
"... the heavy people know some magic that can make things move and even fly,
but they're not very bright, because they can't survive without their magic
contrivances"
Xixo, in "The Gods Must Be Crazy II"
jillery
You could even say monotonous.
>
>
>
> > -John
>
> >> Peter Nyikos
> >> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> >> University of South Carolinahttp://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
> >> nyikos @ math.sc.edu- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
jillery
Sore? Documented? You are deluded.
> This was the second step in the following logical progression:
> 3. you jeer at me and claim I never caught you,
More delusion.
> 4. I document you slandering me,
MOTS
> 5. you delete everything, label it fruitless and off topic, and
> "invite" me to start discussing on-topic stuff.
Discussing off-topic stuff is your style. Nothing fruitful and on-
topic about discussing your past failures.
> You''re lucky I set my face like flint to Okimoto's relentless pukings
> on me shortly before, during, and after Holy Week, and the face-set
> lingered long enough for me to stay on-topic all through our debate on
> those genetically altered mice and Doolittle's embarrassing
> oversight. As a result, I ignored all your flamebait, and we never
> came to blows.
>
> But in the end, I had the last word.
Apparently the last word is all that matters to you. But then it's
important to achieve a goal of which you are capable.
> TEST OF JILLERY-SIMULATING SOFTWARE :-)
>
> > But in the end, I had the last word.
>
> More standard bombast and bluster. Very monotonous.
>
> END OF TEST :-)
Looks like Nyikos-simulating software to me.
jillery
Nobody mentioned usenet. Babble on, nyikos.
> > > > Q1 should be easy for PZ, as IIRC he's actually addressed that point
> > > > in his blog.
>
> > > I wonder how honestly, and if honestly, how effectively.
>
> > You don't have to wonder. His blog archives are readily available and
> > indexed. All you have to do is look.
>
> Ah, yes, the Myers of the Gaps argument.
>
> If it's so easy, suppose you tell me what it's indexed under.
I'll be glad to explain this further in private conversation.
>
> > > > Q2-Q8 are beyond me. I guess that means I fail the test. I'm betting
> > > > PZ does better.
>
> > > It isn't hard to do better than you did so far. ;-)
>
> > Well, I answered two,
>
> You addressed two.
>
> Big difference: you spoke vaguely about scientists in Q9 with IIUC,
> which means that if someone cites five scientists who say what Q9 says
> Darwinists say, you can simply say, "I didn't mean *those*
> scientists."
Then cite five living scientists who say what Q9 says Darwinists say
> And Vend did much better than you on Q10. IMO he did better than a
> Darwin of the Gaps argument could have, and that's why I gave him
> 1-0.
Repeat of your unsupported assertion noted. The irony is I agree with
you. Which is why ISTM you don't understand what he wrote.
> > and you pretended to answer one.
>
> Nonsense. I gave a concrete example pertaining to Q3, something
> Hershey was incapable of doing and thus was not sure what to say about
> it.
Nothing concrete about your silly allusions to a Broadway play.
>And the fact that it had to do with a long, drawn-out dispute
> back in the 1990's in which he played an even more stubborn role than
> Myers, only makes it all the sweeter.
>
> Like Randy C., you are way too generous to yourself and too stingy
> towards others.
>
> > You better
> > hope they grade on a curve.
>
> You spoke too soon. I went ahead with Q1, and I mean to get around to
> a good number of the others, especially the ones on which Hershey is
> waffling.
Be sure to use the index. Oh wait, I forgot, you don't know how.
> You, on the other hand, threw in the towel on Q2-Q8.
I simply acknowledged my unfamiliarity with the terms. Since you can
claim future efforts for yourself, I see no reason why you disallow
that same dodge for me.
RAM
No your "kind" is based upon the equally specious "looks designed."
If you have evidence of other than natural or human design (I prefer
to term it pattern [to avoid the loaded term "design"]) in nature
please provide it.
>
> [...]
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > On the other hand, in the very unlikely event that **IF** the GULO
> > > > gene was working in Homo floresiensis ID advocates would, quite
> > > > justifiably, attack evolution and say that ID is the only alternative.
>
> > > Then there is Michael Behe, who cheerfully accepts the evolution of
> > > H.f. and H.s.s. from a common ancestor, and takes his stand elsewhere.
>
> > > And I cheefully accept the evolution of all metazoans from a common
> > > ancestor and have no problem with the evolution of archae,
> > > eubacteria, and eukaryotes from one common ancestor apiece, but put
> > > my ID arguments just before them and hew to a completely naturalistic
> > > version of ID.
>
> > > We are a diverse bunch, Randy, and your effort to dismiss us all is
> > > another one-size-fits-all argument, just like the "Darwin of the Gaps"
> > > argument.
>
> > Again, the problem you have is that there is no process that goes with
> > "ID". ID is 100%
> > argument from ignorance.
>
> You are using a definition of ID which makes this last sentence true
> by definition of terms. But then, it makes the sentence preceding it
> inapplicable to me, along with the following:
Why not?
>
> > The entire claim is that ID is to be assumed
> > because
> > we can't figure out any process of origin of the object, and thus
> > label it "designed".
>
> That lets me off the hook. My claims have nothing in common with
> this.
They have the same lack of scientific evidence that the Dover ID
version has. What more could you possibly provide.
>
> > It's always interesting how
>
> ...much you and Randy C. love to construct strawmen when you can't use
> science to refute your opponents.
>
> Peter Nyikos
RAM
pnyikos
[...]
>
> > > > > > Picking up the count at the end:
>
> > > > > > > > 10) Why do Darwinists...
>
> > > > > > > Dembski has achieved what may be a personal record. It took only
> > > > > > > three words for him to begin a "God of the Gaps" argument.
>
> > > > > > > Scorecard:
>
> > > > > > "Darwin of the Gaps" arguments [once Dembski's words are restored and
> > > > > > used to fill in the blanks]: 10
> > > > > > Randy C: 0
>
> > > > > > > That's what they call a "shutout".
> > > > > > > Clearly and undeniably and indisputably,
>
> > > > > > ...Randy C. is incapable of something even as simple as the
> > > > > >"Darwin of the Gaps" argument. :-)
>
> > > > > > Peter Nyikos
>
> > > > > Evolution makes specific testable and potentially falsifiable
> > > > > predictions. ID doesn't.
>
> > Not my kind of ID; of course, Randy may have been talking about the
> > very narrow Judge-Jones-dependent concept of ID, but what I do is
> > something utterly different.
>
> No your "kind" is based upon the equally specious "looks designed."
False. It is a rather insignificant starting place, sometimes, but I
go well beyond that.
> If you have evidence of other than natural or human design (I prefer
> to term it pattern [to avoid the loaded term "design"]) in nature
> please provide it.
If you get a responsible person to make this request, I will honor
it. But you aren't even as responsible an adult as Richard Forrest.
I posted at least three urls of posts that bear on this request, and
he said "Frankly I don't care." And he had been far more detailed
about things of the same general nature as your "looks designed"
crack.
I've hardly heard from him since.
But I'll give you a little hint: Google "directed panspermy" in
Subject: lines. I started two of those talk.origins threads earlier
this year.
> > [...]
>
> > > > > On the other hand, in the very unlikely event that **IF** the GULO
> > > > > gene was working in Homo floresiensis ID advocates would, quite
> > > > > justifiably, attack evolution and say that ID is the only alternative.
>
> > > > Then there is Michael Behe, who cheerfully accepts the evolution of
> > > > H.f. and H.s.s. from a common ancestor, and takes his stand elsewhere.
>
> > > > And I cheefully accept the evolution of all metazoans from a common
> > > > ancestor and have no problem with the evolution of archae,
> > > > eubacteria, and eukaryotes from one common ancestor apiece, but put
> > > > my ID arguments just before them and hew to a completely naturalistic
> > > > version of ID.
>
> > > > We are a diverse bunch, Randy, and your effort to dismiss us all is
> > > > another one-size-fits-all argument, just like the "Darwin of the Gaps"
> > > > argument.
>
> > > Again, the problem you have is that there is no process that goes with
> > > "ID". ID is 100%
> > > argument from ignorance.
>
> > You are using a definition of ID which makes this last sentence true
> > by definition of terms. But then, it makes the sentence preceding it
> > inapplicable to me, along with the following:
>
> Why not?
See what I wrote about metazoans and Googling "directed panspermy"
above.
The way Google works, you'll also get a huge number of threads where
the term appears in posts. A huge benefit of my alternative spelling
"panspermy" [everyone else writes "panspermia"] is that you're highly
likely to catch posts by me.
>
> > > The entire claim is that ID is to be assumed
> > > because
> > > we can't figure out any process of origin of the object, and thus
> > > label it "designed".
>
> > That lets me off the hook. My claims have nothing in common with
> > this.
>
> They have the same lack of scientific evidence that the Dover ID
> version has.
See what I said about you not being even as much of a responsible
adult as Forrest.
> What more could you possibly provide.
Google and see. If you want information in more highly concentrated
form, you know what you need to do.
> > > It's always interesting how
>
> > ...much you and Randy C. love to construct strawmen when you can't use
> > science to refute your opponents.
>
> > Peter Nyikos
>
> RAM
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
Are you claiming to know me from somewhere else?
Or were you shamelessly talking off the top of your head when you
wrote, "That's something you do regularly."?
> Babble on, nyikos.
Keep digging yourself in deeper, "jillery".
Do you even have the guts to tell me your real name? Let alone where
you work or what your position is? [Compare my virtulal .sig below]
> > > > > Q1 should be easy for PZ, as IIRC he's actually addressed that point
> > > > > in his blog.
>
> > > > I wonder how honestly, and if honestly, how effectively.
>
> > > You don't have to wonder. His blog archives are readily available and
> > > indexed. All you have to do is look.
>
> > Ah, yes, the Myers of the Gaps argument.
>
> > If it's so easy, suppose you tell me what it's indexed under.
>
> I'll be glad to explain this further in private conversation.
Then do so. You can reach me either at nyikos2 @bellsouth.net or
nyikos @math.sc.edu
The spaces are there to foil the Google algorithm which puts ellipses
instead of the last three characters before the @.
All comments kept confidential unless you give permission otherwise.
Remainder deleted, to be replied to later.
pnyikos
> On Jun 1, 10:27�pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 1, 2:11�pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 1, 12:12�pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 1, 11:42�am, Mark Isaak <eci...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Tue, 31 May 2011 22:20:16 -0700, jillery wrote:
> > > > > > On Jun 1, 12:07�am, AGW Facts <AGWFa...@ipcc.org> wrote:
> > > > > >> On Tue, 31 May 2011 14:07:51 -0700 (PDT), jillery
>
> > > > > >> <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >> > On May 31, 4:22 pm, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > >> *CUT* Please see original
>
> > > > > >> > betting PZ does better.
>
> > > > > >> Why should he try? If Rev Dembski wanted to know the answers all he
> > > > > >> has to do is look; _Cell_ has an index where he can find most of the
> > > > > >> answers. Google Scholar has thousands of papers on the subjects.
>
> > > > > >> Fuck Dembski: he has not earned the right to demand other people
> > > > > >> educate him.
>
> > > > > > I agree with your sentiment, but apparently PZ is looking forward to
> > > > > > it. My impression is he can't wait to publicly humiliate Dembski.
>
> > > > Myers of the Gaps arguments: 10
>
> > > What Gap?
>
> > > > [just wanted to break the monotony, folks]
>
> > > You're still posting. Try harder.
>
> > > > > A good first step would be to ask the inquirer, "Just to be clear of the
> > > > > question, could you please give an example of what you are talking
> > > > > about?", and watch the squirming by the person who had simply memorized
> > > > > the list.
>
> > > > by you and Howard Hershey wrt Q3? �Fortuitously, it posted immediately
> > > > after Hershey's post even though it was composed yesterday evening!
>
> > > More standard bombast and bluster. Very monotonous.
>
> > "I answered two, and you pretended to answer one.
> > You better hope they grade on a curve."
> > -- jillery, in post immediately before this one
...thereby showing 'e doesn't practice what 'e preaches. You'll see
more of the same below, folks.
> > Mine is nothing compared to that of Randy C., and of numerous other
> > people. You're just sore because I've documented you slandering me
> > twice.
>
> Sore? Documented? You are deluded.
I see you've moved to step 3 below.
> > This was the second step in the following logical progression:
> > 3. you jeer at me and claim I never caught you,
>
> More delusion.
You did it just now, liar.
> > 4. I document you slandering me,
>
> MOTS
I've done it twice before, liar.
I'll do it again, next week. Right now I have some substantive things
to write about, and besides, you'll only go on to Step 5 like you did
on both of those occasions, won't you?
> > 5. you delete everything, label it fruitless and off topic, and
> > "invite" me to start discussing on-topic stuff.
>
> Discussing off-topic stuff is your style.
See, you're already hinting at doing it while writing completely off-
topic all through this post...
> Nothing fruitful and on-
> topic about discussing your past failures.
...and repeatedly lying to boot.
> > You''re lucky I set my face like flint to Okimoto's relentless pukings
> > on me shortly before, during, and after Holy Week, and the face-set
> > lingered long enough for me to stay on-topic all through our debate on
> > those genetically altered mice and Doolittle's embarrassing
> > oversight. �As a result, I ignored all your flamebait, and we never
> > came to blows.
>
> > But in the end, I had the last word.
>
> Apparently the last word is all that matters to you. But then it's
> important to achieve a goal of which you are capable.
>
> > TEST OF JILLERY-SIMULATING SOFTWARE :-)
>
> > > But in the end, I had the last word.
>
> > More standard bombast and bluster. Very monotonous.
>
> > END OF TEST :-)
>
> Looks like Nyikos-simulating software to me.
"I know you are, but what am I"
Who do you think you are fooling?
Peter Nyikos
jillery
> ...and repeatedly lying to boot.
I'm done with you.
pnyikos
The real PZ Myers, or a forger?
> Whoa...maybe the Tribulation did begin last week, because here's Peter
> Nyikos, back on TO, and right away he resurrects a 14 year old grudge
A "grudge" that would destroy your credibility, except that it's
already been destroyed in the eyes of one hunk of people following
your wrtings, and nothing you could possibly do could destroy it in
the eyes of another big hunk.
The latter hunk probably includes most of the people posting to
talk.origins, especially Paul Gans and Howard Hershey.
> and repeats in his pretentious, tendentious way the same old
> ridiculous claims that I dismissed so long ago.
dismissed by burying your head in the sand about most of them, that
is.
Here's a clue, whoever you are. That old "Thomas More" bit was taken
from a thread titled, "Paul Myers buries his head in the sand."
You would do well to peruse that whole thread, you shameless four-
flusher.
> Has he spent the last
> decade in suspended animation in a UFO or something?
I took a long vacation from Usenet in 2001-2008 but did participate in
other forums from time to time. I resumed posting to my first old
stomping grounds, talk.abortion, just before the 2008 election. I
resumed posting to talk.abortion in Decemer of last year.
> And it's classic lying Nyikos again -- I somehow "ignore" neural
> crest?
In the beginning, you did.
> He, a biologically ignorant mathematician, questions the whole
> concept of gastrulation?
No, liar. I just questioned whether what happens in mammals is
homologous to what happens in frogs.
> I am not encouraged to spend any further time
> on TO. I definitely won't be wasting time on the pompous fraud.
Without even trying to exonerate yourself (or the real Paul Myers, if
you are a forger) of having shamelessly lied about Behe's Temple
University lecture?
Without even mentioning why an amnion produced by the cytotrophoblast
is supposed to be homologous to one produced by the epiblast?
If you are the real Paul Myers, can I expect you to ban me from
Pharyngula? If you don't, and you don't "waste" any more time on me
here, expect to get a comment there titled, "PZ Myers can run, but he
can't hide."
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
nyikos @ math.sc.edu
Ph.D. Carnegie-Mellon University, 1971
pnyikos
<Since_humans_read_this_I_am_spammed_too_m...@spamyourself.com> wrote:
> On 6/1/2011 4:24 AM, Ron O wrote:
>
> > On May 31, 3:22 pm, "Steven L."<sdlit...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote:
> >> PZ Myers is going to Glasgow to lecture on evolution.
>
> >> Dembski is asking his fans there to attend Myers' lecture and pose the
> >> following questions to Myers:
>
> >> 10+1 Questions for Professor Myers:
>
> > I thought that Dembski claimed to know his math. He can't even count
> > to eleven anymore. Being an IDiot must be some sort of degenerative
> > disease.
>
> > Ron Okimoto
>
> Ron, see last note in the original posting:
> "Note: I have omitted the "+1" question because it's an ad hominem
> attack not worth responding to."
Only because it is such a marshmallow question. He'd have a hard time
not responding to a question about his Temple Universitly lies.
> Regards,
> Erwin Moller
You certainly were easy on Ron after he puked all over Dembski.
And he may even have puked over the wrong man. The original article
had the byline Jonathan M. I don't know how Steve L. associated
Dembski with it.
Peter Nyikos
Jeffrey Turner
>>
>>> Q10 may be technically correct but ISTM simply misses the point; the
>>> vas deferens uses a circuitous route because of developmental
>>> contingency, similarly to the recurrent laryngeal nerve, and contrary
>>> to ID poofery.
>>
>> This question is particularly IDiotic, considering that external
>> testicles do really look like a bad design to begin with.
>> Most mammals have an abdominal temperature of 38 C, which is too high
>> for their testicles to produce sperm, so that they dangle outside the
>> body wall for cooling.
>> But birds have an even higher body temperature and yet their internal
>> testicles are perfectly functional.
>>
>> This is consistent with independent evolution of thermal regulation in
>> birds and mammals, or with very incompetent (or man-hating) design.
>
> I bet there is some Casey Luskin wannabe out there trying to figure
> out an intelligently designed benefit of external vs. internal
> testicles.
I'm sure there's something relevant to be said about teabaggers here,
but I can't pin it down.
--Jeff
--
It is very easy for rich people to preach
the virtues of self-reliance to the poor.
--Winston Churchill
pnyikos
just now. I'm surprised he didn't put a mug shot of himself there,
though. He's hardlly that retiring on Pharyngula.
Anyway, I stand by everything I wrote in reply to him just now.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> I took a long vacation from Usenet in 2001-2008 but did participate in
> other forums from time to time. I resumed posting to my first old
> stomping grounds, talk.abortion, just before the 2008 election. I
> resumed posting to talk.abortion in Decemer of last year.
That second "talk.abortion" should be "talk.origins."
jillery
If you are the "pharyngula" PZM, it is TO's loss and your gain. You
have many high-calibre trolls to deal with, and so have no need to
waste your time with juvenile bottom-feeding scum-suckers like nyikos.
pnyikos
> If you are the "pharyngula" PZM, it is TO's loss and your gain. You
> have many high-calibre trolls to deal with, and so have no need to
> waste your time with juvenile bottom-feeding scum-suckers like nyikos.
You and PZM are birds of a feather, including your hit-and-run
tactics, and the way you bury your heads in the sand, and the events
leading up to that act. Here is the post that inaugurated the thread
I was referring to in my reply to him:
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: nyi...@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Date: 1997/04/10
Subject: Paul Myers buries his head in the sand
For a considerable time in March, Paul Myers indulged in hit-and-run
tactics against me, running away when his attacks backfired
instead of facing the music, at times even proclaiming that
he was not going to deal with such and such charges, only
to attack me again on another thread as though the previous
backfire had never taken place. The hit and run tactics
reached a nadir of sorts on the thread,
"Evolution of blood clotting (Was: Amino Acids and Abiogenesis.)"
commencing the 24th of March.
Then, on March 30, he unilaterally declared a week-long
cease-fire on the thread, "Behe's last laugh (Was: Amino Acids
and Abiogenesis.)" in a post that contained several unjustified cheap
shots,
and expected me to abide by it without him having acknowledged having
done anything wrong besides being angry at me and giving vent
to that anger. NO hint that he had shamelessly and hypocritically
misrepresented me again and again, nor that he had indulged in
numerous dirty debating tricks against me.
Naturally, I did not abide by the cease-fire, any more than
the Russians were willing to make a generous peace treaty
with the Germans shortly after the battle of Stalingrad.
When the cease-fire ended, Paul got in some especially deceitful
attacks and dirty debating tricks against me and Joe Potter on the
thread, "Towards a real FAQ on irreducible complexity". Then,
returning to the thread where he had annouced the cease-fire,
he whined about my attacks in the interim, never breathing
a hint of his own resumption of hostilities in the "...FAQ..."
thread. He even indulged in a bit of misdirection:
"Over the course of the
past week, I've noticed that you have referred to me quite
frequently and
without any provocation,"
A highly dishonest attack on Joe Potter, full of "logic" as
tortuous as any you can find in Plato's _Euthydemus_, which he
conducted
on that "...FAQ..." thread even before the cease-fire was over,
evidently
does not count as provocation in his eyes.
His post was full of innuendo, self-righteousness, and a piece
of logic so blatantly phoney I can't believe even a mind as
warped as his could believe it for an instant: the claim that
my continued strong words about him were proof that my earlier
strong words against him had not been his fault at all.
Using this breathless piece of illogic as an excuse, he
announced he was killfiling me. This has happened so often
in Usenet: a person whose dishonesty and hypocrisy have
been exposed posts a fresh batch of same, then figuratively plugs
his ears, like a little boy who no longer wants to hear
scolding and shouts, "I can't hear you! I can't hear you!"
This completed the act of burying his head in the sand: he had
already explicitly told me not to send him CC's of any posts
and made some pretty strong hints that my e-mail would not
be welcome either, at least not to the address from which
practically all his deceitfulness, hypocrisy and invective has
issued.
Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
========== end of post archived at
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/be1d249a3a4fa20c
Peter Nyikos
RAM
So you assert.
>
> > If you have evidence of other than natural or human design (I prefer
> > to term it pattern [to avoid the loaded term "design"]) in nature
> > please provide it.
>
> If you get a responsible person to make this request, I will honor
> it. But you aren't even as responsible an adult as Richard Forrest.
> I posted at least three urls of posts that bear on this request, and
> he said "Frankly I don't care." And he had been far more detailed
> about things of the same general nature as your "looks designed"
> crack.
>
In other words you know you have nothing to offer but distractions.
> I've hardly heard from him since.
>
> But I'll give you a little hint: Google "directed panspermy" in
> Subject: lines. I started two of those talk.origins threads earlier
> this year.
>
I believe I have read most of these posts. Maybe I missed one where
you demonstrate "directed panspermy" is a scientifically demonstrated
example of "design."
In other words you don't have an explanation other than asserting
"directed panspermy."
Which of course does not in of itself imply "ID."
>
>
> > > > The entire claim is that ID is to be assumed
> > > > because
> > > > we can't figure out any process of origin of the object, and thus
> > > > label it "designed".
>
> > > That lets me off the hook. My claims have nothing in common with
> > > this.
>
> > They have the same lack of scientific evidence that the Dover ID
> > version has.
>
> See what I said about you not being even as much of a responsible
> adult as Forrest.
I could care less Mr Non-Responsive Child-like Person .
You clearly as a putative adult have nothing to offer other than
"directed panspermy" which begs the question of ID.
>
> > What more could you possibly provide.
>
> Google and see. If you want information in more highly concentrated
> form, you know what you need to do.
Again I remain unimpressed by your assertions that "directed
panspermy" is scientific evidence of ID.
Do you have scientific evidence for "directed panspermy?" If so I
would like to see it. Again I probably have not read all of your
"directed panspermy" posts but I have read enough to completely
dismiss it as having scientific value for ID.
You could provide several critical scientific facts about "directed
panspermy" that demonstrates it is evidence for ID.
So far my "looks designed" argument "looks good." Your "directed
panspermy" posts (again with the proviso that I may have missed some)
that show scientific facts that lead to a scientific ID interpretation
is not in evidence.
>
> > > > It's always interesting how
>
> > > ...much you and Randy C. love to construct strawmen when you can't use
> > > science to refute your opponents.
>
> > > Peter Nyikos
>
> > RAM
>
> Peter Nyikos
RAM
jillery
> On Jun 2, 11:43 am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > If you are the "pharyngula" PZM, it is TO's loss and your gain. You
> > have many high-calibre trolls to deal with, and so have no need to
> > waste your time with juvenile bottom-feeding scum-suckers like nyikos.
>
> You and PZM are birds of a feather, including your hit-and-run
> tactics, and the way you bury your heads in the sand, and the events
> leading up to that act.
I am not allowed around here to play with trolls like you, nor am I
allowed to defend myself from them, and that is the only reason you
get away with it here and now. So pretty please crawl back under the
bridge you came from.
Paul J Gans
What took you so long? ;-)
--
--- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
Good to see you back, even if only briefly. But if I may, I
suggest that you simply ignore the ignorant mathematician, as
so many of us here have done!
Anyway PZ, keep up the good fight!
Paul J Gans
>"On Wed, 1 Jun 2011 22:18:19 +0000 (UTC), in article
><is6dra$nu4$1...@reader1.panix.com>, Paul J Gans stated..."
>>
>>jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On May 31, 11:07 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > Q10 may be technically correct but ISTM simply misses the point; the
>>>> > vas deferens uses a circuitous route because of developmental
>>>> > contingency, similarly to the recurrent laryngeal nerve, and contrary
>>>> > to ID poofery.
>>>>
>>>> This question is particularly IDiotic, considering that external
>>>> testicles do really look like a bad design to begin with.
>>>> Most mammals have an abdominal temperature of 38 C, which is too high
>>>> for their testicles to produce sperm, so that they dangle outside the
>>>> body wall for cooling.
>>>> But birds have an even higher body temperature and yet their internal
>>>> testicles are perfectly functional.
>>>>
>>>> This is consistent with independent evolution of thermal regulation in
>>>> birds and mammals, or with very incompetent (or man-hating) design.
>>
>>
>>>I bet there is some Casey Luskin wannabe out there trying to figure
>>>out an intelligently designed benefit of external vs. internal
>>>testicles.
>>
>>God is a woman?
>>
>A woman designed the human birth process?
Well, there *is* that...
On the other hand, perhaps God is a Xordaxian?
John Stockwell
> On Jun 1, 4:34 pm, John Stockwell <john.19071...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 1, 10:24 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 1, 12:04 pm, Randy C <randyec...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 1, 10:33 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > up on talk.origins but are showing up in other Usenet newsgroups.
>
>
> > > > > Randy C's fixation on the phrase "God of the Gaps" inspired me to come
> > > > > up with the natural counterpart:
>
> > > > > Darwin of the Gaps
>
> > > > > This is the default, one-size-fits-all, totally unfalsifiable
> > > > > naturalistic explanation for any and all biological phenomena:
>
> > > > > "Well, it's natural selection, y'know. The __________ that did/could/
> > > > > are __________ had a survival advantage over the ones that didn't/
> > > > > couldn't/weren't and so they are the ones we see today."
>
> > > > > The irony is that I've seen very few U. of Ediacara types even go THIS
> > > > > far in trying to explain biological phenomena. Randy C certainly
> > > > > doesn't even pretend to do so below. So I do a little turnabout on
> > > > > him.
>
> > > > > > > PZ Myers is going to Glasgow to lecture on evolution.
> > > > > > > Dembski is asking his fans there to attend Myers' lecture and pose the
> > > > > > > following questions to Myers:
> > > > > > > 10+1 Questions for Professor Myers:
>
> > > > > > It would be interesting to see if ANY of these questions support ID,
> > > > > > since Dembski is an ID abvocate, or whether all of them only argue
> > > > > > against evolution.
>
> > > > > There is no attempt to argue for evolution of any features by Randy C.
> > > > > below.
>
> > > > > > > the observation that the eggs [sic; "embryos"?] of the five classes of
> > > > > > > vertebrate (i.e. fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals) begin
> > > > > > > markedly different from each other?
> > > > > > > [snip]
>
> > > > > > Obviously a question about evolution. Scorecard:
>
> > > > > "Darwin of the Gaps" arguments: 1
> > > > > [just put the obvious things in the blanks]
> > > > > Randy C arguments for evolution: 0
>
> > > > > > > 2) Kalinka et al. (2010) have documented that the developmental
> > > > > > > hourglass model (which describes the observation that embryogenesis
> > > > > > > within a phylum diverges most extensively during early and late
> > > > > > > development, while converging in the middle) holds true even with
> > > > > > > respect to patterns of gene expression, which has a central role in
> > > > > > > elaboration of different animal forms. Given that mutations affecting
> > > > > > > the earliest stages of development are the least likely to be
> > > > > > > evolutionarily tolerated...
>
>
> > > > > "Darwin of the Gaps" arguments: 2
> > > > > Randy C: 0
>
> > > > > > > 3) Could you please explain the sheer lack of congruence between
> > > > > > > anatomical homology and developmental pathways / precursors? Since such
>
> > > > > > Once again, enough said. Scorecard:
>
> > > > > "Darwin of the Gaps" arguments: 3
> > > > > Randy C: 0
>
> > > > > Well, you get the picture.
>
>
> > > > > Picking up the count at the end:
>
> > > > > > > 10) Why do Darwinists...
>
> > > > > > Dembski has achieved what may be a personal record. It took only
> > > > > > three words for him to begin a "God of the Gaps" argument.
>
> > > > > > Scorecard:
>
> > > > > "Darwin of the Gaps" arguments [once Dembski's words are restored and
> > > > > used to fill in the blanks]: 10
> > > > > Randy C: 0
>
> > > > > > That's what they call a "shutout".
> > > > > > Clearly and undeniably and indisputably,
>
> > > > > the Gaps" argument. :-)
>
> > > > > Peter Nyikos
>
> > > > Evolution makes specific testable and potentially falsifiable
> > > > predictions. ID doesn't.
>
> Not my kind of ID; of course, Randy may have been talking about the
> very narrow Judge-Jones-dependent concept of ID, but what I do is
> something utterly different.
>
>
>
>
> > > > On the other hand, in the very unlikely event that **IF** the GULO
> > > > gene was working in Homo floresiensis ID advocates would, quite
> > > > justifiably, attack evolution and say that ID is the only alternative.
>
> > > Then there is Michael Behe, who cheerfully accepts the evolution of
> > > H.f. and H.s.s. from a common ancestor, and takes his stand elsewhere.
>
> > > And I cheefully accept the evolution of all metazoans from a common
> > > ancestor and have no problem with the evolution of archae,
> > > eubacteria, and eukaryotes from one common ancestor apiece, but put
> > > my ID arguments just before them and hew to a completely naturalistic
> > > version of ID.
>
> > > We are a diverse bunch, Randy, and your effort to dismiss us all is
> > > another one-size-fits-all argument, just like the "Darwin of the Gaps"
> > > argument.
>
> > Again, the problem you have is that there is no process that goes with
> > "ID". ID is 100%
> > argument from ignorance.
>
> You are using a definition of ID which makes this last sentence true
> by definition of terms. But then, it makes the sentence preceding it
> inapplicable to me, along with the following:
>
> > because
> > we can't figure out any process of origin of the object, and thus
> > label it "designed".
>
> That lets me off the hook. My claims have nothing in common with
> this.
No, you are not off the hook, because "assume there was an alien race
that was
sufficiently technologically advanced to...." is
the first step in your scenarios. This is totally ad hoc. Why bother
with that assumption?
Why declare aspects of biology "designed"?
Answer: You are arguing from ignorance, just like every other
creationist and IDer.
>
> > It's always interesting how
>
> ...much you and Randy C. love to construct strawmen when you can't use
> science to refute your opponents.
Well, propose some science and we might be able to discuss it from a
scientific perspective.
>
> Peter Nyikos
-John
Christopher Denney
> > I don't believe that today's ID proponents ever claim that intelligent
> > design must be perfect design.
>
> I don't even know how to define "perfect" as in "perfect design".
>
> Among other things, I suppose that a "perfect design" would mean able
> to eat anything, not susceptable to aging and invincible to
> predators. There's probably lots of other stuff I'm leaving out.
But that's not perfect from an ecological standpoint, you would
clutter up the whole planet with far too many of them, if they never
died.
Oh wait, we already HAVE that problem.
pzm...@gmail.com
> Good to see you back, even if only briefly. But if I may, I
> suggest that you simply ignore the ignorant mathematician, as
> so many of us here have done!
Yeah, done. Of course, he may show up on my blog now, which could be
entertaining...the regulars there would shred him for a while, before
the inevitable banning.
TomS
<7a2b53bf-cd9a-45bf...@w21g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, Randy C
stated..."
>
>> I don't believe that today's ID proponents ever claim that intelligent
>> design must be perfect design.
>
>I don't even know how to define "perfect" as in "perfect design".
>
>Among other things, I suppose that a "perfect design" would mean able
>to eat anything, not susceptable to aging and invincible to
>predators. There's probably lots of other stuff I'm leaving out.
>
I don't even know how to define "design" in any way that covers
the standard examples in the biological world.
The only designs that I know of are done by limited, physical
beings when they are faced with problems.
John Stockwell
> On Jun 1, 4:38 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 1, 9:24 pm, John Stockwell <john.19071...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 1, 9:33 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > CC: DIG and John Wilkins, as before, because my posts aren't showing
> > > > up on talk.origins but are showing up in other Usenet newsgroups.
>
>
> > > > Randy C's fixation on the phrase "God of the Gaps" inspired me to come
> > > > up with the natural counterpart:
>
> > > > Darwin of the Gaps
>
> > > > This is the default, one-size-fits-all, totally unfalsifiable
> > > > naturalistic explanation for any and all biological phenomena:
>
> > > > "Well, it's natural selection, y'know. The __________ that did/could/
> > > > are __________ had a survival advantage over the ones that didn't/
> > > > couldn't/weren't and so they are the ones we see today."
>
> > > > The irony is that I've seen very few U. of Ediacara types even go THIS
> > > > far in trying to explain biological phenomena. Randy C certainly
> > > > doesn't even pretend to do so below. So I do a little turnabout on
> > > > him.
>
> > > gaps" of our knowledge
> > > with predictions,
>
> [delete other stuff addressed in my last post]
>
>
>
> > There is another crucial difference to the one you identified. The
> > "God of the gaps" would be fine if the gap were stable(it is not a
> > fallacy per se, I'd say) The problem with G o g is not so much one of
> > epistemology or methodology, but theology. The gaps have the
> > unfortunate habit of getting smaller and smaller,
>
> The gaps YOU look at have that habit. Other gaps keep getting larger,
> as we discover that our universe has not lasted forever stretching
> back in time, that there is dark matter and dark energy, that our
> cells are not "blobs of protoplasmic jelly," etc.
Spoken like the true creationist that you are: When talking about
biology
and evolution, it doesn't take long before a creationist shifts
context to
some totally unrelated area of science and attempts to argue from
ignorance
in that field in a misguided attempt to strengthen his/her position.
(There are only
two "sermons from science" the first is to show that scientists don't
know
everything, and the second is to argue that scientists take some
things on
trust---so faith in religion Brand X is appropriate.)
>
> Apropos of that last bit, a huge gap that I'd been oblivious to
> suddenly opened up in front of me when I read Christian de Duve's
> _Vital Dust_. That book had the opposite of its intended effect on
> me, and I've told the story to many people far more receptive and far
> more competent than you, so I won't repeat it here.
No doubt Nyikos can like minded people who will take anything and
twist it into
a religious apologetic. The point is that Nyikos doesn't care about
science, he only
wants philosophical or religious comfort.
>
> Peter Nyikos
-John
Ray Martinez
Where did a modern western mind with an advanced degree obtain the
idea that censorship is an option?
The Federal Judiciary (stocked with Darwinists), Assad, Hitler???
Wherever he got it from he seems to think that it will work. Of course
the well-educated experts, mentioned above, agree.
Ray (species immutabilist)
Ernest Major
<1dc119e1-5934-451b...@z15g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, Ray
Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> writes
confusion.
--
alias Ernest Major
Ray Martinez
> Whoa...maybe the Tribulation did begin last week, because here's Peter
> Nyikos, back on TO, and right away he resurrects a 14 year old grudge
> and repeats in his pretentious, tendentious way the same old
> ridiculous claims that I dismissed so long ago. Has he spent the last
> decade in suspended animation in a UFO or something?
>
> And it's classic lying Nyikos again -- I somehow "ignore" neural
> crest? He, a biologically ignorant mathematician, questions the whole
> concept of gastrulation? I am not encouraged to spend any further time
Only because your weapon of choice (censorship/banning) isn't
available here.
Talk.Origins is a place where there are no Moderators to save a
person. You are lazy and unable to refute. These are the real reasons
why you do not want to spend time here at Talk.Origins. You like your
Amen crowd over at your blog where you alone are king, a place where
you can practice censorship at the drop of a hat. Real intellectuals
with truth on their side hang out here.
Ray (Paleyan IDist)
[....]
richardal...@gmail.com
Perhaps because I don't care. Has it never occurred to you that you
are not the intellectual centre of the universe.
As for your "directed panspermia"
"No. They would be similar to various present-day bacteria including
cyanobacteria."
....which is a pretty broad spectrum of organisms vastly more diverse
than anything big enough to see.
Not very specific, is it?
"There's a chance, of course, that they also sent eukaryotes, maybe
even multicellular ones, but the rigors of a long (thousands of years
on the average) journey favor prokaryotes"
Oh, right. So they *might* have been eukaryotes. Now were getting even
less specific!
" But a space probe would provide lots of extra protection. "
Well, yes. So what evidence do you have for a space probe in some
undefined proterozoic deposit (or are you even less specific than
that) carrying some sort of organism (which might have been a
prokaryote, or a eukaryote) ?
"Yes, and I think all that could have happened naturally."
...but could have happened by non-naturalistic processes. Why else
slip in the "could have".
Well, there goes any possibility of falsification. Glad we can be
clear on that.
" Even if it only happens 1 in 10,000 tries in the allotted time (3.9
billion
years) I think the odds slightly favor seeding from far off over
homegrown abiogenesis."
You do?
How about sharing your calculations, based on some hypothesis of
abiogenesis proposed by a researcher in the field to support this
assertion.
Or are we supposed simply to take your word?
"No."
Golly! A definite answer.
"So up there, I am mentioning odds of 9999 to 1 (to be exact)"
..which we have to accept as acurate because....?
"and so if they seeded, say, 40,000 planets it's more likely that we
are the product of seeding than the product of "Mother Earth did it."
"
Oh, right! I presume you have *evidence* of seeding on 40,000 planets,
or is this again something we just have to accept because you are the
fount of all knowledge?
"There are others, but these are among the best known. Michael Behe
mentions the cilia, the flagella, and a few others in _Darwin's Black
Box_. "
...and feels able to declare the numerous scientific papers describing
possible evolutionary pathways for such systems to be inadequate
without even bothering to read them!
"I always thought it a huge deficiency not to mention the
translation apparatus. "
Gosh!
And we should accept that it is a "huge deficiency" because you are
the fount of all knowledge?
"Hard to evolve, especially the translation mechanism"
And we should accept that it is a "hard to evolve" because you are the
fount of all knowledge?
So basically, your "theory" is that at some unspecified time in the
past, possibly some time in the billions of years of the Palaoezoic,
some organism which might have evolved elsewhere, but might have been
specially created, possibly by drifting through space, possibly
planted by some aliens using a space probe, or possibly planted by
some non-naturalistic entity or process, might have interfered in some
unspecified but possibly non-naturalistic way with either extant
organisms or possibly the process of abiogenesis in general, possibly
once, but possibly many times, to create such structures as bacterial
flagella and possibly many others, but possibly not, and your evidence
to support this is that you personally don't like the scientific
explanations for how the bacterial flagellum and other "irreducibly
complex" systems could have evolved, but can't be bothered to address
the explanations in detail because all the scientists who disagree
with you are too stupid and ignorant to be worth your while.
Tell you what, why not use this as the abstract for when you submit
your world-shattering theory for publication in an academic journal?
When it is published, come back and crow about your academic
achievement.
Until you do, I suggest that my lack of care about your "theories" is
fully justified.
RF
Erwin Moller
> On Jun 2, 4:08 am, Erwin Moller
> <Since_humans_read_this_I_am_spammed_too_m...@spamyourself.com> wrote:
>> On 6/1/2011 4:24 AM, Ron O wrote:
>>
>>> On May 31, 3:22 pm, "Steven L."<sdlit...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote:
>>>> PZ Myers is going to Glasgow to lecture on evolution.
>>
>>>> Dembski is asking his fans there to attend Myers' lecture and pose the
>>>> following questions to Myers:
>>
>>>> 10+1 Questions for Professor Myers:
>>
>>> I thought that Dembski claimed to know his math. He can't even count
>>> to eleven anymore. Being an IDiot must be some sort of degenerative
>>> disease.
>>
>>> Ron Okimoto
>>
>> Ron, see last note in the original posting:
>> "Note: I have omitted the "+1" question because it's an ad hominem
>> attack not worth responding to."
>
> Only because it is such a marshmallow question. He'd have a hard time
> not responding to a question about his Temple Universitly lies.
>
>> Regards,
>> Erwin Moller
>
> You certainly were easy on Ron after he puked all over Dembski.
I am always easy on Ron because I have respect for the man.
:-)
>
> And he may even have puked over the wrong man. The original article
> had the byline Jonathan M. I don't know how Steve L. associated
> Dembski with it.
>
> Peter Nyikos
>
--
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without
evidence."
-- Christopher Hitchens
Ray Martinez
<Since_humans_read_this_I_am_spammed_too_m...@spamyourself.com> wrote:
> On 6/2/2011 5:39 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 2, 4:08 am, Erwin Moller
> > <Since_humans_read_this_I_am_spammed_too_m...@spamyourself.com> wrote:
> >> On 6/1/2011 4:24 AM, Ron O wrote:
>
> >>> On May 31, 3:22 pm, "Steven L."<sdlit...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote:
> >>>> PZ Myers is going to Glasgow to lecture on evolution.
>
> >>>> Dembski is asking his fans there to attend Myers' lecture and pose the
> >>>> following questions to Myers:
>
> >>>> 10+1 Questions for Professor Myers:
>
> >>> I thought that Dembski claimed to know his math. He can't even count
> >>> to eleven anymore. Being an IDiot must be some sort of degenerative
> >>> disease.
>
> >>> Ron Okimoto
>
> >> Ron, see last note in the original posting:
> >> "Note: I have omitted the "+1" question because it's an ad hominem
> >> attack not worth responding to."
>
> > Only because it is such a marshmallow question. He'd have a hard time
> > not responding to a question about his Temple Universitly lies.
>
> >> Regards,
> >> Erwin Moller
>
> > You certainly were easy on Ron after he puked all over Dembski.
>
> I am always easy on Ron because I have respect for the man.
> :-)
>
"respect" = code for: I feel sorry for the man.
Ray
>
>
> > And he may even have puked over the wrong man. The original article
> > had the byline Jonathan M. I don't know how Steve L. associated
> > Dembski with it.
>
> > Peter Nyikos
>
> --
> "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without
> evidence."
> -- Christopher Hitchens- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -